Inherit the Wind Reviews

• History into drama

  
  By A3QZCA4LTTVGAD on 2001-09-28
  "Inherit the Wind," the play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, premiered on Broadway during the 1955-56 theater season. But the play's genesis (no pun intended) lies in the events of 1925. In that year, a high school teacher named John Scopes was put on trial in Tennessee for violating a law that forbade the teaching of Darwinian evolution. With William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution and Clarence Darrow for the defense, this became one of the most important trials in United States history. The trial remains a key battle in the ongoing war of biblical literalism versus science and reason.

  The play freely adapts the details of history. The authors even change the names of the principal characters involved: Bryan becomes "Matthew Harrison Brady," Darrow becomes "Henry Drummond," etc. But the core events of that historic trial remain firmly embedded in the play.

  "Inherit" is an excellent play that is very readable in book form. Lawrence and Lee write superb dialogue, and create vivid characters in Brady, Drummond, and the rest. The play is an effective satire of religious fundamentalism.

  With the continuing efforts of religious fundamentalists to force their views on the general public (both in the United States and elsewhere), "Inherit the Wind" remains as relevant as ever. Highly recommended.
  
  

• A play for all seasons.

  
  By A2D9IEFJGB483Q on 2002-04-19
  This is the dramatized version of the infamous Scopes "Monkey" Trial of 1925. Two observations. One, this is dramatized history, so you are not reading the court transcripts, which are available at your local law library. Secondly, although I do not believe in evolution, I find the play fascinating. Indeed, you might say that I am fascinated with the fascination around this event, as if a court could decide the truthfulness of a scientific theory!

  This is a play about ideas, and many sub ideas. Are we free to teach what we believe? Should the state underwrite every theory? Should we engage in civil disobedience? What makes a just law? Is there really a conflict between scientists and saints? Religion and Science? The Bible and "Origin of Species?" Which is authoritative-the Bible or Science, or some combination of both? And the crucial question: Is evolution true?

  We are familiar with the set up, although in the play, the names have been changed to protect the innocent: Bertrand Cates (Scopes) teaches evolution, and is arrested for breaking the law. The ACLU hires Henry Drummond (Clarence Darrow) to defend Cates. The broader aspects and implications of the discussion of evolution was understood by Matthew Harrison Brady (William Jennings Bryan), who say this as "a contest between evolution and Christianity . . . a dual to the death."

  An OJ-esque circus atmosphere surrounded the trial, as would be expected. The trial went along rather plainly, until Drummond decides to put Brady on the stand as an expert witness on the Bible. He then begins to cross examine and impugn the Bible, citing contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible, much in the same way Thomas Paine had don in "Age of Reason."

  Of course, the fundamentalist Bryan cannot defend the inconsistencies in the Bible, so he is left to an emotional ranting. Despite Drummonds' maneuver, which ranks up there with "You're no Jack Kennedy," Cates is convicted, and Brady dies in the courthouse giving a frantic speech defending the Bible.

  I believe all playwrights are subversive, and that is what makes them so exciting! Indeed, this small drama is far better recognized and knows than the original events. This play has for all purposes taken a life on it's own. It is a good work for what it does-to show the importance of standing up for conscience and freedom of the mind. Even thought the world is mostly free now, there are still pockets of tyranny that suck the souls out of their citizens. Plays like this make you think.

  As I mentioned, this is drama, and dramatic licenece has been taken. Some of the facts taken out of the play are rather revealing. For instance, the ACLU wanted to do a test case challenging the Butler Law, and solicited volunteers in a newspaper ad. So this really wasn't solely a matter of conscience, or freedom of thought, but also a political agenda on the part of the ACLU. Another very tendcer fact that was left out was that William Jennings Bryant paid Scopes $100 fine. No hard feelings there. But the way, Bryan did die several days after the trial quietly in his sleep, and not grandstanding at the courthouse.

  The only other aspect of the play that bothered me is that there is only one witty character, namely Drummond, who gets all the bumper-sticker lines and clinch quotes. This is a mistake that many playwrights make, such as Robert Bolt who gave Sir Thomas More all of the good quips and quotes, but ignored everyone else. I know that this is done to highlight and emphasize the protagonist, but I think it would be far, far interesting to have two witty characters that are so similar that it is hard to tell who is the protagonist and who is the antagonists.
  
  

• Distortion and Concealment

  
  By A3BV9E9XSA4Z73 on 2005-07-26
  
  Please note, I think "Inherit the Wind", taken solely as a piece of drama, is a great play in all respects.
  These comments are specifically about the SparkNotes guide to the play.
  
