At first glance, "A Jury of Her Peers" may seem like an intricate look into a classic murder mystery. However, Susan Glaspell crafts a union between two distinct yet similar women as they assemble pieces of Minnie Wright's crime. Through the use of irony and the indirect characterization of a submissive sheriff's wife, Glaspell depicts the underlying struggle and rebellion of women in a patriarchal society.
The irony found in the men's dialogue further portrays the conflict between women and their dominating counterparts. This is found when the men make the vital mistake of overlooking the kitchen. With a respected sheriff and competent investigator, who better to solve the murder of John Wright? Apparently it's the inexperienced women who "are used to worrying over trifles." The women's empathy used to comprehend hints that shed light on Minnie Wright's hidden life uncover murderer's motive. From the broken jars of cherries and the unfinished quilt, they presume that Minnie Foster struggled with her role as an obedient housewife. From the broken door on bird cage, they infer that John Wright was an controlling and abusive man. From the dead canary, the two women understand Minnie Foster unwillingly gave up her love of singing– the driving force to murder. Only Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters can place themselves into her shoes. This enables them to conclude that her husband's oppression was the motive of the murder. While the so-called capable men who were getting "the lay of things upstairs" dismiss the women's' genius work with a laugh, the women successful find the motive. The men believing the women were just concerned "whether she [Minnie] was going to quilt it or just knot it!" does not allow them to recognize the significance of the women in this case. This creates an opportunity for the women to defy their power. By hiding the evidence to prosecute Minnie Wright, the women undermine the struggle they face against men in society.
Initially being described as docile and subservient, Mrs. Peter's development plays a critical role in understanding the underlying gender conflicts. Though Mrs. Hale descriptions, Mrs. Peters does not look like a sheriff's wife. However her personality may say otherwise. Mrs. Peters is described as someone who "is married to the law” by Mr. Henderson. This idea is seen when Mrs. Peters tends to of all thing Minnie Wright needs while imprisoned. She follows the orders of her husband, "a heavy man with a big voice" who could never be seen doing the work of women! At first she appears as a firm person who cannot sympathize for Minnie Wright or her current situation as "the law is the law." It isn't until finds Mrs. Hale finds the dead canary that Mrs. Peter's rigidness is broken and she becomes more vulnerable. She suddenly empathizes with Minnie Wright as she reminisces on her childhood pet. She struggles to talk about the boy who murdered her kitten, saying "If they hadn't held me back I would have...hurt him." This moment emphasizes the inner conflict between her conditioned loyalty to her husband (and the law), and the emotional bond that unites her gender. Ultimately Mrs. Peters faced to either hand the incriminating evidence to her husband or uniting with Mrs. Hale to keep Minnie from being prosecuted. Mrs. Peters realizes her duty to her gender as "she could not touch the bird" and "She stood there helpless, foolish." By concealing the evidence, Mrs. Peters proves that she is not the submissive and cold sheriff's wise introduced at at the beginning of the story. Instead she aids Mrs. Hale in discreetly rebelling against the oblivious men who hold a dominant standing in society.
Although never directly stated, many literary techniques and strategies can be found to show support for Susan Glaspell's commentary on the different and prejudiced gender roles during her time. Specifically, the use of irony and Mrs. Peter's indirect character development in "A Jury of Her Peers" paint the perfect picture of the struggles and rebellion women faced in a male-dominated society.
Kathy, great job on your blog post! Your quotes are good evidence and integrated nicely. Next time I would add another literary element and paragraph to help support your claims. The use of only two claims made your essay sound a bit more insecure then if you had used the usual and expected three. Your conclusion wrapped up your ideas nicely but it did not leave me pondering the ideas of your essay. I would suggest adding more detail to make a strong conclusion. In your first body paragraph your sentences abruptly change subject with no transition words. It would have been easier to read and understand if put into a different format. Overall, I really enjoyed your thought on "A Jury of Her Peers." Keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteKathy,
ReplyDeleteThrough your superb use of sentence structure and diction, you managed to create an analysis piece with both style and a distinctive voice, the quality of such aspects is far more then what it needs to be for any nearby coming challenges. I did, however, have some problems in other aspects.
Kayla T suggested adding a third body paragraph to your piece, to bolster you arguments and keep your piece more secure, and while I do agree that that is something to consider, I don't think it's a must, but if you are going to only going to go with two, they better be good. Your first body paragraph, was lacking. (Your second was great, by the way, but your first...) The first problem I had was that your connection to what was so ironic was really weak if existent at all. Was it ironic that the males were treating Hale and Peter so poorly, but those two figured it out, while the men weren't even close (and allowing the women to hide the evidence)? That's what I'm guessing, but it is not clear at all; and even then I'm not sure if irony is the best word, not that there isn't something there, I just think it is warranting something else, and I think misusing the word irony just blurred your whole point. But even then I can't tell because the final warrant is weak and not at all similar to what you came into the paragraph trying to argue.
Overall, the passage was great. But the choice to go with only two paragraphs for the sake of quality came back to haunt you with a couple of small (if unfortunately placed) mistakes that derail the first paragraph, with that being said, the mark of quality is there, and based on the quality of the rest of the piece, it seems such a mistake was a fluke, rather then the quality in the piece being the fluke.
Kathy, I thought your analysis of "A Jury of Her Peers" was outstanding. I agree that a third body paragraph that talks about another literary element and includes more evidence would strengthen your claim. While I understand what Jake was saying, I thought that the evidence you provided strongly supported your claim. You clearly explained what you believed to be ironic in the short story and supported your claim with many pieces of evidence. I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on "A Jury of Her Peers" and can't wait to step up my game on the next argumentative essay!
ReplyDelete