own family and to Don's that the young men had been not friends but lovers. The shock, abuse, and reaction that follow are not at all times convincing to that portion of the audience that had had little previous experience with the theme in their own lives, and many such people found unbelievable exaggeration running rampant. But to those able to make identification with the characters, and to substitute their own personal and family situations for those on the stage, the dialogues and the action, though melodramatic, were never unbelievable.

To a national audience that has had no opportunity to see this play and may never have such in the future, a conventional dramatic criticism would be out of place. Without in any way detracting from the skillful and almost pioneering approach of Miss Grannis, a few such critical remarks might be made. This writer found the third act (following Don's suicide) entirely anticlimactic. Once the protagonist was removed from the scene, the play had entirely lost its raison d'etre. Furthermore, the play might have had a greater unity had there been no effort to bring forth any problem other than that of homosexuality; it particularly suffered because of the intrustion (and the word is used advisedly) of the Negro question, despite the effort of the author to aid herself in her desire to demonstrate the fact that the homosexuals are a minority group. The portraits of the two mothers and the one father certainly were those of three people who could and would bring forth disturbed children, but the three never rose higher than being caricatures. That such parents do exist, one must unfortunately confess. But on two hours of the stage, their lifetimes of errors toward each other and toward their children are brought forth without cease. It is as if the author is shouting, never whispering, to each listener, "These parents are the guilty ones! They made the children what they are!" And then, lest anyone not receive the message, it is reiterated at every opportunity.

Like any pioneering effort, Love in Our Time displays shortcomings, and these will become clearer in historical perspective. That the play could have been written and produced at all is a reflection of a slightly better social attitude, and this is in seemingly paradoxical contradiction to the observations made by the author. For Miss Grannis's heterosexual characters (except for a nurse) are shocked and outraged by the disclosure of sexual deviation in the family. While many families would and do react just as did these people, it cannot be denied that society as a whole has advanced some little bit forward, for otherwise even a small Greenwich Village house could never have shown this play for four months. Thus, the fact of its production is itself as important as anything that was said therein, and is an indication of a note of hope that was lacking in the script.

page 13