Why Write Trifles Essays - Trifles, A Jury Of Her Peers

Why did the author Susan Glaspell decide to write the play "Trifles" and then turn it into a short story called "A Jury of Her Peers"? This can be explained by Glaspell's experiences in life, the way society thought about women writers, and how they perceived women in general in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Waterman states that, Glaspell was born in 1876 and died in 1948 and when Glaspell first began writing she realized that the traditions instilled in her when she was a young girl would now show up. These traditions gave her a strong will and they also had a few negative effects. During Glaspell's life she wrote many plays that didn't arise any great deals of audiences. (Ruben) According to McMichael, Glaspell knew of the world and its condition. She joined the " radical feminist club, Heterodoxy, which McMichael says is a group of twenty - five women, including writer Charlotte Perkins Gilman, who began meeting in 1912 to discuss ways to promote economic, sexual, political, and professional freedom for women." (Ruben) Ruben explains that "through Glaspell's long career, she wrote thirteen plays, fourteen novels, and fifty short stories, articles, and essays. She wrote with an honest voice and tried to show American society and social settings through an honest portrayal." Glaspell's life seems to reflect in her plays such as "Trifles" and "A Jury of Her Peers". By writing about things she thought about and was active in Glaspell was able to gain lots of attention for her ability to write. From the beginning when she first began writing she showed signs of a well seasoned writer. With flexibility in writing Glaspell was able to stay above the scrutiny of others and prevail. "Trifles" focuses on the death of an oppressive husband at the hands of his emotionally abused wife in an isolated and remote farm in the Midwest" (Russell). By writing "Trifles" she showed a reflection of earlier times when one strain of evidence whether right or wrong could potentially convict a person, especially a woman of this time, of a crime. She wrote this play because she realized that one person could have an impact on another persons life. Because of the problems between men and women were extravagant, allowing the women to be the head of the situation was a bold move for a woman writer in the early twentieth century. She was able to show what she really thought about men. Through her writings she shows the truth and how men treated women. If the men didn't allow the women in this play go to collect some of the wife's properties they may have found the evidence they were looking for. But thinking that the women were stupid and incompetent they were deceived and didn't find sufficient evidence for a motive. When the women realized that the men were making fun of them and the wife they were becoming very hasty and uncooperative. When the women found the evidence they decided to hide it from the men in spite of the outcome. They left the strangled dead bird in the sewing box and removed it from the house were the men couldn't find it. As stated above the mentality of men and women were seen as different and that men were superior to women. Women that were caught with this type of evidence would have been severely punished. Also, it would have caused a loss of job for their husband. According to Beatty, "This stance creates a tremendous moral dilemma. The ideal of justice is that a truly just society is impartial. All the male characters are blind to what is going on and are even condescending to the women. The county attorney is the worst example of this. He is so certain that he knows what the situation entails that he will not even let other characters finish speaking. Yet, he and all the male characters cannot see the truth that is literally right in front of their faces. Mr. Hale and the sheriff cannot see that the women they live with are keeping something from them. This suggests that the entire concept of justice is flawed. Either there are

Grendels Attack essays

Grendels Attack essays The next morning I was the first warrior that was outside. I went outside to look at the Grendel. It was a beautiful sight to see that monster on his back with my sword in his heart. Thats right it wasnt Beowulfs sword, but mine. Let me start at the beginning. During the attack I was in the middle of all the action. When Grendel first attacked the king was in a panic. The only thing he said was, attack that beast. Kill him. Dont stop fighting until he is as good as dead. So all the warriors including me came rushed out to fight and take down that hideous monster. The fist person I saw when I ran out was Beowulf. He was one of the bravest if not the bravest one fighting. But he couldnt have taken Grendel alone. He couldnt have done it with his fellow warriors. While we all had to do the dirty work only one got the glory, Beowulf. If it werent for me and the other warriors, that help Beowulf, he probably would have died very quickly. In the attack Beowulf had been knocked down and ha d lost his weapon. I happened to be right there to assist him. I helped him up quickly and gave him my weapon, while I went to go and retrieved his. Right then, Beowulf charged at Grendel and stabs him in the heart. The hideous monster fell and blood had started dripping out of his mouth. Beowulf had killed the monster with my sword. Some may think that Beowulf had lead his warriors and killed Grendel. This is yet only half the story. You see if I hadnt been there to assist Beowulf and give him my sword who knows what would have happened. I might have been the one who had brought down the monster! ...