Differences And Justice In Susan Glaspell's Trifles

Susan Glaspell’s Trifles (1916) is about the fine line between moral beliefs and justice. Susan Glaspell was a pioneer for feminist drama. She was the daughter of a grain dealer and grew into one of America’s greatest play writers. She also attended college at Drake University and was a reporter for some time. Her inspiration for writing plays came later when she married a theatrical director named George Cook. It is because of him that she established Americas first influential noncommercial theater troupe and where she began her journey with play writing. In Susan Glaspell’s play Trifles two women have stumbled upon the true means of the crime that has been committed. However they have distracted the investigators from discovering the truth.
Mrs. Hale believes that never visiting Mrs. Wright was a “crime”. She describes a moral crime, rather than that of an actual crime. Glaspell targets other kinds of crime and their impact on individuals. The question at issue in this play is, do individuals have the right to follow their own moral beliefs when their beliefs conflict with the law of the state? Some readers may find that individuals do not have the right to follow their own moral beliefs, when their beliefs conflict with the law. According to literary critic Sara Khalaf, Mrs. Peters is the main character who finds herself between the law and her morals. Since Mrs. Peters husband is the sheriff she must be a woman of the law herself. However, individuals do have the right to follow their own moral beliefs even when it conflicts with the law.
There are several reasons that support this assertion. The idea for Trifles came from Glaspell’s past experience . It is important to take these experiences into account in order to better understand the true meaning of the play. To begin with the law can be unjust, in this case patriarchal. The male characters seem to dismiss the female characters and do not take all sides into account. In addition it is up to personal morals to evaluate the evidence. Evidence must be processed by our morals in order to truly believe the verdict is correct. More importantly, morals allowed the women to carry out their own sense of justice on Mr. Wright. Who displays seemingly obvious abuse towards Minnie. According to literary critic Judith Russell, justice is served but through morals instead of the conventional method of law. Nonetheless one must understand Glaspell's experiences in order to fully interpret the meaning of
“Trifles”. In order to fully understand Trifles it is crucial to understand Glaspell’s influence for the creation of her play. Cook was a huge reason for Glaspell’s creation of Trifles. According to Creating Trifles (1927) by Susan Glaspell in conversation between herself and Cook states, COOK. I have announced a play of yours for the next bill GLASPELL. But I have no play! COOK. Then you will have to sit down to-morrow and begin one. (Glaspell 1169)
Cook gave her a push into the creation of a play, which will later be known as Trifles.
Without Cook, Glaspell would have never been pressured to create this masterpiece. Her ideas for the play came to her while she was at the wharf viewing the stage. She states,”When I was a newspaper reporter out in Iowa, I was sent down-state to do a murder trial, and I never forgot going into the kitchen of a woman locked up in town”(1169). The idea for Mrs. Wright came from this experience, without it she might have not came up with this character. She is able to express herself thoroughly because of her past as a reporter and display unjust
law. To begin with, the law in the play is patriarchal and unjust. There are several reasons that support this claim. For example when Mrs. Peters makes a comment on the frozen fruit in Mrs. Wright’s kitchen, Hale responds, “Well, women are used to worrying over trifles”(Glaspell 1156). Hale is quick to dismiss this so called trifle and does not understand what the frozen fruit means. It is unlikely for Mrs. Wright to have the fire out unless she was preoccupied with something else. When the law will not take in even the smallest evidence it is important to stick with a reliable system such as personal morals. Later, the men constantly dismiss the smallest evidence the women have unveiled. This leads the women to stick with their morals, leaving the men oblivious to the contents of the quilt. During a conversation between the county attorney and Mrs. Hale they state, COUNTY ATTORNEY. (facetiously) Well, Henry, at least we found out that she was not going to quilt it. She was going to—what is it you call it ladies? MRS. HALE. We call it—knot it, Mr. Henderson. (Glaspell 1163)
If the law had paid more attention then they would understand the reason for the ruin in her perfect stitches. They also fail to see the importance in the empty bird cage. When the law fails to identify crucial evidence it is important to lean on morals for guidance. Finally a quote that further explains the statement of “knot it” is implied by the county attorney when he suggests,”If there was some definite thing. Something to show—something to make a story about—a thing that would connect up with this strange way of doing it”(Glaspell 1163). What the county attorney is trying to say is he needs something to tie Mrs. Wright to the murder. It is no coincidence for Glaspell’s choice of words. The women were able to stop the men from tying her to the murder instead tied a knot in the case and carried out moral justice. It is also ironic how Mrs. Hale uses the word “knot it” as a symbol because it can also refer to the knot that was used to inevitably kill Mr. Wright. As seen throughout the story personal morals are used to decipher the evidence. In addition, it is up to personal morals to evaluate the evidence, in order to provide the correct verdict. There are several reasons that support this claim. According to literary critic Judith Russell, “Mrs. Hale weaves the story or describes the circumstances, Mrs. Peters weighs the evidence and determines the direction of justice, and Mrs. Wright carries out the verdict; although the procedure is somewhat reversed, the mythical ritual is performed nevertheless” (Russell 90).
