The issue is that the period in which this play is set was a break before the major massacres. There were a couple of high-profile assassinations - such as the killing of Martin Bucyana that ends the play - but the idea that common Tutsi like Emiritha would have been killed during this period is just wrong. People did have to make the type of tragic moral choices that end the story (as you mention) during the genocide itself, a month or so later, but just not during this period.

Don’t get me wrong. Rogers gets a number of facts correct. For example, the idea that Hutu refugees from Burundi were deeply involved is accurate. But there are just enough details off here and there that it’s frustrating for someone who knows the country.

I’m reluctant to be too critical, because I thought that the acting was very strong. And how nice to see such a strong group of African and African-American actors. The Kinyarwanda in the play was even pretty good, which is saying a lot, because it is a very challenging language. And I thought Mason Sand had a great South African accent.

But there are indeed some problems with the script. I agree that Jack was less than compelling. I think that Rogers tries to use Jack’s failure to receive tenure as a cover for his cluelessness. And Doug Bowen-Flynn did a good job giving some depth to the character. But I did not find the entire set up very believable. At the same time, I have often encountered really clueless Westerners in Rwanda (and other parts of Africa). The type of character Jack represents is actually much more common in Rwanda today. I get regular contacts from people who naively say, “I’m going to Rwanda to do reconciliation. Do you have any advice?” My usual answer is, “Please don’t go.”

I’m one of those folk who only know the vaguest details of the Rwandan genocide; but even then I had long been of the impression that it was a well-organized and efficiently executed effort. Consequently, when Rogers presents it as the series of ethnic massacres spilling into genocide, I took it on a matter of trust that Rogers had done the research to justify his contradiction of my “commonly held misapprehension.” So when you point out that these tales of massacres leading up to the genocide are largely fictions, it makes me further question Rogers’ intentions: Not only did I find the protagonist is uncompelling, but I left the theatre miseducated about hows and whys of the Rwandan Genocide.

That said, were there rumors of massacres that might have helped incite the Hutu to murder their Tutsi neighbors? Sufficient rumors to confuse foreign diplomats or human rights investigators? I ask only because I don’t know.

Also, as an academic, did you find the character of Jack Exley a believable portrayal of your profession? I realize that scholarship is highly specialized, but to my mind, he seemed to lack even the basic knowledge I’d expect to be within his stated areas of expertise. This, of course, was one of my biggest problems with the play as a piece of theatre as the story hinges on Jack’s ignorance.