Status
Available
Local notes
PB Law
Collection
Genres
Publication
Bantam (1982), 144 pages
Description
A classic work of American theatre, based on the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, which pitted Clarence Darrow against William Jennings Bryan in defense of a schoolteacher accused of teaching the theory of evolution The accused was a slight, frightened man who had deliberately broken the law. His trial was a Roman circus. The chief gladiators were two great legal giants of the century. Like two bull elephants locked in mortal combat, they bellowed and roared imprecations and abuse. The spectators sat uneasily in the sweltering heat with murder in their hearts, barely able to restrain themselves. At stake was the freedom of every American. One of the most moving and meaningful plays of our generation. Praise for Inherit the Wind "A tidal wave of a drama."--New York World-Telegram And Sun "Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee were classic Broadway scribes who knew how to crank out serious plays for thinking Americans. . . . Inherit the Wind is a perpetually prescient courtroom battle over the legality of teaching evolution. . . . We're still arguing this case-all the way to the White House."--Chicago Tribune "Powerful . . . a crackling good courtroom play . . . [that] provides two of the juiciest roles in American theater."--Copley News Service "[This] historical drama . . . deserves respect."--The Columbus Dispatch… (more)
Subjects
Awards
Outer Critics Circle Award (Winner — Play — 1954-1955)
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
1955
Physical description
144 p.; 6.75 inches
User reviews
LibraryThing member TadAD
A movie that makes my Top 100 list—reading the script of the play was almost as good.
For those who have never had the fun of watching Spencer Tracy and Fredric March thunder at each other in black and white (my apologies, but I cannot countenance any of the three TV remakes *smile*), this is a
The broad strokes of the story line are close enough to the original trial that many folks simply refer to the main characters as Darrow and Bryant, instead of Henry Drummond and Matthew Harrison Brady. The details and dialogue, however, are punched up for better drama. And, quite simply, once we get to the courtroom, there is plenty of drama. Brady stands firm on his certainty that the Word has been revealed and he has interpreted it correctly. Drummond, faced with an unambiguous law, hostile crowd, and unsympathetic judge and jury, pursues his guerilla warfare, little by little picking apart his opponent's position.
I was surprised at how much I enjoyed reading the play. You can sit and reflect about the events and arguments, or simply re-read the delightful sallies of Drummond's one-liner wit:
"If, in the beginning, there were just Cain and Abel, and Adam and Eve, where did this extra woman come from? ... You figure somebody else pulled another creation over in the next county somewhere?"
One of my favorite aspects of the play is the deliberate ambiguity as to whether Drummond is an exponent of secular or religious Humanism. Though the trial's official verdict is against evolution (as it was in reality), there is no doubt in the reader's mind which side won this battle. Had it ended with Drummond striding out the moral victor, it would still have been good. But, I think it was better that it ended with the realization that Drummond fought, not against the Bible, but for the right of a man to think.
"In a child's ability to master the multiplication table, there is more holiness than all your shouted hosannas and holy of holies."
For those who have never had the fun of watching Spencer Tracy and Fredric March thunder at each other in black and white (my apologies, but I cannot countenance any of the three TV remakes *smile*), this is a
Show More
story based upon the events of Scopes v. State of Tennessee, testing whether it was legal to prohibit the teaching of evolution in schools.The broad strokes of the story line are close enough to the original trial that many folks simply refer to the main characters as Darrow and Bryant, instead of Henry Drummond and Matthew Harrison Brady. The details and dialogue, however, are punched up for better drama. And, quite simply, once we get to the courtroom, there is plenty of drama. Brady stands firm on his certainty that the Word has been revealed and he has interpreted it correctly. Drummond, faced with an unambiguous law, hostile crowd, and unsympathetic judge and jury, pursues his guerilla warfare, little by little picking apart his opponent's position.
I was surprised at how much I enjoyed reading the play. You can sit and reflect about the events and arguments, or simply re-read the delightful sallies of Drummond's one-liner wit:
"If, in the beginning, there were just Cain and Abel, and Adam and Eve, where did this extra woman come from? ... You figure somebody else pulled another creation over in the next county somewhere?"
One of my favorite aspects of the play is the deliberate ambiguity as to whether Drummond is an exponent of secular or religious Humanism. Though the trial's official verdict is against evolution (as it was in reality), there is no doubt in the reader's mind which side won this battle. Had it ended with Drummond striding out the moral victor, it would still have been good. But, I think it was better that it ended with the realization that Drummond fought, not against the Bible, but for the right of a man to think.
"In a child's ability to master the multiplication table, there is more holiness than all your shouted hosannas and holy of holies."
Show Less
LibraryThing member wildbill
This play is a dramatization of the Scopes Monkey trial that took place in Dayton, TN in 1926. The courtroom scenes were a great battle between Clarance Darrow and William Jennings Bryan. The play conveys the flavor of the event very accurately. I have another book Summer for the Gods: The Scopes
With the new rise of "creative design" it is obvious that the conflict of ideas set forth in the play is still ongoing. While I consider myself a Christian and even meet some of the criteria of a born-again Christian I can never believe that God intended humans not to think. My only conclusion is that some people are afraid to think. Just as Matthew Brady in the play they embrace an ideology that provides all of the answers without the necessity of thinking. This seems to be part of human nature that will not disappear.