  "Inherit the Wind" is NOT about the Scopes "Monkey" Trial - and the way in which this guide thoroughly confuses the two does a great disservice to anyone who reads it.
  
  To fully understand the origins of the play you have to know that it was written, and ready for performance NOT in 1955, when it was finally produced on stage, and NOT in 1960, when it became a film, but in 1950. And here's why that is important:
  In 1955, when the play appeared on Broadway, the McCarthy witch hunt had collapsed in ignomany six months or more in the past, and Senator Joseph McCarthy was no longer a threat to anyone. In 1960 McCarthy was not only out of politics - he had died approximately 3 years earlier.
  
  BUT
  
  In 1950, just writing this play was a major act of bravery, because the House UnAmerican Activities Committee was operating at full throttle. And Joseph McCarthy was one of the most powerful men in America, a man who could destroy people whole lives just by "suggesting" that they were, or had been, "commie sympathisers" - a part of the alleged "communist conspiracy".
  
  Is it any wonder, then, that Lawrence and Lee took the precaution of dressing up their expose of McCarthyism - the bullying, the innuendo, the bigotry, the incitement to hatred and so on - as what was by then an almost forgotten event from the 1920's, 25 years before?
  
  These notes are a disservice, in equal measure, because they confuse the events of the real life trial with the events in the play; and because they conceal the real motivation behind the writing of the play and the courage of the authors in daring to write the play at all *at that time*, and ignore the important messages that Lawrence and Lee wanted to get across, not only about intolerance in general, but also about McCarthyism in particular.
  
  If you really want a study guide for "Inherit the Wind", I'd recommend the CliffsNotes version. It isn't perfect, but it's a whole lot better than this.
  
  

• 'Oo you callin' intolerant?

  
  By A1ZAHIE5PUVQNY on 2005-08-13
  Perhaps the most interesting thing about this play is how VERY few people "get it" even now.
  
  At one point in the confrontation between Drummond and Brady, Drummond - on the subject of Cates' right to think, and to say what he thinks - demands of Brady:
  
  "Suppose Mr. Cates had enough influence and lung power to railroad through the State Legislature a law that only Darwin should be taught in schools!"
  
  "Ridiculous, ridiculous!" answers Brady. Yet here we are, fifty years later, with evolutionists demanding exactly the same exclusivity for the teaching of their ideas as Brady wants for the teaching of religion in this play. So do we NOW have freedom to think what we choose to think, and to speak about what we think?
  
  As other reviewers have said, this play isn't, and was never intended as, an accurate representation of what happened at the Scopes trial of 1925.
  
  And neither is it simply a story about narrow-minded, ignorant fundamentalists (which meant something quite different in 1925 compared with now) against open-minded, rational scientists.
  It is about narrow-mindedness and intolerance no matter where it comes from.
  
  On this basis it is a pity that the play, and to a greater extent the film give such a one-sided portrayal of Drummond - emotional but deeply caring, rather self-effacing and above all reasonable (nothing at all like the real-life Darrow), whilst Brady is a glutinous, smug, buffoon who was once great but has lost his way (about the only time Brady is shown in a sympathetic light is at the end of Act 1 when he rescues Rachel Brown (Cates' fiancee) from the "righteous" fury of her "hell and damnation" father, the Reverend Brown.
  
  I have to wonder how much it might ease the tension between creationists and evolutionists in America if this play were presented in schools for what it really is - a reaction against the hate mongering and intolerance of the McCarthy "witch hunt" of the late 1940's and early 50's instead of treating it like a documentary and interpreting it in the narrowest sense - as a battle between religion and science.
  
  As Lee and Lawrence wrote in their "Production Notes by the Playwrights":
  
  "The most eloquent line in the play is unspoken: DRUMMOND's weighing of the books [the Bible and The Origin of Species] at the end. He should be holding them in his upturned palms, balancing them like the scales of Lady Justice, then SLAPPING them together SIDE BY SIDE. Don't put either Darwin or the Bible on top."
  
  'Nuff said.
  
