The Kentucky Cycle was primarily received in two ways. Most readers saw the play as comical and light-hearted, without looking deeply into the cultural references to Kentucky and the rest of Appalachia. Many of the critics from the Appalachian region that read the play saw it as an inaccurate attack on the culture of Appalachian people. Robert Schenkkan, on the other hand, wrote the play to entertain and educate his audience. He did not write to play to antagonize the Appalachian region. He wanted to depict the personal and corporate greed that are still occurring today, both inside and outside of the region.

Back Talk from Appalachia provides us with the critical opinions of many of the scholars that took offense to the negative depictions of Appalachia that are seen in the play. The play constantly describes the negative aspects of Kentucky and its hillbilly inhabitants. I can see how many of the play’s exaggerations, specifically the brutality and greed seen in the three families, could imply that every man in Kentucky shares the same qualities as the next. For this reason, it does not surprise me that many people from Kentucky and the Appalachian region feel the need to disprove the depictions with facts and statistics. On top of that, it doesn’t help that Schenkkan admitted to spending only a couple of days in Kentucky while doing his research.

In my opinion, many of The Kentucky Cycle’s critics were overly harsh. Although every Pulitzer Prize winning play is sure to have critics knit-picking its flaws, I don’t think The Kentucky Cycle deserved to be targeted quite so intensely. However, because the play did target a specific region, I do understand why many people felt the need to provide the facts.