What do you think?
Rate this book
Merrily We Roll Along
By means of a series of scenes shown in reverse chronological order, we are permitted to see the steps by which a young and ambitious playwright became merely a materialistic symbol of success.
222 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1934
25 people are currently reading
129 people want to read
About the author
Moss Hart
56 books24 followersMoss Hart was an American playwright and director of plays and musical theater. Hart recalled his youth, early career and rise to fame in his autobiography, Act One, adapted to film in 1963, with George Hamilton portraying Hart.
Hart grew up at 74 East 105th Street in Manhattan, "a neighborhood not of carriages and hansom cabs, but of dray wagons, pushcarts, and immigrants" (Bach 1). Early on he had a strong relationship with his Aunt Kate, whom he later lost contact with because of a falling out between her and his parents, and her weakening mental state. She got him interested in the theater and took him to see performances often. Hart even went so far as to create an "alternate ending" to her life in his book Act One. He writes that she died while he was working on out-of-town tryouts for The Beloved Bandit. Later, Kate became quite eccentric, vandalizing Hart's home, writing threatening letters and setting fires backstage during rehearsals for Jubilee. But his relationship with Kate was life-forming. He understood that the theater made possible "the art of being somebody else… not a scrawny boy with bad teeth, a funny name… and a mother who was a distant drudge." (Bach 13).
After working several years as a director of amateur theatrical groups and an entertainment director at summer resorts, he scored his first Broadway hit with Once In A Lifetime (1930), a farce about the arrival of the sound era in Hollywood. The play was written in collaboration with Broadway veteran George S. Kaufman, who regularly wrote with others, notably Marc Connelly and Edna Ferber. (Kaufman also performed in the play's original Broadway cast in the role of a frustrated playwright hired by Hollywood.) During the next decade, Kaufman and Hart teamed on a string of successes, including You Can't Take It With You (1936) and The Man Who Came to Dinner (1939). Though Kaufman had hits with others, Hart is generally conceded to be his most important collaborator.
You Can't Take It With You, the story of an eccentric family and how they live during the Depression, won the 1937 Pulitzer Prize for drama. It is Hart's most-revived play. When director Frank Capra and writer Robert Riskin adapted it for the screen in 1938, the film won the Best Picture Oscar and Capra won for Best Director.
The Man Who Came To Dinner is about the caustic Sheridan Whiteside who, after injuring himself slipping on ice, must stay in a Midwestern family's house. The character was based on Kaufman and Hart's friend, critic Alexander Woollcott. Other characters in the play are based on Noel Coward, Harpo Marx and Gertrude Lawrence.
After George Washington Slept Here (1940), Kaufman and Hart called it quits. Hart had decided it was time to move on. Throughout the 1930s, Hart also worked, with and without Kaufman, on several musicals and revues, including Face the Music (1932), As Thousands Cheer (1933), with songs by Irving Berlin, Jubilee (musical) (1935), with songs by Cole Porter and I'd Rather Be Right (1937), with songs by Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart. (Lorenz Hart and Moss Hart were not related.)
Hart continued to write plays after parting with Kaufman, such as Christopher Blake (1946) and Light Up The Sky (1948), as well as the book for the musical Lady In The Dark (1941), with songs by Kurt Weill and Ira Gershwin. However, he became best known during this period as a director.
Among the Broadway hits he staged were Junior Miss (1941), Dear Ruth (1944) and Anniversary Waltz (1954). By far his biggest hit was the musical My Fair Lady (1956), adapted from George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion, with book and lyrics by Alan Jay Lerner and music by Frederick Loewe. The show ran over seven years and won a Tony Award for Best Musical. Hart picked up the Tony for Best Director.
Occasionally, Hart wrote scree
Hart grew up at 74 East 105th Street in Manhattan, "a neighborhood not of carriages and hansom cabs, but of dray wagons, pushcarts, and immigrants" (Bach 1). Early on he had a strong relationship with his Aunt Kate, whom he later lost contact with because of a falling out between her and his parents, and her weakening mental state. She got him interested in the theater and took him to see performances often. Hart even went so far as to create an "alternate ending" to her life in his book Act One. He writes that she died while he was working on out-of-town tryouts for The Beloved Bandit. Later, Kate became quite eccentric, vandalizing Hart's home, writing threatening letters and setting fires backstage during rehearsals for Jubilee. But his relationship with Kate was life-forming. He understood that the theater made possible "the art of being somebody else… not a scrawny boy with bad teeth, a funny name… and a mother who was a distant drudge." (Bach 13).