  

• The fictional version of the famous Scopes "Monkey" trial

  
  By A2NJO6YE954DBH on 2004-03-11
  In this introduction to "Inherit the Wind" Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee attempt to put the play into historical perspective: "'Inherit the Wind' is hot history. The events which took place in Dayton, Tennessee...are clearly the genesis of the play [but] it has...an exodus entirely its own." The playwrights took only a handful of phrases from the trial transcript and declared that "The collision of Bryan and Darrow at Dayton was dramatic, but it was not a drama." In the play William Jennings Bryan becomes Matthew Harrison Brady, Clarence Darrow was transformed into Henry Drummond, H.L. Mencken changed to E.K. Hornbeck, and John Scopes was now Bertram Cates. However, from the play's first performance in 1955 it has been impossible to dissociate the characters from their historical counterparts.

  The Scopes "Monkey" Trial did not pop up in American history books until the late 1950s after the debut of "Inherit the Wind," and many early descriptions followed the play rather than actual events despite the fact that changes are numerous. Unlike Scopes, who was persuaded to be a test case, Bert Cates takes it upon himself to violate the law, becoming a pariah in the town of Hillsboro. The citizens of the town in the play have much more of a lynch mob mentality (which is played up even more in Stanley Kramer's 1960 film version), but the centerpiece for both the historical drama and the theater version is the cross-examination of one lawyer by another before the media and the world.

  Whereas Darrow had a weekend to practice his examination of Bryan, Drummond is suddenly inspired to put Brady on the stand. The cross-examination in "Inherit the Wind" most notably differs from the Scopes trial transcript in that Drummond is required to confine his questions only to the subject of the Bible, where as Darrow could ask not only about the miracles in the Bible but explore Bryan's knowledge of various sciences and non-Christian religions as well. Drummond insists that "it takes a very smart fella to say 'I don't know the answer,'" which, ironically, is what Bryan repeatedly responded to Darrow on the witness stand in Dayton.

  The character of E.K. Hornbeck, the cynical observer, has such an extreme view of the proceedings that he forces the audience, whether viewing or reading the play, to take a more moderate position. Ultimately, the judgment here is of "Brady" and "Drummond." Brady is portrayed as a foolish fundamentalist, whose chief sin is ignorance more than bigotry. In contrast, Drummond is a religious atheist, who finds the right to think to be holy. When Drummond leaves at the play's conclusion he puts the Bible and a copy of Darwin into his satchel together, suggesting an equality of sorts that neither character, in the drama or in history, ever espoused. There was such a figure of reconciliation during the trial, defense lawyer Dudley Field Malone, but he remains the most forgotten figure of the trial as the idea of the compatibility between Genesis and evolution has come to be rejected more and more by both sides.

  Lawrence and Lee's fictionalized account of the Scopes trial was not only the first major work to touch on the Monkey trial after World War II, it was the most significant in terms of public knowledge about the trial. Certainly more people have seen the film or television movie versions of "Inherit the Wind" than have read all the books on the Scopes trial combined. Whatever disclaimers are provided to the contrary, the play's version of what happened in "Hillsboro" is accepted as either being true or close enough to the truth to make the differences inconsequential. When Susan Epperson challenged Arkansas' Rotenberry Act journalists actually invoked "Inherit the Wind" rather than the Scopes Trial as their point of reference.

  Furthermore, the "Inherit the Wind" dramatization has never been challenged. Scopes admitted the film "altered the facts of the real trial," but focused on the "small liberties" of suggesting he had been jailed and met his future wife during the trial. Overall, Scopes declared that the film version "captured the emotions in the battle of words between Bryan and Darrow." In the final analysis that idea of "emotions" may be the best way of capturing the essence of the Scopes myth; it is a version of the Scopes trial that is shaped and colored by emotions rather than by factors or logic. After all, when the play premiered the Butler Act was still on the books in Tennessee.

  It was not until the vote by the Tennessee legislature to repeal the Butler Act, after the supreme court decision in Epperson vs. Arkansas, that "Inherit the Wind" became more history that rhetoric, although certainly the rhetorical dimension has, to some extent, been subsumed by the theatricality of the piece. After all, from Paul Muni and Ed Begley to Spencer Tracy and Frederic March to Jason Robards and Kirk Douglas to Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott the play has been a dramatic showcase for its two male leads. Perhaps it is for that reason that it will remain a staple of high school and community theaters rather than for the resonance it brings to current events regarding the teaching of evolution in American schools. Furthermore, you can argue that the touchstone for the play is now more the separation of church and state than the original issue of evolution. What is not in dispute is that "Inherit the Wind" has become a rare instance of fiction that has assumed the mantle of fact.
  
