Like most of Baldwin's work I find his anti-intolerance stance admirable. The book did not catch my attention either as a play or a statement. Unlike [b:To Kill a Mockingbird|2657|To Kill a Mockingbird|Harper Lee|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1214592473s/2657.jpg|3275794], which felt a bit more universal, this book doesn't escape the world it was set in.

I can respect the historical significance of this book, but to a twenty-first century whippersnapper for whom racial coexistance is not an opption but implied in existence, the issues it deals with are disrespectfully and --yes, naively-- discarded as an anachronism in my experienced world. Even when forced to admit its acceptance, the nature of racism has changed such this book may not shine enough light on the issues we today grapple. ( )

James Baldwin's first play is as much a tender revalation of both sides of the racial divide as it is a scathing broadside against racism. Wonderful speeches never feel forced as each character is given a honest voice. A young black man murdered in a small southern town...everyone is complicit...even the victim. And everyone, in the end, is a victim. Baldwin as always expresses what it is to be human. ( )

Some of the speeches just *got* me, especially Richard's last speech to Lyle. Highly recommended. ( )

Inspired by the case of Emmett Till, this is a dramatic look at southern small-town race relations at the mid-century point. As a play, though, it doesn't capture the usual power of Baldwin's prose. I've no doubt that this would be a powerful work when set to the stage, but I don't think a reading can do it justice, particularly with the many characters involved. I might go back to this if I ever get together a class on works related to the Till case, which I've considered doing before, but for now, I'm not sure I'd recommend it on to other readers. ( )

3