Fires in the Mirror

The first few monologues of Fires in the Mirror should definitely still be kept in the play because although they are not directly correlated to the Crown Heights riots, they still help the audience or reader to understand something about one of the opponents’ culture. It’s as if the audience gets a peek into the world of the Jewish or the Blacks prior to hearing each side of the story. This is also useful because it pulls together the similarities of the two. It reminds the audience that although they have distinct differences, they are both still human and have things in common. Also, these opening monologues each connect to each other from one topic to the next except the race changes. For example, Al Sharpton, a black man, speaks on how and why he started wearing his hair the way that he does. In the next monologue, Rivkah Siegal, a Lubavitcher woman, speaks on the importance of her hair and wigs to her. Both stories showed how each person equates something that means something to them to their hair. 

Another reason I feel the monologues should stay where they are because they ease the audience into the situation. Certain topics are hard to talk about, and can quickly spark controversy. By Smith cleverly delving into this issue by showing how both sides have things in common, it makes it less easy to quickly choose sides as far as right and wrong goes. Regardless, I’m sure people are more inclined to lean toward what they know, which is their own. However, I think the idea of first showing common ground makes the audience think a little more before being so quick to judge. The first few monologues should definitely stay.