Inherit the Wind (original 1951; edition 1982)

Excellent period piece about the liberation from the slavish adherence to Biblical literalism. That literalism turned religion into a parody of itself at that point. ( )

Inherit the Wind is a play based on the Scopes Monkey Trial. While I only knew the basics behind the Scopes trial, I don't think much more than the basics was needed. Although interestingly, researching the Scopes trial a little more, I began to catch more details in Inherit the Wind. For example, I've read that the Scopes trial was largely a publicity stunt to drum up business for the town of Dayton. In Inherit the Wind, that carnival atmosphere is in full view and the lawyers play up the crowd.

The play is an interesting mirror held up to a critical bump in the road for science and this book probably needs a major re-release since the topic of intelligent design vs. evolution is again coming up quite a bit. A very interesting play about a very important piece of American history (even if it was initially only a publicity stunt as some say). ( )

This play about the Scopes trials is well worth reading. Short and to the point, yet containing a good deal of depth. You can read the entire thing in a couple of hours. The amount of time spent reading is extremely short in comparison to the amount of fulfillment gained. Not much else to say. Read it! ( )

A dramatization of the famous Dayton Scopes "Monkey Trial". This account is fictionalized, and takes some poetic license, but the trial scenes are relatively accurate. The play is compelling. ( )

The classic battle between historical truth and theatrical dramatization is a battle not new to the world of literature. In this ceaseless war, facts are tweaked, and the precision of reality is often lost. One of the most well established example of this is the play Inherit the Wind by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee. Based upon The Scopes Trials of 1925, the play takes place in Dayton Tennessee and gives a fictitious account of what happened in the courthouse. While not accurate, the description is very dramatic and makes for an excellent play. The argument comes from many critics, including Carol Iannone, who argue that a more historically accurate dramatization of the Scopes Trial would have had a richer effect. “It would have not have sent its audiences home full of moral superiority and happy thoughts about the march of progress” (Iannone) Iannone’s words carry a great deal of truth in them upon close analysis of the trial. Unnecessary details and characters in the trial were changed which led to a far more cliché experience than what could have been delivered, leading to a less rich experience.
The play presents characters in a far different light than their real life counterparts, which detracts from the true drama the trial inspired. Darrow, or Drummond in the play, is portrayed as a progressive thinker who is both tolerant and supports freedom of opinion. He is well versed in both the Bible and Darwin’s writings and uses this against the prosecution during the course of the trial. Bryan, or Brady, is shown to be both narrow minded and shallow. In reality, both of these representations were false. “In real life it was William Jennings Bryan who had read The Origin of Species, and also Darwin's The Descent of Man, and was able to quote from the latter to show that Darwin had indeed believed that men were descended from "old world" monkeys. In real life it was Clarence Darrow who was ill-informed on Darwin's ideas. He had tried to read The Origin of Species, but was unable to get beyond page 50 because he found it such hard going” (Bradburry). The plays representation of Bryan and Darrow made it clear to the reader who was right and who was wrong, a vast difference from the clash of opposing views which was presented in real life. What had made the trial striking was the lack of right and wrong, two famous lawyers putting forth their cases in a fashion that was not black and white. This type of drama was intriguing to nearly everyone, “At least 200 reporters, from all over the world, covered the trial; and thanks to station WGN, Chicago, the entire trial was broadcast over the radio, the first ever broadcast of its kind” (Bradburry).
Beyond changes in characters, important events in the play were often changed or completely fictitious which detracted. The play had made John Scopes’ infraction of the law seem far more serious than it actually was. It was clearly stated that Scopes could possibly be imprisoned for his actions in the play, but this was far from the truth. “Violation of the Butler Act was punishable by a fine of no less that $100 and no greater than $500; imprisonment was not a provision of the law” (Menton). In fact, Scopes had willingly gone to court on behalf of the American Civil Liberty Union, despite not remembering teaching evolution. The ACLU wanted to challenge the legality of the Butler Act, which forbade the teaching of evolution. This fact was omitted from the play in order to create sympathy for Scopes’ character; a teacher that risked losing his job and girlfriend. However, this omission will lead the reader to see those with faith as cruel, prejudiced, and uncaring. This makes the prosecution the cliché bully who continues to pick on the defendant. “On the contrary, the Evolutionists and the Anti–Evolutionists seem to be on the best of terms, and it is hard in a group to distinguish one from the other” (Menton). Two groups coming together and getting along, but capable of debating their views intelligently was what had made the Scopes Trial great. If the play had focused less upon the conflicts between the characters more attention could have been given to the real issue, the constitutionality of the Butler Act and the arguments presented by each side.
“While Inherit the Wind remains faithful to the broad outlines of the historical events it portrays, it flagrantly distorts the details” (Inannone). While changing some of the details did not destroy the story it did radically change the experience. Characters and groups of people were portrayed unfairly, making a very gray argument seem black and white. This play, which was meant to be taken fictitiously, is taken to be factual account of what happened. In truth, reality had a far more enriching experience than the play had given. The Scopes Trial had a level of drama that could not be made up, a level of drama that only reality can display. ( )