Trifles by Minnie Wright - Essay Example

“Trifles Minnie Wright’s Guilt. Susan Glaspell’s play, “Trifles,” poses a moral dilemma about law and justice. John Wright has been discovered murdered in bed, strangled with a rope round his neck. His wife, Minnie, has been arrested on suspicion of murder and is being held in the county jail. She denies the accusation and pleads ignorance as to what happened. Henry Peters, the Sheriff, George Henderson, the County Attorney, and Lewis Hale, a neighboring farmer, are in the house along with Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale. The officials search in vain for evidence which could provide a motive for the murder. The women are there to collect a few clothes and necessities to take to Minnie. As they move round the house, the women find the cage of Minnie’s pet canary broken open and then find the corpse of the bird in a box with its neck wrung. It is obvious to Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale that Wright has killed the canary and this is Millie’s motive for murdering her husband. In a show of feminine empathy and solidarity, the two women conceal Minnie’s crime from the men. The moral dilemma of the play lies in the unspoken debate on Minnie’s guilt, or innocence, and the rightness of the action of the women. Minnie Wright should not be found guilty of her actions because of the personality of her husband, the fact that she has been punished enough, and the low chances of her receiving justice at the hands of a largely male jury. John Wright is a man of queer character. He is obviously not a sociable man and is critical of others. Refusing to join Lewis Hale in a party telephone, Wright says, “folks talked too much anyway, and all he asked was peace and quiet” (Glaspell, 5). It is clear that he is a taciturn, unsociable man who prefers to be a loner. His personality is characterized by the absence of any trace of joy. Mrs. Hale tells the County Attorney, “I don’t think a place’d be any cheerfuller for John Wright’s being in it” (Glaspell, 11). It is acknowledged that, in spite of being “good” in terms of being a teetotaler , truthful and paying his debts, he is undoubtedly “a hard man” (Glaspell, 22). Again, in every reference to the murdered man, there are suggestions that he was not a good husband. Hale hints of Wright’s indifference to Minnie’s needs by saying, “I didn’t know as what his wife wanted made much difference to John” (Glaspell, 5). Mrs. Hale confirms her husband’s view of Wright by pointing out that he did not have the homemaking instinct. Wright is so close-fisted that he does not give Minnie the little money she needs to join the Ladies Aid. His wife does not have the means to wear pretty clothes and is forced to be shabbily turned out. Above all, it is evident that John Wright had a cruel streak in him. This is demonstrated in his killing of the canary. There is no doubt that Wright is the one who wrung the bird’s neck. A man who could break open a bird cage and brutally strangle the helpless creature is not a man to live with. John Wright’s character is definitely an extenuating factor in any estimation of Minnie’s actions and her guilt. Wright’s character is such that any woman who is constrained to share his life undergoes a form of punishment. Minnie Wright has been punished enough over her years as John Wright’s wife. When just a casual meeting with the man is “like a raw wind that gets to the bone” (Glaspell, 22), it is clear that being his wife is hell. The woman who “used to wear pretty clothes and be lively, when she was Minnie Foster, one of the town girls singing in the choir,” (Glaspell, 14) is transformed by her marriage into a shabbily dressed, silent housewife. The transformation is so great, that Mrs. Hale exclaims in emphatic wonder, “How – she – did – change (Glaspell, 22). Wright’s off-putting personality ensures that she has no visitors and remains in lonely isolation. His tight-fistedness closes Minnie’s door to any social life. Mrs. Hale regrets the fact that she never bothered to visit Minnie and gives her reason: “I stayed away because it weren’t cheerful” (Glaspell, 21). She admits that she used her children and her work only as an excuse to avoid visiting the Wright’s lonely, cheerless house. Minnie’s love of singing is evident in her role in the town choir. Wright has somehow taken a sadistic pleasure in denying her this simple pleasure in life. Mrs. Hale says, “She used to sing. He killed that, too” (Glaspell, 25). Wright kills the canary Minnie buys. He is determined to deprive her of music. If the “kind of timid and --- fluttery” (Glaspell, 22) Minnie could be goaded into strangling her husband in his sleep, it is clear that she has been goaded beyond the limits of human endurance. In fact, there are indications of her having been pushed into insanity. Her behavior after the murder – rocking herself, compulsively pleating her skirt, vacuous replies and denial of knowledge about the strangling- points to a woman in psychological trauma. She asks about her preserves, and is unaware of the seriousness of her situation. The cruelties of Minnie’s existence as Wright’s wife, and her position on the edge of insanity, are punishment enough for her crime. There is no possibility of Minnie receiving justice if she is found guilty and is brought to trial for murder. She will be judged by a predominantly male jury. The only issue which such a jury will consider is her crime of “Killing a man while he slept, slipping a rope around his neck that choked the life out of him” (Glaspell, 26). The course adopted by the law will guide their judgment. Such a law is general and is not applicable to specific cases. In this context, the specific circumstances of Minnie Wright’s life, including her husband’s cruelty, her isolation and her descent to rage and insanity will be ignored. To the male-centric jury, the privations of Minnie’s life, the snuffing-out of her vitality and love of music and her canary will all be disregarded as mere domestic ‘trifles.’ The stillness of the house after the deliberate killing of the songbird cannot be imagined by a man. The loneliness can only be felt by a woman who stays at home all day long. Men do not “know how things can be --- for women” (Glaspell, 27). Men would not understand how Minnie reaches a stage when she feels that she has run out of all options. Minnie will be found guilty of murder, as the jury will take the unequivocal stand that “The law has got to punish crime” (Glaspell, 27). Wright’s crimes against his wife, the townspeople’s’ crime in leaving Minnie to her isolation and society’s crime of unequal treatment of women will go unpunished. Minnie Wright will be punished further, aggravating the suffering she has already endured. The terms of the law will be met but justice will be ignored. Minnie Wright is guilty of murdering her husband. The audience can be justified in reaching this conclusion in the play. However, the moral dilemma lies in whether the cause of justice is served by finding Minnie guilty of her actions. The women conceal the evidence which could throw light on Minnie’s motives for murdering her husband. It can be assumed that, in the absence of a definite motive, Minnie will not be found guilty of murder. The women are justified in their actions. Minnie Wright should not be found guilty because she has already paid the price for her crime. She has spent years as the wife of the cruel, suppressive John Wright. He has killed the joy and music in her soul and made her an exhausted, worn-out woman. She has been pushed to the brink of insanity by the mental trauma she has experienced. It is doubtful whether she will recover the emotional balance of her former life. In addition to this, it is very doubtful whether a jury dominated by men will understand the workings of her mind and the circumstances of her life. When it is realized that Minnie Wright will be tried completely on the basis of her physical actions and the entire emotional context will be ignored, it is clear that finding her guilty can only be a serious miscarriage of justice. In these circumstances, Minnie Wright should not be found guilty. Works Cited. Glaspell, Susan. “Trifles.” Portable Legacies: Fiction, Poetry, Drama, Nonfiction. Schmidt, Jan and Lynne Crockett. New York: Cengage Learning, 2012. 617-626. Print. My copy of the text: http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=GlaTrif.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div1 Read More