After working several years as a director of amateur theatrical groups and an entertainment director at summer resorts, he scored his first Broadway hit with Once In A Lifetime (1930), a farce about the arrival of the sound era in Hollywood. The play was written in collaboration with Broadway veteran George S. Kaufman, who regularly wrote with others, notably Marc Connelly and Edna Ferber. (Kaufman also performed in the play's original Broadway cast in the role of a frustrated playwright hired by Hollywood.) During the next decade, Kaufman and Hart teamed on a string of successes, including You Can't Take It With You (1936) and The Man Who Came to Dinner (1939). Though Kaufman had hits with others, Hart is generally conceded to be his most important collaborator.
You Can't Take It With You, the story of an eccentric family and how they live during the Depression, won the 1937 Pulitzer Prize for drama. It is Hart's most-revived play. When director Frank Capra and writer Robert Riskin adapted it for the screen in 1938, the film won the Best Picture Oscar and Capra won for Best Director.
The Man Who Came To Dinner is about the caustic Sheridan Whiteside who, after injuring himself slipping on ice, must stay in a Midwestern family's house. The character was based on Kaufman and Hart's friend, critic Alexander Woollcott. Other characters in the play are based on Noel Coward, Harpo Marx and Gertrude Lawrence.
After George Washington Slept Here (1940), Kaufman and Hart called it quits. Hart had decided it was time to move on. Throughout the 1930s, Hart also worked, with and without Kaufman, on several musicals and revues, including Face the Music (1932), As Thousands Cheer (1933), with songs by Irving Berlin, Jubilee (musical) (1935), with songs by Cole Porter and I'd Rather Be Right (1937), with songs by Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart. (Lorenz Hart and Moss Hart were not related.)
Hart continued to write plays after parting with Kaufman, such as Christopher Blake (1946) and Light Up The Sky (1948), as well as the book for the musical Lady In The Dark (1941), with songs by Kurt Weill and Ira Gershwin. However, he became best known during this period as a director.
Among the Broadway hits he staged were Junior Miss (1941), Dear Ruth (1944) and Anniversary Waltz (1954). By far his biggest hit was the musical My Fair Lady (1956), adapted from George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion, with book and lyrics by Alan Jay Lerner and music by Frederick Loewe. The show ran over seven years and won a Tony Award for Best Musical. Hart picked up the Tony for Best Director.
Occasionally, Hart wrote scree
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
September 28, 2022
I feel like I have to pre-empt this review by saying that Merrily We Roll Along is not only my favorite two-act musical but among my favorite pieces of media period, but at this point that would be like starting a review with "disclaimer: I breath air, eat food, and drink water" since I'm terminally incapable of shutting up about it.
Initially, I really liked this--the first scene is beat-for-beat pretty much the same as the opening scene for the musical, and the scene with Julia Glenn (Mary Flynn) and Jonathan Crale (Charley Kringas) confirmed to me that I am in love with Charley no matter what. He had me ready to propose when he said that he got arrested for beating up a cop at a worker's strike. King <3. I think, though, that my biggest issue with the show is that the dynamic of Julia, Richard, and Jonathan is not given anywhere near the stage time as the dynamic between Mary, Frank, and Charley and therefore their falling out is nowhere near as tragic.
For example, the play's equivalent to "Franklin Shepard, Inc." is Jonathan painting a caricature of Richard and publishing it to a paper but it happens off-stage and is only ever referenced. Contrast to the musical, where we have a scene where we can see the tensions between Frank and Charley slowly rising when it's revealed that Frank signed a three-picture deal and is postponing Take a Left yet again mere moments before the interview begins and Charley tries to hold himself together until he can no longer and publicly eviscerates Frank on live TV. I understand that the setting of this being in the 20s and 30s instead of the 60s and 70s means that that could not have happened in the same way, but the stakes just felt lower here. Likewise, while Mary is one of Frank's oldest friends and the two met when he was still a starving artist, Julia is a devoted Richard Niles fangirl introduced to him after a hit or two by Jonathan, which really makes their friendship less compelling to me since instead of it being a struggling writer seeing her composer friend be corrupted by fame and greed, it's a fan watching her favorite celebrity do so.
