What clues lead the women to conclude that Minnie Wright
killed her husband?
There are seemingly significant clues, which led to the fact
that Mrs. Wright, or Minnie killed her husband can be found in the construction
of the plot. These clues were mostly highlighted within the observation of Mrs.
Hale and Mrs. Peter conversation in the kitchen, when they sat near to the half
clean/messy table they could see some other peculiar yet prominent ‘evidence’
which led to Minnie’s felonious act such as the left out load of bread, nervously
sewn quilt, ruined preserved fruits and most noteworthy, a broken birdcage and
the mentioning of a strangled bird.
These clues,
obliquely provide the audience a signifying sense of Mrs. Wright’s uneasiness;
unsettled, sketchy and chaotic state of the kitchen room indicating Minnie’s
inner conflict. This substantially aided by some parts of the text, which
suggests that soon after she was married she became unhappy; not as cheerful as
she were before. All she had was a canary as her companion however her husband
did not favor the bird and decided to kill it. The fact that Minnie herself was
loves to sing, in relation to the traditional literary metaphor of the bird’s
songs as the voice of the soul, ‘John
Wright not only killed her canary but her very own spirit’ (Makowsky, 62).
One may view the birdcage
as a symbolic strangling of restrained freedom, liminality bound by culture
towards Minnie and women of the time in general. “It is not just because he killed the
bird, but because Minnie herself was a caged bird . . . and he strangled her by
preventing her from communicating with others" (Alkalay-Gut 6). Hence,
Mr. Wright action of killing the bird may result in Minnie’s outrage as the
bird symbolicly reflects her freedom. The bird was a "child-substitute for the solitary
Minnie; the canary's voice was to displace the silence of a coldly
authoritarian husband and replace the sounds of the unborn children"
(Makowsky 62).
How do
the men differ from the women? from each other?
Throughout the plot, Glaspell sensibly touches
the difference state of men and women of the early twentieth-century
America. Within the construction of each
scene, man and women have been perspectively positioned differently from the
words they say, the actions they made as well as the way the characters shaped
the thematic concept.
First prominent aspects which can be seen was
women inferiority which were shown through their body language, where Glaspell
perfectly projected the essence of bonding among women by the presentation of the
women stand closely together, "the women have come in slowly and stand
close together near the door" (Glaspell). As the plot thickens,
audience could witness on how Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peter communally comprehended
men’s perception towards them and how they empathize Mrs. Wright condition and
decided to hide the evidence of the murder hence taking justice at their own
hands by letting her off the hook. Their inferiority subsequently stipulated a
sense of communial undertanding and act collectively to protect one another
from the men who self-interestedly think that their way of analyzing evidence
(while consequently criticizing Mrs. Wright) is the best and are completely dispassionate
in all the "clues" that the women suggested.
The sheriff and the county attorney, both are presented in an antagonistic
manner represented by their devaluation and degrading criticism towards the
women abilities and any of their suggestions. They also discounted all the
minor details or evidence that the women have pointed out, deemed that women
and kitchen symbolicly regarded as in relation to their minor existency and
responsibilities bound by contemporary culture understanding. The men came out
with the inference that women could not contribute anything to the process of
their investigation. Glaspell also highlighted the ineffectuality and
incompetence aspect of men during the time and their authority consequently
questioned their power by projecting their action of "physically
crisscross[ing] the stage as they verbally crisscross the details of the crime,
both actions leading nowhere, (Ben-Zvi 155). In this fashion, Glaspell
judiciously presented the fact that in spite of men ar predisposition of women,
Mr. Hale’s degrading criticism of women; "Well, women are used to worrying about
trifles.".
What do the men discover? Why do they conclude "Nothing here but kitchen things"?
Unfortunately not a single clue or
evidence were found by the men as they have been looking for major or important
clues when the women have seamlessly pointing out several vital clues which
could lead to solve their case. The women on the other hand display
intuitiveness representative of the psychoanalytic movement, viewing
the smaller things and the emotional impact they convey by observing the kitchen itself and all the sewing tools
as the prominent evidence in regard to the murder.
Despite their fallacy of judgement and
inability to find clues, the men still made fun of the women once again when
Mr. Henderson pointed out “at least we found out that she
was not going to quilt it. She was going to--what is it you call it,
ladies!" Ironically, those poor, uneducated women who were concerned
with the mere trifles of the play are actually the ones who solved the mystery
and know exactly what went on in the house.
Reference:
Alkalay-Gut, Karen. "Jury of Her Peers: The Importance of Trifles." Studies in Short Fiction 21
- (Winter 1984): 1-9.
Ben-Zvi, Linda. "'Murder, She Wrote': The Genesis of Susan Glaspell's Trifles." Theatre Journal
- 44 (March 1992): 141-62.
Glaspell, Susan. Trifles.