  

• "He that Troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."
  By A2O9HU1K7TCF7B on 2004-10-05
  On a number of levels, this is a great story. Some people see it only as a take on the Scopes trial. The characters are fictitious, but the story is largely based on facts. The readers that only see this as a book about the monkey trial miss the point.
  
  Those who view this book as promoting evolutionism, see Chrisitians portrayed as narrow-minded and intolerant. This is no more of a stereotype than a Middle Easterner playing the role of a terrorist in a James Bond film. In the Scopes Trial, the Chirstians were intolerant of evolution being taught. Tolerant Christians, which still comprise the majority, would not exactly play the role well.
  
  The point of the story is clearly laid out in the final pages of the book. The agnostic defense attorney Henry Drummond (who represents Clarence Darrow in the actual Scopes Trial) is talking to the arrogant reporter E. K. Hornbeck. Hornbeck assumes Drummond agrees with his view that the peopleof Hillsboro are backwards and ignorant in their Christian beliefs. Drummond lashes out at Hornbeck, telling him the people of Hillsboro have every right to have their beliefs. In the same way, people have a right to believe in evolution.
  
  The 1st Amendment provides freedom of religion, or freedom not to subscribe to any particular religious beliefs. This book is a powerful statement not about evolution, but the right to think. Whether you fall on either side of the argument for evolution or have compromised between the sides, the story is a lesson worth noting.
  
  
• One of the Modern Theatre's Best
  By on 2004-03-20
  Though it is based on the Scopes Trial, which took place in Tennessee in 1925, INHERIT THE WIND is essentially a work of fiction; even the names of the principal characters have been changed (John Scopes is now Bertram Cates; Clarence Darrow is Henry Drummond; William Jennings Bryan becomes Matthew Harrison Brady). In addition, the setting of the play is non-specific: a certain southern town, "not long ago." IDEAS are what the play is about, and like most great works of art, INHERIT THE WIND does not offer simple answers. Just as Drummond argues for "the right to think," so does the play allow the reader/audience member to consider many possibilities. For instance, in the play's final moments Drummond places both a copy of Darwin's book and a Bible in his briefcase, then leaves the courtroom. This suggests the possibility that science and religion might be compatible. Because he is willing to consider both theories, Drummond is very unlike both Brady, who believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and the cynical reporter E.K. Hornbeck (originally H.L. Mencken -- the "Greek chorus character," or commentator, who speaks in free verse), who completely rejects Brady's ideas. It is in fact Brady who emerges as a true tragic figure; it is also Brady who undergoes change and is therefore the most complex character in the play. INHERIT THE WIND has everything: a tragic hero, colorful characters and dialogue, gripping courtroom scenes, and a skillfully foreshadowed, climactic death. Also recommended: the 1960 film version, starring Spencer Tracy as Drummond and Frederic March as Brady.
  
  
• Monkeying with the Monkey Trail
  By A3E8LIY4GA2SVM on 2004-06-14
  Almost all of the scientific evidence brought forward during the time of the trial has been discarded.

  There was another very disturbing thing about Inherit the Wind. It caricatured Christians as self-righteous, intolerant and mean-spirited. The two leading Christian characters in the film rant like lunatics much of the time. Phillip E. Johnson's book
  DEFEATING DARWINISM BY OPENING MINDS (available at Amazon) writes about how Christians were stereotyped.

  The play did get one thing right. It is indeed a `crime' (to use their word) to censor an opposing view in the classroom. This lesson has been lost on secular humanists today who attempt to censor any evidence contrary to their dogmatic belief in evolution.
  
  

• A True Classic
  By AQUU8S55JGY2H on 2004-10-15
  I didn't read Inherit the Wind in school. Maybe because I went to Catholic schools? But I can see why many people did and still do. This is a true classic, concerning a gigantic human and national issue, one which well defines America still.
  
  Based on the Scopes Monkey Trial, this is a spectacular drama, full of people from the town of Hillsboro (a fictional setting) and outsiders, converging to witness the trial of a man who dared to teach or suggest Darwinian evolutionary theory, and the two lawyers who argue for the law of God (and here the law of the state) and the laws of Science, respectively.
  
  This is an important, positive play because it is about choice. I wish I could have been part of a class discussion of the play, and to see how other people, especially kids take this story.
  
  I read the Dramatists Play Service edition, which features extensive stage directions that take up equal space to the dialogue itself. The scope of the production is evident, with about 30 speaking parts and dozens of other bystandards. For this reason I wonder if another edition is less extensive...
  