Show More
Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion which is a very good history of the trial and the events surrounding it. Reading the play I was surprised how contemporary the issues still are. Does a person have the right to think? Is there a right to be wrong? When I was younger I thought that in time this type of ignorance would disappear it is almost sad to think how wrong I was.With the new rise of "creative design" it is obvious that the conflict of ideas set forth in the play is still ongoing. While I consider myself a Christian and even meet some of the criteria of a born-again Christian I can never believe that God intended humans not to think. My only conclusion is that some people are afraid to think. Just as Matthew Brady in the play they embrace an ideology that provides all of the answers without the necessity of thinking. This seems to be part of human nature that will not disappear.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bragan
This volume contains the text of the play Inherit the Wind, as performed in 1955. I'm not sure how close it is to the movie version of the same name, since it's been at least a couple of decades since I've seen that. It is, of course, based on the (in)famous Scopes Monkey Trial, in which a
Although it's inspired by the real-life events, this story should not be mistaken for history (as an introductory note from the playwrights makes appropriately clear). It's probably not very realistic as a depiction of what goes on in courtrooms, either. And it's not exactly subtle about making its scientific inquiry-vs-religious dogma point. But is is a good drama, with some fantastic lines of dialog. And, subtle or not, the point it's making is certainly one I can get behind. I enjoyed it a lot.
Show More
schoolteacher was prosecuted for violating a law banning the teaching of evolution.Although it's inspired by the real-life events, this story should not be mistaken for history (as an introductory note from the playwrights makes appropriately clear). It's probably not very realistic as a depiction of what goes on in courtrooms, either. And it's not exactly subtle about making its scientific inquiry-vs-religious dogma point. But is is a good drama, with some fantastic lines of dialog. And, subtle or not, the point it's making is certainly one I can get behind. I enjoyed it a lot.
Show Less
LibraryThing member antiquary
Considering that this play/movie is probably what most Americans think they know about the Scopes trial, it is a tremendous pity that it went for a lot of melodrama and romance that did not occur in reality, especially the part about forcing the Scopes-equivalent's girlfriend to testify against
Even though DeCamp is a thorough sceptic, I would recommend his book on the trial as a much more fair-minded version than this play.
Show More
him. It does have one line I like, when the Darrow-equivalent tells the Bryan-equivalent sometimes you can change just by standing still. That, I have found true from experience.Even though DeCamp is a thorough sceptic, I would recommend his book on the trial as a much more fair-minded version than this play.
Show Less
LibraryThing member zhall001
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
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.
Show More
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.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Devil_llama
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.
LibraryThing member Sean191
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,
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).
Show More
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).
Show Less
LibraryThing member GaryPatella
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
Show More
it! Show Less
LibraryThing member BruceCoulson
A drama based on the events and conflicts of the Scopes trial in Tennessee,1925. It is not history, and does not pretend to be such; the preface in my edition ends with '...it could be tomorrow'. Given that, I found the work to be dramatic and compelling; a conflict between two sides, but also
Show More
between two essentially good men, who represent those sides. Show Less
LibraryThing member astherest
I've loved this play since the first time I saw it. It has a strong message about sticking to the truth in the face of ignorance. However, I recently learned how fictionalized this account of the Scopes trial is. To get more facts about what actually happened and also how the Scopes trial has
Show More
become a part of American mythology, read Edward J. Larson's The Summer of the Gods Show Less
LibraryThing member bookworm12
This play was a loose retelling of the real Scopes Monkey Trial. Two lawyers pitted themselves against each other to battle religious freedom and the role it plays in our educational system. A young teacher is arrested for teaching evolution in his classroom. His small town is up in arms over the
This is definitely a fictionalized version of the real events, but it’s close enough to give us a peak into the fall reach the case had at the time. One of the most important characters, in my opinion, is the cynical reporter E. K. Hornbeck, who acts as the lens through which we see the trial unfold. His quick wit and sharp barbs provide humor, but he lacks the empathy of characters like Drummond.
The real crux of the play hinges on man’s ability to think for himself and form his own conclusions. That message is beautifully stated.
BOTTOM LINE: The play is excellent, the movie is excellent, and I can’t wait to see this one performed as a live play one day.
“Lady, when you lose your power to laugh, you lose your power to think straight.”
“I’m sorry if I offend you. But I don’t swear just for the hell of it. You see, I figure language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. So we ought to use all the words we’ve got. Besides, there are damned few words that everybody understands.”
Show More
matter and a pious lawyer, Brady, comes into town to rail on behalf of the injustice done to good Christians. The other lawyer, Drummond, is a soft-spoken man who has come to defend the teacher. Throw in the teacher’s girlfriend, who happens to be the town preacher’s daughter and you’ve got quite a mess. This is definitely a fictionalized version of the real events, but it’s close enough to give us a peak into the fall reach the case had at the time. One of the most important characters, in my opinion, is the cynical reporter E. K. Hornbeck, who acts as the lens through which we see the trial unfold. His quick wit and sharp barbs provide humor, but he lacks the empathy of characters like Drummond.
