This was an interesting read, and I'd say that the play is benefits from being both read AND seen--not simply one or the other, since I think the two experiences will compliment one another and strengthen the piece with readers/audience. And I enjoyed it for the most part--at times the characters seemed a bit too simple, but for the most part, it was smooth. Yet, I was left wanting a great deal more than what I got.

I think that the authors, simply, tried to cram too much into what needed to be a longer play to meet its potential, and that they were too much focused on ideas and history as opposed to character. It needed a bit more balance. I WANTED to care about Thoreau....but I rarely did, because he seemed more of a mouthpiece or charicature at times than a real person. That hurt the play for me, a great deal. I'd like to see it once, if given the opportunity, but it would be only once, just as I can't imagine wanting to come back to read this work again. Simply, it left me dissatisfied, feeling as if more time and care could have made this a masterpiece, but that as is the piece was lacking in passion and sympathy.

If you're interested, I certainly recommend it, as it is a worthwhile and interesting read--I fear though, that particular readers will feel as I do, that the work's potential just wasn't reached, or even necessarily reached for. ( )

More or less what one would expect from the authors of Inherit the Wind. The play is of course a study of civil disobedience, but also worthwhile for the presentation of Thoreau as a character. He is always resolute, and yet while never yielding he still manages to grow. ( )