  But the stage directions can be skimmed, and if you are reading for the heart if it, they should be. The heart being the trial scenes themselves, particularly when defence attorney Henry Drummond cross examines his counterpart Matt Brady, an avowed Biblical expert.
  
  Highly recommended. The kind of play and story I'd like to re-read once a year...
  
  
• A Good Play
  By on 2001-03-13
  This is a work of literature that deserves merit. The characters were realistic and funny. Bertram Cates is a teacher who taught Darwin's Theory instead of the creation story from the Bible. This is against the law in his small town of Hillsboro. A famous lawyer comes to defend him, but an eloquent speaker and presidential candidate is on the prosecution. It's a heated arguement between strictly religous people and those who believe in evolution. Anybody who likes to read drama and historical fiction(as it's based on the Scopes Monkey Trial) should read this book. It really makes you think.
  
  
• Religion and Evolution on trial........
  By A5TIK7P4BS1MM on 2000-04-13
  Based on the Scopes trial of 1925 a young teacher is accused of teaching Darwin's evolution theory in a USA school. The play revolves mostly around the foiled attempts of the defending lawyer (in real life the famous Leopold-Loew defending lawyer, Clarence Darrow) to get expert witnesses on the stand who will defend the theory. In desperation he is eventually forced to put the prosecuting lawyer, a self professed religious expert, on the stand and he takes him through a cross examination which touches sheer brilliance. If court dramas make your day it will be worth your while to plod through the play - not everyone's cup of tea, alternatively rent the movie and sit back and enjoy the intellectual encounter.
  
  
• Good views on touchy subjects
  By A3Q70HX7F6SILV on 2000-06-10
  This book touches upon subjects that are greatly scrutinized throughout the world today. It deals with the conflicting ideas of Evolutionism and Divine Creation. First of all, I found this book tolerable because it isn’t bias towards either view.

  I believe in Evolution because it answers questions that Divine Creation can’t. I just can not fathom the idea that everything on this planet just appeared one day because God thought it would work. I believe that every species on Earth, and even Earth itself evolved from something else, it was not just put here.

  The protagonist wants to teach the Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in his classroom. He is put on trial for breaking the school board’s set of codes on the subject (which in ancient times would have been equal to a trial for heresy and spreading ideas against the will of the Church.) Does it not say in our great constitution that church is separate from state? Teachers should be allowed to teach Darwinism to those that want to be enlightened, and those who wish to remain ignorant can find education elsewhere.

  Anyway, I liked the book and how it served the interests of both views. I found the ending a little vague, but the rest was flawless. The setting, Tennessee, was factual and believable. It is a great work of literature, and addresses subjects that were casually swept under the table before. I encourage you to make your own judgments about this book, not to necessarily follow all of mine.
  
  

• Slick propaganda
  By AF1G7AE3RT5T0 on 2001-06-14
  I read the script and saw the movie when I was in high school and it masterfully reinforced my own bias against the Bible and "fundamentalism." This was, of course, its objective.

  How interesting to learn later in life that Inherit the Wind, which purported to be about the Scopes Trial, was filled with fact-twisting, outright historical falsehoods, and straw-man arguments in an attempt to discredit a biblical view of origins and biblical Christianity as a whole.

  Numerous books and scholarly articles have been written to substantiate the indictment of Inherit the Wind as an intellectually dishonest fraud, including a recent one by a secular scholar. But still, most readers unknowingly assume it is an accurate representation of what happened at the Scopes Trial. They also assume it is a fair representation of the debate between evolutionists and those who are skeptical of the largely undocumented claims of evolution.

  The book insultingly portrays biblical Christians as ignoramuses and exalts cynical atheists as enlightened thinkers. Ironically, Inherit the Wind is a prime example of just the reverse: secular, atheistic "fundamentalism" which ridicules and unfairly caricatures anyone who dares raise a voice against its unbending dogma. Sadly, it is still a part of the anti-Christian canon of secular scripture and influences unwary readers who are unaware of the cogent scientific and philosophical case against evolution by respected scientists such as Michael Behe, Phillip Johnson, Michael Denton, William Dembski, and others who have books distributed by Amazon. Check out these writers before you fall for the propaganda in Inherit the Wind.
  
  

• Good reading
  By A2Y4ESGLQG3Y3J on 2001-10-04
  I'd have to say that this is one of the best books i've read this year. No, it is not a historical account, and I am somewhat surprised that people looked at it that way at all.

