The play occupies an amorphous middle ground between a serious discussion of the merits and the demerits of the Constitution, and... a polemic? political activism? entertainment? art? It is hard to classify. As written, the play is not persuasive enough as a serious discussion and is not engaging enough as a work of art. The play is too literal, too topical (e.g., in its celebration of victimhood), which are understandable obstacles that arise on the path to timelessness should the playwright happen to come from a time and a place.
As John Updike mused in an interview, "Perhaps I have written fiction because everything unambiguously expressed seems somehow crass to me."
