Boneshe introduces a “plump, dark and sexy”
domestic named Daisy, who sparks an intense ri-
valry between Dave Carter and Jim Weston, the
same two protagonists of her short story. Carter is
a “slightly arrogant, aggressive, somewhat self-
important” Methodist who is “ready with his ton-
gue” to engage in lively banter or argument. His
primary challenger, Dave Carter, is a “soft, happy-
go-lucky character, slightly dumb and unable to
talk rapidly and wittily.” The remaining cast mem-
bers include Joe Clarke, church elders, and a host
of minor characters. The first act contains much
lively dialogue, delivered in rapid and vivid dialect
to great effect. As in Hurston’s novel THEIREYES
WEREWATCHINGGOD(1937), the porch attached
to the store of Joe Clarke is the primary stage upon
which men indulge in verbal sparring and assess
the world beyond them. Daisy flirts with both Jim
and Dave, who at one point join forces to perform
a lively song-and-dance act. When the two men
come to blows in front of the store, Daisy is re-
vealed as a self-absorbed woman. “Now, who’s
gonna take me home?” she wonders as Jim Clarke
instructs that Jim be locked up in his barn, and
others tend to the wounded Dave Carter.
Act Two revisits the courtroom scene, and
the same logic that damns Jim Weston in the
short story undoes his case here, too. He is found
guilty of assault and instructed to leave Eatonville
for a period of no less than two years. Hurston’s
final major revision of the short story comes in
Act Three. Beyond the stares of the town and the
men who gather regularly on Joe Clarke’s porch,
Daisy, Jim, and Dave encounter each other again.
Daisy begs Jim, for whom she now has feelings, to
live with her. Dave interrupts the encounter, and
the two men begin to vie once more for Daisy’s
affections. They eventually realize that the words
that an insightful old woman uttered long ago are
true and that Daisy is more interested in having a
provider than she is in having one of them. The
men finally are disenchanted with Daisy, who is
guilty of flirting with them equally and, in the af-
termath of the fight, of tending to the hurt pride
and injuries of both men. Jim and Dave unite
against her. Their conflict becomes an opportu-
nity for solidarity, and the play closes as the two
men leave Daisy behind and return to Eatonville
together.
LOUISETHOMPSON, whom the patron CHAR-
LOTTEOSGOODMASONhired to help Hughes,
provided vital secretarial support to the writers and
typed the manuscript. Thompson’s involvement,
and Hughes’s proposal that she be paid one-third
of the profits from the play, ultimately contributed
to the messy conflict between the playwrights.
Hurston’s independent and seemingly covert ef-
forts to negotiate with theater companies such as
the Gilpin Players and ROWENAJELLIFFEat the
KARAMU HOUSEin Cleveland further inflamed
the row, and the play disappeared.
Each writer documented the upheaval in spir-
ited letters to their patrons and friends, including
Mason, JOELSPINGARN,CARLVANVECHTEN, and
ARNABONTEMPS. In 1931 Hurston wrote a candid
letter to Hughes. She asserted that she was “very
eager to do the play” and insisted to him that “any-
thing you said would go over big with me. But
scarcely had we gotten under way,” she recalled,
“before you made three propositions that shook me
to the foundation of myself. First: That three-way
split with Louise. Now, Langston, nobody has in
the history of the world given a typist an interest in
a work for typing it.” Hurston went on to insist
that the play was hers. “It was my story from begin-
ning to end. It is my dialogue, my situations” (Ka-
plan, 202), she declared before earnestly noting
that she was innocent of the conversations that
had led to the play’s unauthorized distribution.
Hughes grappled with the unexpected turn of
events by enlisting the aid of close friends such as
Carl Van Vechten. He asked Van Vechten to medi-
ate between them, to “get in touch with Zora” and
let her know that he, Hughes, was “not at all angry
about her actions, because she always has been
strange in lots of ways” (Bernard, 76). Van Vechten
demurred, unwilling to suffer another “grand emo-
tional scene” with Hurston and sure that “anything
she might promise to do for me would have no ef-
fect whatever on her subsequent actions” (Bernard,
77). He also attempted to arrange a meeting in
Cleveland with Hurston and the Jelliffes, who were
interested in producing the play with the Gilpin
Players, who had begun rehearsals on what Hughes
discovered to be an unfinished draft of the work.
Despite the fact that he was recovering from a ton-
sillectomy, Hughes hosted the three at his mother’s
Cleveland home. Hurston proved to be rather in-356 Mule Bone