  I think it portrays the "bible beaters" as ignorant for a reason: fundamentalism tends to breed ignorance. Oh, and maybe I'm the only one who noticed, but there are still people who refuse to think about evolution at all and instead take the word of the Bible literally without thinking. In fact, there are many such people, especially in my home state of Utah, so this book was particularly meaningful to me because of my experience in junior high/high school. (it is also good to remember that fundamentalism is not limited to religion.)

  This is not to say that it is a proponent of atheism, either. If you notice, all of the characters believe in God with the exception of Hornbeck, and he isn't any sort of hero. Rather, the heros are those who can think for themselves and balance science with religion without harming the work of either. Evolution and Creation are simply a structure in which to discuss the issue of free thinking. That is what this book/play is about -- the ability to think for oneself.

  Happy reading!

  Scott
  
  

• A required reading book...
  By A2CZR46KVZLWDT on 2002-08-22
  I don't normally care about the books I have to read for school. In fact, in the past there have been books that I've purposely tried to forget, but when I had to read this book for a 10th grade religion class, I was surprised to find I liked it.

  Inherit the Wind is a short and sweet book which not only makes a good point, but makes it quickly and clearly. This is something I can respect...after sorting out Jane Austen's mess of romantic words and snotty characters in Pride and Prejudice, it was a relief to say the least.

  It takes place in small town called Hillsboro in Tennessee and revolves around a freethinking teacher named Bertram Cates who deliberately broke the law by teaching about evolution in his classroom. His trial becomes known nation-wide for both political and religious reasons. His lawyer is smart, practical but heartless Henry Drummond and the prosecutor is the likable Mathew Harrison Brady, both huge political figures. The trial erupts into a rude awakening for the ignorant residents of Hillsboro and changes the way they all think about the world.

  It is one of only three or four required reading books I've managed to enjoy and this is why I recommend it completely.
  
  

• Review for Inherit the Wind
  By AV473EC07LZ65 on 2002-12-18
  "He that troubleth his own home shall inherit the wind:
  And the fool shall be servant to the wise in heart."
  Proverbs 11:29

  In Inherit the Wind, Bertram Cates, a small-time schoolteacher, teaches Darwinism and dares to challenge his upbringing in the small town of Hillsboro. The mob mentality of overzealous religious people causes them to object. The protagonist of the story is Henry Drummond, the defending attorney for Bertram Cates. The antagonists are Matthew Harrison Brady, the prosecuting attorney, Reverend Jeremiah Brown, who condemns to Hell all people who dare to challenge his strict interpretations of the Bible, and Hornbeck, the forever cynic of everyone's thoughts and feelings but his own.
  Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee are not supporters of Darwinism. They just want to convey, through their story, that things and thoughts should not be condemned merely because they are different. In their writing, the authors used flashbacks through Henry Drummond and metaphors through many of the characters in order to communicate their feelings. This book conveys a message to its audience that is well-worth reading.
  
  

• The book is good for what it gives
  By on 1999-03-21
  This story is great because, it's true. It teaches the horror of ignorance. While it may say the bible is not true, to some readers, all this book states is for people to think. It is a book about looking into new ideas, and attributing those ideas to life. So much of this book, however, is so true to life. It states, that this book could have been yesterday, it could be today, or it could be tomorrow. In other words, this is a book about how we need to consider thoughts, to continue helping our world grow. Summarizing my points would state that this is a fine book, with a quality point.
  
  
• A MUST READ
  By A4BGBS7UFA43Y on 1999-11-25
  INHERIT THE WIND WAS AWSOME. IT WAS A BOOK ANOUT THE SCOPES TRIAL. IN HILSBORO,WHICH IS A VERY RELIGIOUS TOWN, A MAN DID WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS RIGHT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ILLIGAL.
  
  
• History Isn't Theatre - But This Play Is Historic
  By A3T3HQL9KTOIUO on 2001-02-26
  In the preface to the play, Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee very carefully point out that "Inherit The Wind is not history. The events which took place in Dayton, Tennessee...are clearly the genesis....It has, however, an exodus entirely its own."

  This should clear up the question of whether or not this play, or any other play based on historical events, can be considered a revision of reality. The playwrights saw a dramatic clash of ideas in the Scopes trial in 1925, but they used it as the basis of their drama, not the storyline. Drama requires clearly drawn characters in crisis, and that is what we have in Henry Drummond and Matthew Harrison Brady. Unlike the real trial, evolution is not on trial here, and there is no verdict rendered. This play does what all good plays should do - it makes the audience think.