Weirdly, this play both makes Richard seem more and less sympathetic--more in the sense that when Althea (Gussie) comes over and says that she divorced Harry (Joe) for him, she gets a call saying that Harry has committed suicide, so Richard staying behind to comfort her instead of going out with Julia and Jonathan is way more justifiable than Frank staying behind with Gussie since Joe does not kill himself, but less in the sense that we never get to know Richard in the way we get to know Frank. This is in part due to there not being any songs, so Growing Up and Our Time or even his struggles as a composer in Opening Doors aren't seen at all, but also because a lot of pivotal moments for Frank simply don't exist for Richard: Frank encountering his son Frankie outside the courthouse and then begging K.T. to delete the photo of Frankie reaching out to him, Frank making Charley sing Good Thing Going at the party, Frank and Gussie talking at her first party, Frank and Charley's disastrous interview, his shotgun marriage to Beth, and even him watching Sputnik with Charley, Mary, and Evelyn are nonexistent. There were a weird amount of scenes focusing much more heavily on side characters of little to no importance, which can work in a show, but whenever we'd have a scene where most of it is taken up by Helen's parents or random girls in the restaurant I was just like "this time could be used on the main three!" since I know how compelling they can be!
The ending of the show also had none of the impact of the ending of the musical since instead of Our Time, it was a scene with Richard and Helen, newly together after World War One's end followed by Richard's valedictorian speech and it just...doesn't have the bittersweet melancholia-ladden magic of seeing the three characters we know end up the way they do watching what the think is the start of a new world and swearing that they can do anything.
That said, I really liked the relationship between Althea and her mother since it added some depth to her character and I love Jonathan Crale with my whole heart, as well as Helen telling Richard that he should have married Jonathan if he loves him so much, which is sort of like Good Thing Going if you squint. I think what this really comes down to is that Merrily We Roll Along is not a "why?" musical and is in fact a story that was much improved by Sondheim and Furth.
Initially, I really liked this--the first scene is beat-for-beat pretty much the same as the opening scene for the musical, and the scene with Julia Glenn (Mary Flynn) and Jonathan Crale (Charley Kringas) confirmed to me that I am in love with Charley no matter what. He had me ready to propose when he said that he got arrested for beating up a cop at a worker's strike. King <3. I think, though, that my biggest issue with the show is that the dynamic of Julia, Richard, and Jonathan is not given anywhere near the stage time as the dynamic between Mary, Frank, and Charley and therefore their falling out is nowhere near as tragic.
For example, the play's equivalent to "Franklin Shepard, Inc." is Jonathan painting a caricature of Richard and publishing it to a paper but it happens off-stage and is only ever referenced. Contrast to the musical, where we have a scene where we can see the tensions between Frank and Charley slowly rising when it's revealed that Frank signed a three-picture deal and is postponing Take a Left yet again mere moments before the interview begins and Charley tries to hold himself together until he can no longer and publicly eviscerates Frank on live TV. I understand that the setting of this being in the 20s and 30s instead of the 60s and 70s means that that could not have happened in the same way, but the stakes just felt lower here. Likewise, while Mary is one of Frank's oldest friends and the two met when he was still a starving artist, Julia is a devoted Richard Niles fangirl introduced to him after a hit or two by Jonathan, which really makes their friendship less compelling to me since instead of it being a struggling writer seeing her composer friend be corrupted by fame and greed, it's a fan watching her favorite celebrity do so.
Weirdly, this play both makes Richard seem more and less sympathetic--more in the sense that when Althea (Gussie) comes over and says that she divorced Harry (Joe) for him, she gets a call saying that Harry has committed suicide, so Richard staying behind to comfort her instead of going out with Julia and Jonathan is way more justifiable than Frank staying behind with Gussie since Joe does not kill himself, but less in the sense that we never get to know Richard in the way we get to know Frank. This is in part due to there not being any songs, so Growing Up and Our Time or even his struggles as a composer in Opening Doors aren't seen at all, but also because a lot of pivotal moments for Frank simply don't exist for Richard: Frank encountering his son Frankie outside the courthouse and then begging K.T. to delete the photo of Frankie reaching out to him, Frank making Charley sing Good Thing Going at the party, Frank and Gussie talking at her first party, Frank and Charley's disastrous interview, his shotgun marriage to Beth, and even him watching Sputnik with Charley, Mary, and Evelyn are nonexistent. There were a weird amount of scenes focusing much more heavily on side characters of little to no importance, which can work in a show, but whenever we'd have a scene where most of it is taken up by Helen's parents or random girls in the restaurant I was just like "this time could be used on the main three!" since I know how compelling they can be!