The women have used their morals to evaluate the evidence that they have accumulated. This statement shows that justice has been served. Instead of using the law they used their morals to establish a verdict. Also, Mrs. Hale makes a comment on whether or not she believes Minnie killed her husband, she states,”Well I don't think she did. Asking for an apron and her little shawl. Worrying about her fruit”(Glaspell 1158). This quote is significant because Mrs. Hale has a definite opinion that Mrs. Wright is not guilty due to her loyalty as a friend. Mrs. Hale shows determination to protect Minnie from the law and uses her morals to weigh the evidence. If Minnie did kill her husband the women would believe that justice is served. More importantly, morals allowed the women to carry out their own sense of justice on Mr. Wright. As the play progresses, it becomes more and more apparent that Mr. Wright would abuse his wife on a psychological level. For example, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters had a conversation about the bird they found and what had happened to it. Mrs Hale then states,”No Wright wouldn't like the bird—a thing that sang. She used to sing. He killed that, too.”(Glaspell 1162). Wright has stripped Minnie of everything that she loved including her love of song. Although he is not hitting her, it is still detrimental to her psychological well being. This is a key moment in the play when the women's morals begin to overpower the actual sense of law. The women pick up on this before anyone else does, in fact Mrs. Hale states, “I could've come. I stayed away because it weren't cheerful—and thats why I ought to have come”(Glaspell 1160). She felt guilty that she hadn't visited Minnie and been there for her in her time of need. Mrs. Hale identifies Minnie’s home as a gloomy place which can only mean Minnie’s relationship with her husband was not the best, This also provides a clear motif to the crime. Even during the struggle between their morals and the law they are able to protect Minnie. However, some readers may find that individuals do not have the right to follow their own moral beliefs when their beliefs conflict with the law. According to literary critic Sara Khalaf,”Another theme of the play is whether a person should prefer their humane duty or the law. This is mostly represented through the character of Mrs. Peters”(Khalaf 5). Mrs. Peters is caught in a dilemma between the loyalty of her sheriff husband and her personal morals. Although Mrs. Peters has this pre-existing commitment to the law she also must deal with her personal integrity. Some readers may view this as a set up for her inner law to be displayed. In the play Mrs. Peters states, “But Mrs. Hale, the law is the law”(Glaspell 1158). In this case it causes a dissonance between her desire to follow the law and help Mrs. Wright. Be that as it may, she discovers what should guide her moral compass is her personal integrity and not her relationship to the law. In turn, it is crucial for individuals to follow their own moral beliefs when their beliefs conflict with the law of the state. In conclusion, Trifles has sent a powerful message. Which is for individuals to follow their beliefs even if it conflicts with the law of the state. The verdict to protect Minnie right was the correct choice of action. Minnie has had years of psychological abuse from her husband and could not stand it any longer. If it were up to the law Minnie might have been sentenced to death herself. Even when she has faced more abuse than her husband ever had. The crime in the play was not the murder of Mr. Wright rather the constant abuse towards Minnie. The punishment for his crime death by trifles.