  By carefully crafting Drummond and Brady as fully-defined characters, their legal arguments take on a higher level. They show us the human side of these people - their firm beliefs as well as their fears. Drummond believes in his client and fiercely defends him, but he also understands the faith that lead to the enactment of the law he's trying to defeat. Brady is rock-solid in his faith in God and the Bible, but we also see that he has his doubts about his own zealotry. Neither of these men are painted as fools or fanatics. This, more than any dramatic moment in the play, is what makes the play work so well. We are swept up in the drama because we understand these people...and we care about them.

  The issues in this play were not resolved in 1925 - nor were they in 1955 when it premiered - and they are still with us today as states such as Kansas wrestle with the battle over including "creationism" in the public school curriculum. That is what makes the play important.

  At the end of the play, Henry Drummond is left alone in the empty courtroom. He picks up the Darwin book and the Bible. He weighs them carefully in his hands, then puts them together, side by side - not one on top of the other - then slowly exits as the lights fade. That is the true question the play asks...and leaves for the audience to answer. It is simply brilliant theatre.
  
  

• The trial of the century.
  By A240W32D4D40D on 2001-03-07
  First off i'm in 10th grade and i loved this book. It was swift and incredibly smooth throughout. The beginning may have seemed to be kinda boring but it set up the trial perfectly. With the religious leader Brady set to prosecute a poor school teacher Bertram Cates the scene is set. This is until the prosecution finds out the defense will be led by Henry Drummond, the best lawyer in the country. This all leads into an exhilirating and fantastic trial. In the end it will lead you wondering who really won the trial. AWESOME BOOK!!!
  
  
• Enjoyable...Realistic, but Inaccurate.
  By AFNKP8HNWJ2DZ on 2001-03-29
  Thoroughly enjoyable book...it's realistically funny though not at all historically accurate. But I won't go into what many here have already stated, the fact is that this book is very well written. Its characters though fictional come across as very real, each with goals and fears that lead each of them into their paths. The play and its content does what every great should do, its allows the reader to think for themselves. However, what I found most interesting is what I have always found to be true. Winning isn't everything...to be declared a winner doesn't mean that you have won if the purpose of your goal has been defeated as was shown. About the only negative thing I would have to say about this play is that it has a tendency to be biased towards the evolutionists and against the religious zealots. But all in all I would say this is definitely one of the best books I've read and would highly recommend it to anyone who loves to read or even to those who don't.
  
  
• Inheirt The Wind
  By on 2001-12-15
  My class and I just finished reading this book today in class. I liked the book a lot. The only part I didn't like about the book was when Matthew Harrison Brady died. I don't like books that have death scenes in them, even though I know it is a reality of life. The book overall was really good! I suggest you read it! :) :) It's the first play I've ever read, but it rocks! :)
  ~THE BOOK WORM~
  
  
• The True-to-Life Drama of Inherit the Wind
  By A2UAHDBZUGUDWS on 2002-02-16
  If you are thinking of reading Inherit the Wind, you have made a great choice. This book is filled with great insights into the past century where instead of school without religion, they fought for school without science. The characters are great and they reflect the real people with fine form. This book is especially good for history buffs, such as myself. My favorite character is Hornbeck, the comedic, Shakespearian-like reporter from Baltimore. If you like history, Inherit the Wind is for you!
  
  
• A one sit read!
  By A36VNBUYDDSMPL on 2002-10-26
  There are very few books that I am required to read for school that I actually enjoy, and even fewer that I find myself reading all in one sitting.
  Inherit the Wind was one of these books. There's no Dickinson-esque wordiness, its a short book that cuts to the point but is full of action and meaning.
  Inherit the Wind is a play that is based on the events in the Scopes Monkey Trials from 1925. The book has no exact setting, Hillsboro, but that Hillsboro could be anywhere at anytime so that readers can relate. This small conservative Christian town is brought into a tailspin of controversy when school teacher Bertram Cates challenges his students to think "outside the box", by suggesting the evolutionists point of view, that life comes from a long, long miracle; man wasn't just put here in seven days. This one lesson he taught, brings Hillsoboro into the national spotlight with a trial that goes against all conventional ideas.
  This book will leave you thinking long after you've finished reading it. I definitely reccomend it for anybody who wants a quick meaningful read!
  
