Reflections of a Flickering Flame

Although I am not a particular fan of the first ten monologues, they do serve a purpose. The reason being is that it is a choice to sequence out these monologues in this certain way. They are a background, a backstory, if you will, to what both sides of the crisis went through every day before the riots began. Some of the monologues are even symbolic. For example, the first one, Identity. The interview conducted is asking to define identity in their own words. But I believe it's underlining purpose is to identify the incident. Or the next one, Static. This one is a glance into the Jewish world. I think Smith started off with these so that the reader/audience would not be thrown into one side or another, but instead decide for themselves. What does identity mean to them? What if this had happened in their neighborhood? What kind pf daily activities do they encounter everyday? Smith gave a point of view from every side to help us think for ourselves. She could have easily just begun with Lousy Language and dived right into the whole story, what happened, who said what, etc. Presenting a background allows for a smoother transition, an actual peak at the climax, and ties everything together. Throwing such a intense moment within the first two minutes of a play gives you no room to go anywhere. Everyone is already angry, sad, depressed. It is also hard to get there, to feel you these characters if you don't know what it was like before. It almost becomes too much to deal with. And then it's like you have to pick a side right off the bat. Smith goes with a different approach of saying, "Here's what life was like before. Now look at the change."