Brady Compare And Contrast Drummond And Dubay
Although Drummond and Brady are portrayed as opposites, they are in fact two sides of the same coin of skepticism, with one representing the competing thoughts about Evolution and Creationism respectively. For the two of them to coexist, they must never question one another. This is the essence of what this passage means to the work in totality. Brady’s “standing still”, or his refusal to question his philosophy while Drummond leans towards change, is what makes him an impediment to the progress of society (Lawrence and Lee 44). Progress muddles simplicity, yet it creates clarity. Prior to Drummond’s final statement towards Brady, Brady is the first to approach Drummond on why they have drawn apart from one another. Interestingly, one stage cue states that Brady “crosses Drummond”, only to “take to faltering steps background” when Drummond ends their conversation (Lawrence and Lee 44). These stage cues represent Brady finally taking a step towards progress and questioning what pushed him and Drummond apart, only for him to take a step away from progress when he hears the truth. Furthermore, Brady’s statement of “What happened between us? There used to be a mutuality and admiration. Why is it, my old friend, that you have moved so far away from me?” shows how over time, those who followed Evolution began to be
…show more content…
Hornbeck. After the death of Brady, Hornbeck makes the snarky comment of “Matthew Harrison Brady died of a busted belly. Be frank! Why should we cry for him? He cried enough for himself” (Lawrence and Lee 77). This degenerate reaction shows how both sides of the argument are ignorant of another because they both believe wholeheartedly that one is correct and the other is wrong. This divide, while Drummond is meant to represent Evolutionist views and progress, is still deepened by Hornbeck’s despicable poignant
Hornbeck. After the death of Brady, Hornbeck makes the snarky comment of “Matthew Harrison Brady died of a busted belly. Be frank! Why should we cry for him? He cried enough for himself” (Lawrence and Lee 77). This degenerate reaction shows how both sides of the argument are ignorant of another because they both believe wholeheartedly that one is correct and the other is wrong. This divide, while Drummond is meant to represent Evolutionist views and progress, is still deepened by Hornbeck’s despicable poignant