The real crux of the play hinges on man’s ability to think for himself and form his own conclusions. That message is beautifully stated.
BOTTOM LINE: The play is excellent, the movie is excellent, and I can’t wait to see this one performed as a live play one day.
“Lady, when you lose your power to laugh, you lose your power to think straight.”
“I’m sorry if I offend you. But I don’t swear just for the hell of it. You see, I figure language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. So we ought to use all the words we’ve got. Besides, there are damned few words that everybody understands.”
Show Less
LibraryThing member justagirlwithabook
I don't remember when I purchased this book much less when I read it but it is probably one of my earlier experiences with a courtroom drama played out on the page, and I really enjoyed it when I was younger! Probably would recommend for younger grade levels (middle grade maybe).
LibraryThing member LynnB
A play that really stands the test of time as we continue to debate issues related to religious freedom today.
LibraryThing member stpnwlf
Famous stage play about the Scopes trial.
LibraryThing member nossanna
I enjoyed this play quit a bit - it was a fast read too. it had a number of memorable and clever lines. it is hard to believe the trial took place less than 100 years ago. I read the as the 'read a play' in the 2016 Book Riot read harder challenge. I'm having fun reading genres I don't usually read.
LibraryThing member ghr4
Inherit the Wind, a fictionalized account of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in which a Tennessee high school teacher was put on trial for teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution in violation of state law, remains a compelling courtroom drama. With a winning combination of wise and powerful legal
Show More
arguments and wry humor, this classic stage play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee portrays an epic battle between science and theology. Given the Trump administration’s systematic diminution of science in its formulation of policy, Inherit the Wind has attained renewed relevance. Show Less
LibraryThing member JRCornell
One of the most moving and meaningful plays in American theatre--based on the famed Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, in which a Tennessee teacher was tried for teaching evolution
LibraryThing member sarahlh
What a thrilling, dramatic play! I absolutely loved it; it's the kind of play you can see unfold in your head with startling detail, like you're sitting at the foot of the stage watching the whole thing up close. I especially loved the courtroom scenes and the way it ended, with the two books in
Show More
the briefcase, sitting side-by-side like it's natural for them to be together - God and Darwin. I would give my left leg to actually see Inherit The Wind live and on stage; I imagine it would take quite a dynamic cast to bring this play to life properly. Show Less
LibraryThing member DinadansFriend
A courtroom drama about the struggle to bring an important scientific concept to the shoolrooms of the USA, not a milieu renowned for being an intellectual frontier. Of course there is also a conflict between two politicians one more given to derive his position from emotions and rhetoric, while
Show More
the other is more a truth seeker. the audience of the play is far morer the jury than the players on the stage. It was of course made into a powerful movie in the 1960's and has had stage revivals, and TV versions ever since. Show Less
LibraryThing member regularguy5mb
Once again, I find myself reading a book at just the right time. I just found out that today (November 24) is the anniversary of the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of the Species, which is the main cause of the trouble in the play.
This is a great read, and the way Lawrence and Lee set the
But more than anything, Drummond's argument is about allowing people to think, and think for themselves, and how Truth is more important than Right; as this is exactly what the original Scopes trial, of which this is a dramatization, really boiled down to.
Also, I really enjoyed the character of Hornbeck, based on H.L. Mencken, although to my mind he reminded me of another newsman, Hunter S. Thompson, especially the way he treats Brady as the sycophants fawn over him.
Again, this is such a great read, and it stays relevant even today.
This is a great read, and the way Lawrence and Lee set the
Show More
timing of the play: "It might have been yesterday. I could be tomorrow," is so true, as there is a recent push by certain religious groups to teach Creationism in Science class.But more than anything, Drummond's argument is about allowing people to think, and think for themselves, and how Truth is more important than Right; as this is exactly what the original Scopes trial, of which this is a dramatization, really boiled down to.
Also, I really enjoyed the character of Hornbeck, based on H.L. Mencken, although to my mind he reminded me of another newsman, Hunter S. Thompson, especially the way he treats Brady as the sycophants fawn over him.
Again, this is such a great read, and it stays relevant even today.
Show Less
LibraryThing member FieryNight
I loved this book. Read it for school right before reading The Glass Menagerie, which paled in comparison. I love courtroom drama alongside my fantasy, and this delivers, especially because it actually happened. The movie is definitely worth watching as well.
LibraryThing member jonbrammer
What makes _Inherit the Wind_ a memorable play is not that it skewers Christian fundamentalism - instead it goes after all of those who are too narrowminded to see an issue from another's point of view. This is demonstrated in the character of Hornbeck, a big city reporter who looks down his nose
Show More
at the both the rubes of Hillsboro and the passion of Matthew Brady. This play is not a pro-evolution screed; rather, it is a testament to the importance of open-mindedness. Show Less
Pages
144