  
• Inherit the Wind
  By on 2003-05-16
  Inherit the Wind, a book written by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, is based on the famous Scopes Trial. In this novel, Henry Drummond is the lawyer fighting for what is right. Inherit the Wind takes place in the summer of 1925, in a small town. The majority of the book is inside the courtroom. The major conflict is between Henry Drummond and Matthew Brady who believes in God and wants the law enforced. The theme of Inherit the Wind is that just because you don't believe in something, doesn't make it wrong for someone else to. Lawrence and Lee use foreshadowing in this book. The people in the court take their jackets off because it is so hot to foreshadow that the trial is going to get heated. I found this book to be very easy to read and understand. It has a valuable lesson and I would suggest this book. "He that troubleth his own house, shall inherit the wind."
  
  
• What a play!!
  By A38B1TAM6HZOXA on 2005-01-21
  This is great playwrighting. A taut, exciting, play that raises important questions, it is still timely today, as Darwin's theory is still under attack by those who believe in Intelligent Design. Einstein once called Piaget's theory of child development "So simple, only a genius could think of it." So it is with Darwin. It has withstood countless attacks, and there has been no credible alternative theory proposed.
  
  Well, back to the play. All the characters (except Rachel, the love interest, and her preacher father) are based on the main characters in the Monkey Trial. Some of the dialogue comes from the actual transcript of the trial, but most of it was written by Lawrence and Lee. Luckily, it is magnificently dramatic.
  
  For those who want a more factual rendition of what went on in Dayton, read "Summer for the Gods", an excellent book that will fill in the gaps. Like the fledgling ACLU represented Scopes, not Darrow, who, quite to the ACLU's chagrin, decided to "offer" his services because of his opposition to Fundamentalists trying to insert religion in the public schools. (The ACLU saw it more as a free speech issue.) It is a fascinating book and should be read along with "Inherit the Wind" to get another perspective on what went on that summer.
  
  
• Engaging work explores importance of the right to think. Some characters overly one dimensional
  By A39T7TMQXZ93YL on 2006-06-04
  This is a well-written play based on real life events that explores important ideas fairly, and in an engaging manner. Basically, a teacher, Bertram Cates, is on trial for teaching evolution in the small town of Hillsboro "not long ago" (but likely in the 1950s). The prosecutor is Mathew Harrison Brady, a Christian who interprets the bible literally, and Cates' lawyer is Henry Drummond, an 'agnostic' who values the right to think.
  
  A casual reader may think this play celebrates 'the triumph' of evolution over religion, but a deeper reading shows that what is celebrated is not evolution per se, but the right to think, the right to contemplate and learn about our world.
  
  Likewise, religion is not denigrated per se, but rather, the authors criticize a dogmatic acceptance of religious tenants, particularly religious history. In fact, in the end, cynical, arrogant, cold hearted atheism is shown to be problematic as well: religion very much still has a place in teaching us in how to relate to our fellow human beings, which is with justice and generosity.
  
  I do have one criticism- I would say that some characters, particularly the prosecutor Brady and the residents of the town of Hillsboro are painted one dimensionally as foolish, thoughtless buffoons. The authors make this very clear, stating in the stage directions that the town itself, not just the defendant Cates, is on trial.
  
  On the other hand, equally flawed characters, like the cynical atheist journalist Hornbeck, are not presented in such a negative fashion (although I personally found his 'poetry' throughout the play as jarring and annoying.) And certainly the authors have nothing but praise for the lawyer Drummond.
  
  A more fair portrayal of all characters concerned would have made this great work even stronger.
  
  
• Interesting Concepts, Distorted Reality
  By A1FEEFAK5Y45M2 on 2000-04-17
  Despite the brilliance of the cross-examination of Darrow (or here, Drummond), I think that the modifications from the true historical facts change the story a bit too much. Also, the idea that there is a lot of hype surrounding the trial is not conveyed very well. The ending also proves to be slightly out-of-character and contradictory; it is not so much that the characters should not be more moderate than one would stereotype them to be, but in the end it seems that they take on new illogical personalities.
  
  
• Inherit the Wind
  By AWPFDUVMRYT9X on 2000-01-04
  This book is extremely confusing and very hard to follow. I found myself a sleep at least 20 times while reading this book. Maybe its just hard for me to follow cause I am only a ninth grader and my teacher made me read it.
  
  
• A fantastic Screenplay for a Fantastic Movie
  By on 2000-04-28
  A great retelling of the Scopes Trial. I loved it
  
  

• Of Mice and Men (Steinbeck Centennial Edition)
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Inherit the Wind
• Inherit the Wind (Cliffs Notes)
• Night (Oprah's Book Club)