By now you’ve read The Kentucky Cycle and Deliverance and several critical comments about the play. This week’s prompt asks you to think about the “so what?” aspects of thinking about the two sides. What’s the big deal? Why are so many Appalachian scholars offended by the play? Do you agree with those offended? Does it matter that the playwright/director believed he was helping the region through this play?
Support your position.
Understandably there might be some confusion as to why their are so many Appalachian scholars offended by the play. For one thing, the success and sympathy towards certain characters is something you would imagine that they would be grateful for and if anything the play brought Appalachia back into discussion because of its success in theater. That being said, good intentions aside, discussion about the portrayal of the people of Appalachia in The Kentucky Cycle was dismissed by most critics. The Kentucky Cycle’s adherence to the stereotype is concerning especially considering the research the author claims he did in the region. Not to say that this excuses the playwrights perpetuation of society’s preconceptions of the people of Appalachia but I doubt that anyone outside of the community could faithfully portray Appalachians better than an Appalachian them self and this logic is not exclusive to them but rather any civic discourse. The playwright’s intention to create sympathy for the region may have been successful to some extent, but doing so through perpetuation of the harmful associations with violence and other ignorant themes should not be excused. That being said, discussing the ethics of the artists responsibility is a discussion we have previously had and I stand by my assertion that we cannot expect a play, given its artistic nature, not to be embellished to some extent.