Comparing Glaspell's Trifles And A Jury Of Her Peers

Susan Glaspell’s writings “Trifles” and “A Jury of Her Peers’ are two pieces of literature that tell the tale of two women at a crime scene. With the exception of one scene, the two works are nearly identical in terms of story. Glaspell’s decision to write the story as both a play and a short story gives us a unique opportunity, the chance to view the story from a multitude of viewpoints. The play gives no clear protagonist, yet because of the nature of short stories Mrs. Hale is thrust into the role in “A Jury of Her Peers”. Looking deeper into them, is it possible that this has negative effects on the stories as a whole? Could it possibly lessen the meaning of each piece?
Throughout the entire play, neither of the two leading ladies seem to separate themselves from the other in an attempt to reach the spotlight. While Mrs. Hale does seem to more actively participate in the attempted obstruction of justice, it’s not like Mrs. Peters exactly stops her. Inevitably, Mrs. Peters ends up joining Mrs. Hale and aids in attempting to hide the dead bird. These actions lead the reader to
That’s the nature of short stories, they favor a narrower view with less interpretation. Writing a short story that allows you to think about the protagonist in the same way as a play does is extremely tricky, and “A Jury of Her Peers” circumvents this entirely by simply making Mrs. Hale the narrator. No longer do you go through the story wondering whose side you should be on, instantly you are drawn to Mrs. Hale’s viewpoint as you are given all the reasoning. When presented with what the author would want us to believe is the “correct” way to view the story, it takes away from the potential broader experience and a much more focused one. Whether or not that improves the story or not is completely up to the