The ending of the show also had none of the impact of the ending of the musical since instead of Our Time, it was a scene with Richard and Helen, newly together after World War One's end followed by Richard's valedictorian speech and it just...doesn't have the bittersweet melancholia-ladden magic of seeing the three characters we know end up the way they do watching what the think is the start of a new world and swearing that they can do anything.
That said, I really liked the relationship between Althea and her mother since it added some depth to her character and I love Jonathan Crale with my whole heart, as well as Helen telling Richard that he should have married Jonathan if he loves him so much, which is sort of like Good Thing Going if you squint. I think what this really comes down to is that Merrily We Roll Along is not a "why?" musical and is in fact a story that was much improved by Sondheim and Furth.
October 28, 2023
3.5, rounded up.
It's interesting that this was a notorious flop back in 1934, as was the Sondheim musical (VERY) loosely adapted from it, when it appeared back in 1981. The fact that that musical is now the toast of Broadway impelled me to seek out the original - and while I'm not sorry I read it - it really has very little in common with that show. Basically, the chronological backwards structure and the showbiz setting are all that book writer George Furth retained of the original - the characters aren't even that closely aligned with the Hart/Kaufman originals, which is probably why all the names were changed. The play also focusses more on protagonist Richard Niles (the Franklin Shepherd character in the musical), and his marital woes and affairs, rather than his relationship with his two close friends, who drift in and out less frequently here. The loss of youthful idealism is still prevalent, but without Sondheim's transcendent songs, it's all rather listless.
It's interesting that this was a notorious flop back in 1934, as was the Sondheim musical (VERY) loosely adapted from it, when it appeared back in 1981. The fact that that musical is now the toast of Broadway impelled me to seek out the original - and while I'm not sorry I read it - it really has very little in common with that show. Basically, the chronological backwards structure and the showbiz setting are all that book writer George Furth retained of the original - the characters aren't even that closely aligned with the Hart/Kaufman originals, which is probably why all the names were changed. The play also focusses more on protagonist Richard Niles (the Franklin Shepherd character in the musical), and his marital woes and affairs, rather than his relationship with his two close friends, who drift in and out less frequently here. The loss of youthful idealism is still prevalent, but without Sondheim's transcendent songs, it's all rather listless.
June 27, 2020
I read this play because I absolutely love the Sondheim musical of Merrily We Roll along. As a play itself, it was beautifully written. Most of the time I easily slipped into the scenes and the dialogue was rich.
The opening scene was very complicated and difficult to get through as a reader since there were so many characters and the leads have different names than the musical. (If you’re reading the play as a fan of the musical, I’d recommend using the Wikipedia page as an aid).
I’d say my biggest disappointment was the ending of the play. The musical centers around the friendship, hopes, and dreams of Frank, Charlie, and Mary while the play mostly just discusses the story of Richard/Frank. His friendship with Jonathon/Charlie is significant but his marriage to Helen/Beth is more of the focus towards the end of the play.
Overall I enjoyed reading the play since it is beautifully written, and I’m glad I did as it gave me more of an understanding of how the musical came to be, but I do prefer the musical.
The opening scene was very complicated and difficult to get through as a reader since there were so many characters and the leads have different names than the musical. (If you’re reading the play as a fan of the musical, I’d recommend using the Wikipedia page as an aid).
I’d say my biggest disappointment was the ending of the play. The musical centers around the friendship, hopes, and dreams of Frank, Charlie, and Mary while the play mostly just discusses the story of Richard/Frank. His friendship with Jonathon/Charlie is significant but his marriage to Helen/Beth is more of the focus towards the end of the play.
Overall I enjoyed reading the play since it is beautifully written, and I’m glad I did as it gave me more of an understanding of how the musical came to be, but I do prefer the musical.
March 13, 2020
“I hope he will always be beside me, all through my life. Many are the things that vanish in this changing world, but a real friendship will always endure. If I could make one wish for you—for all of you—I would ask that you be given a great friendship.”
