Part two of Shanley's "Faith and State" trilogy has the same titular thematic commitment as "Doubt" but lacks the character nuance of that play and therefore seems stuck in allegory. That the playwright uses naturalism to tell his story means that his message then becomes obvious to the point of humorless, where his characters play the single note of superficial archetype. Additionally, the event that creates critical insight for the protagonist seems to come out of nowhere and therefore it is too easy to see Shanley's "point" rather than empathize with his characters. His dialogue however is crisp and the main event of each scene is clearly wrought, so the action moves forward in an interesting, albeit intellectual way. If Shanley had not created such an ambiguous morality play with "Doubt" I might have given "Defiance" a higher rating, but because its intention is to work as part of a larger trilogy, I judge it against its predecessor and find it lacking. It feels rushed and I wonder if Shanley felt an urgency to complete it as a piece within a larger whole, rather than a complete work unto itself. It reads that way.