—
always super interesting seeing where and how Sondheim was inspired to write my favorite show. Fuck capitalism! Hell yeah! Also obsessed with Helen pulling a MAYBE YOU SHOULD MARRY HIM! in 1934
(3.5 rounded up)
—
always super interesting seeing where and how Sondheim was inspired to write my favorite show. Fuck capitalism! Hell yeah! Also obsessed with Helen pulling a MAYBE YOU SHOULD MARRY HIM! in 1934
(3.5 rounded up)
February 3, 2018
Read as research for my upcoming audition. Really feel a connection to this script and super excited to perform in the show. The fact that the script isn't in chronological order is extremely clever and foreshadowing. Love it💕
January 29, 2025
Absolutely obsessed
July 7, 2024
With the successful revival of the musical, I got curious about the play that inspired it.
The play focuses on the price of fame and the loss of the things one once valued. It moves backward in time from 1934 to 1916. In 1934, playwright Richard Niles is successful, but at what cost? He’s on marriage number two (and it’s not going well), doesn’t see his child, produces forgettable work, and has lot his relationship with his best friend. Somewhere along the way he forgot what was once so important to him, which is “to thine own self be true.”
Interesting concept. As some familiar with the musical first, I find myself missing some of the elements that the musical has—namely a focus on the central friendships.
The play focuses on the price of fame and the loss of the things one once valued. It moves backward in time from 1934 to 1916. In 1934, playwright Richard Niles is successful, but at what cost? He’s on marriage number two (and it’s not going well), doesn’t see his child, produces forgettable work, and has lot his relationship with his best friend. Somewhere along the way he forgot what was once so important to him, which is “to thine own self be true.”
Interesting concept. As some familiar with the musical first, I find myself missing some of the elements that the musical has—namely a focus on the central friendships.
April 7, 2024
A story of a writer who relinquishes his ideals in exchange for success. An amazing work that is told in reverse. We see Richard at the beginning of the play wealthy, famous, and accomplished. At the end of the play we see him graduating college, valedictorian, penniless, and idealistic. This play has a lot to say about the things we hold value in and whether they are truly of value. The way we can be pushed into decisions and the roads they lead us down. This is a must read and is meant to be read multiple times and dissected. I would jump at the chance to see this produced. Simply amazing.
June 28, 2019
More interesting than successful, and what I enjoyed was more in the writing of it than as a script for production. I would love to have seen a strong early production of this and see where the comedy/laughs are. Did catch a joke on The Marx Brothers in the second act (referring to their original vaudeville act The Four Nightingales.
May 21, 2024
Saw this broadway play and was blown away — so fun, fresh, and funny. Starring Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter, Swiss Army Knife, Weird Al Yankovic), Jonathan Groff (Hamilton King, Glee, Frozen, Mindhunters), and Lindsay Mendez (Wicked, Smash, Elementary - their acting was sooo good and singing incredible! Rating based on play 🎭
April 8, 2025
Review for Merrily We Roll Along History and Criticism Book by Naomi Jeffrey
This read like a high school thesis with a page minimum and the student didn’t start until the night before it was due. The writer went into the bare bones of the show, often repeating herself and not teaching the reader much new about the history and the work that went into the show.
This read like a high school thesis with a page minimum and the student didn’t start until the night before it was due. The writer went into the bare bones of the show, often repeating herself and not teaching the reader much new about the history and the work that went into the show.
August 8, 2024
As a longtime fan of its musical adaptation, I never read the source material. It’s a second-rate Kaufman and Hart collaboration at best, however. Interesting to see how Sondheim and Furth were influenced.
October 1, 2023
This is more depressing than the musical of the same way. I can't believe Sondheim actually made it more cheery and still birthed "Not A Day Goes By."
January 22, 2024
GodDAMN this shit is sad. Wonderful play! It was interesting to read this and keep thinking of the musical that this is based on.
February 28, 2024
if you turned a five star notebook into a musical it would be this
July 24, 2025
Enjoyed this overall but didn’t have the same emotional punch as the musical - richard is more justified, helen is less sympathetic, and the second half is much worse overall
November 19, 2025
I read this as research for playing Beth/Helen, and although it's nice, I must admit I like Furth and Soundheim's adaptation way better.
September 4, 2015
Read since this is my college's musical this fall
August 30, 2025
Very corny and a bit confusing in the beginning, but I can really get jiggy with something this earnest
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews