Here are the guidelines:
- Reading responses must be AT LEAST 350 words.
- Include your full name at the end of your comments. Unnamed comments will be deleted.
- From the "Comment As" drop-down menu, choose Anonymous, then click "Publish."
- Reading responses are due by 10pm on the day PRIOR to our discussion of the required reading.
I hadn’t realized how Plays can act as a living picture of a time frame long ago. Susan Glaspell creates a piece of her reality as a woman in the 1920’s in her play Trifles. The play is based on a murder she reported about during her time as a journalist. The title works as a correlative objective as it interplayed the view men had about woman’s work in the home and the details involved in murder investigations. The men are convinced that the concerns women have are miniscule, while Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters seem to back up that belief, the ladies become the focal point taking the audience on a different journey of how the trifle of a little bird was a big deal to a lonely house wife. While the men are busy looking for motive, it’s the ladies who discover the true motive and story because of their special knowledge with the trifles of women. Glaspell truly creates a world that displays the feminine mindset during the age of a male dominant society. The dialogue back and forth between Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale has me realizing that women aspired mainly to having children and taking care of the home only. Glaspell not only captures that voice and mindset but she also wrote in the dialogue that had the men talking down on the quality of Mrs. Wright’s work in the home as they went through it for evidence. She uses Mrs. Hale as a rebuke towards male attitudes in the home when she says “I'd hate to have men coming into my kitchen, snooping around and criticizing”. In this day in age men resided as the judges and ultimate inspectors of a lady’s work and worth. This comment could be taken two different ways: it could be directed as an insult towards Mrs. Wright’s failure to keep these men out of her kitchen or it could be directed as an inward frustration about men’s judgement on house work. I choose the latter and I think the entire tone of the play is set up to build sympathy and understanding towards the hidden female world.
ReplyDelete~Brenda Gomez
I was excited to read Trifles by Susan Gospell due to its interesting topics of gender and feminism. The dialogue exchanged between characters is not something you’d hear today, the play was written in 1916 and you could tell that from the structure of the sentences. Throughout the story, the men stick with the men, and women with women. There are many examples of gender profiling in this playwright; the men are conducting business and the women discussing sewing and the cleanliness of Mrs. Wright’s house. The men could be seen as “dominant”, which was a popular thing during this era, as the men are referred to by their profession (sheriff, lawyer, etc.) while the women are based off their husbands (farmer’s wife, sheriff’s wife). The story, to me, shows a positive concentration on the female characters. A couple examples being; why weren’t the male characters shown by name? When speaking, they were known as “Sheriff”, “County Attorney”, and “Hale” (excluding the Mr. title).
ReplyDeleteThe female characters aid Mrs. Wright in keeping her innocent in the law’s eyes on several occasions. There was a sentence in the story “…as if afraid of what they, [women], are saying, but as if they can not help saying it.” that demonstrates that their dialogue was pure instinct – something inside of them that is making them help Mrs. Wright, a female, in staying out of jail. Besides that, they are also bringing some of Mrs. Wright’s belongings to her, showing the female characters being the only compassionate ones in the story while the males make remarks and laugh while conducting a murder investigation.
Only the females know about the bird, which is the biggest piece of evidence and a possible motive, and for a short while they even start questioning if maybe Mrs. Wright is possibly not as innocent as they thought. That didn’t last long though; as Mrs. Peterson raises her voice to announce that they actually don’t know who the attacker was. Speaking in a louder voice than usual is commonly connected to confidence, or in this case, attempting to convince herself that Mrs. Wright is innocent.
-Jesus Pena
I found Susan Glaspell's play Trifles rather interesting. To be completely honest I've only read a handful of plays in my life, and in this one, I was reminded of how the structure of a play vividly paints a picture for the reader. I was also reminded of the difficulty I sometimes find in keeping the order of the characters. I enjoyed the way Glaspell presented the relationship between men and women during the 1920's. The two men presented in this play are men of law and, although they suspect Mrs. Wright to be the one who murdered her husband, they can't seem to draw together motive. The women on the other hand, because they're familiar with the daily activities of house keeping, they are able to relate with Mrs. Wright and discover the abnormalities of the crime scene the men were unable to see. What I didn't understand is why the women chose not to reveal the motive to the detective and county attorney. I would have thought that the women would have been eager to put the men in their place, but perhaps I'm not understanding how severe the gender roles are during the time. I really enjoyed the character similarities Glaspell drew between the canary and Mrs. Wright.
ReplyDeleteBrian Odom
Right off the bat after reading the background/introduction part of Susan Glaspell’s “Trifles” I was immediately intrigued. I envisioned this large, creepy, wooden house with dim lighting and an overall mysterious feel to it. I saw a house similar to the one in the movie “The Sandlot”. I’m not sure why but I guess I overlooked the possibility that a play could be a mystery, so this piece for me is an absolute reminder that writing a play can be as interesting and dynamic as the writer wants it to be. I think the fact that this play is mystery/who done it piece makes it all the more entertaining to read. As I progressed through the piece I definitely got the murky-suspicious vibe from the characters themselves, the dialogue, and the actions in between the dialogue. For myself, it was a slow and lengthy read. I re-read certain parts and added pauses to increase the dramatic effects. Taking a minute to step back and look at the piece from a creative writing perspective, I feel like now I know plays can contain underlying themes within themselves, not only the obvious conflict occurring and unfolding within the scene. For this piece, I got a hint of feminism within all the commotion and trying to solve the crime. Another aspect which I found pretty cool was the change in volume for certain characters. I feel as if reading this piece really opens doors as to what all can be done to establish certain effects, emotions, and moods. On top of what Professor Moreira told us, I think this piece added onto it showing examples on how to format certain things to emphasize or establish exactly what the author is trying to deliver to the audience. The ending was mediocre in my opinion, I have a few thoughts and questions that seemed to be left open ended or unanswered. I feel slightly more comfortable with the upcoming assignment of having to write a scene but only because “Trifles” was done so well. I am by no means a professional writer and I’m sure it won’t be as easy and well put together as Susan Glaspell’s but I feel like it could be a fun learning experience. Nevertheless, after reading this scene I would probably enjoy it even more if I could see it in person or other plays with a similar genre.
ReplyDelete-Alfredo Montemayor
The way it is written kind of really scared me a bit and made me not want to read it. But once I started reading it and I got the hang of it, it turned out to be a really interesting play. This reading has really helped me understand how to properly write a play with dialogue between the characters. Susan Glaspell’s “Trifles” is, to me, a window into the early nineteenth century. The way Glaspell portrays men as the dominant gender and Glaspell really works around this and instead of putting down women and their “trifles” it turns out that the women of the play are more in tune to Mrs. Wright’s daily activities and can there for determine if she is innocent or guilty. I really like the whole feminist notion especially at the end of the play when Mrs. Hale hides the dead canary in her pocket and say “WE call it Knot it.” Which, after reading major images found in Glaspell’s “Trifles”, turns out to be symbolic of the knot around the husbands noose. Another notion that I noticed that deals with some type of feminism is the fact that the men start making fun of the women and their “Trifles” and after that Glaspell starts to make them move closer and closer with each other than before when the men hadn’t made fun of the women. Which is a really good play of words to reference the crime that was committed that they think Mrs. Wright committed or did commit. -Lowen Sauceda
ReplyDeleteAt first I was a little confused at the language being thrown used but i quickly caught on. I like how the author expresses the men's ignorance by promoting how women couldn't keep a kitchen clean or the towels are all dirty. It was a great symbolism of hating on the women. And through out the story, both women argue to see whether either one of them think that the woman of the household actually killed the man upstairs. In the end, I think they ended up helping the old woman because of how the men were treating them unequally and making fun of them. Now, I think this is important because they (women) show that they have this old woman back, but they don't know entirely if she had killed him or not. Overall it was a very great scene to read and follow.
ReplyDelete-Christopher Capello
It is very surprising, how something big and very realistic, understandable, and captivating a playwright can be. Susan Glaspell, “Trifles,” was honestly pretty awesome. This might be because I really have read anything like this, but it gives me hope. The way Glaspell organized this was inspiring. I notice that here we have more sections included, the literary background, the biographical influences, explanation of the major images found in “Trifles”: it just made more sense, when they the writers layout more information, that is very useful in making us understand why the characters are they we they are. As well as setting the picture, this is a glimpse of what we know, before we actually imagine the characters accents and personalities as we read throughout it. Every character adds shape to the scenario they stand upon. To me I think the actions and motions that Glaspell gave each character, added fire to the diction. I noticed that it was not a plan conversation, even though they were conversing with each other. It is the fact that their actions send us proper signals that we understand the mood in the situation they are in. In addition, within the script, I notice that the motions Glaspell is also taking in consideration, that there is a stage. Transition needs to be made, in my mind and idea, so that the playwright can have effect in the play and give it life. It is a sort of strategy to identify how events and other changes occur within the play. I also think that Glaspell does a great job, in keeping the time constant in the play, like it is cold in the beginning and then along the lines of the characters, they continue to shiver. Something I liked about this, is that as the characters open doors, they also look around, and Glaspell uses words like, “examines, glancing, stares…” and I think this is to provoke us to understand is they are ashamed, hiding some sort of emotion. So overall, I love how this is easy to read and grasp, as we picture it in our head, yet, I think that an idea is created when you have absolute knowledge about the situation and how creative one knows how to get. It really is interesting.
ReplyDelete-Maria J. Salinas
I had read this play before in high school, but it is definitely one I do not get tired of reading. Like any good play, you can picture it going on inside your head. The lighting, the set, and the blocking of the all characters seem to fall into place. The play really does reflect the time period, as well as show how women were treated as less than men. All around, this play has a huge theme of gender profiling and feminism. I found it amusing how the men tried so hard to look for clues, all the while making snarky remarks about women, when the women didn’t even have to try “exploring.” It’s almost like all the women had a bond with each other, like they were meant to find the bird so they could protect her. I was intrigued by the secrecy going on onstage with the women every time the men went offstage. I assume the women during that time period were very similar to that. They were used to the way their husbands spoke about women and knew their husbands would assume they wouldn’t find any evidence. They had to stick together for their own sake. In a way, I feel as though they knew why she did it. They must have had some kind of idea on how she was feeling because basically all women were trapped in that time period. They were kept on a leash, yet their husbands “knew” they wouldn’t be capable of doing anything. Another theme I saw was sisterhood. I’m more than sure the women knew she was guilty, but because they saw she had a reason for her act they let it go. Another small act of sisterhood is seen at the ending of the excerpt when Mrs. Peters is trying to hide the box inside her bag, but it is too big. Mrs. Hale then snatches it from her and puts it inside her coat pocket – slick, as though nothing happened. Almost as if the whole situation and them finding major evidence never happened either. I really love the last line spoken in the play, it is sure to give anyone chills! All around, I love this play, and I have never seen it performed, but I really want to. It is an excellent play.
ReplyDelete-Alyssa Ramos
The required reading that was needed to be done for the next class session in my point of view was very different from what we have been reading before. Of course this is a play so the formation is very different from those of a fiction and nonfiction story. Not so much in the writing format but the way certain things are established and used. In my perspective I did not really like this piece. It kind of made me fall asleep, but it did have some things that were able to catch my attention.
ReplyDeleteThe way this play was set up made the story line flow very fluently and made it seem as if I was reading something that I could picture in my mind. Along with the italicized notes I was able to picture the character along with it knowing how exactly they were to express themselves during that moment, or what was the mood of the scene.
The characters that were chosen for this place I believe were all of great fit in the matter that not to many characters was used and each character was of a special need in the play. Characters is a big part of plays and the way each character portrays themselves and this author did some good work on making each character express themselves in a different matter with the use of language. Language in this play I believed was very fluent and was made to sound as if this was a play in the old age. It gave me that feeling as if the time was not of modern days. Language can be used to set up a setting as well, which this author showed very nicely. Dialogue was fluent and made it seem as if the conversations that these characters were carrying out was going well based with the story line of the play.
This play had many things that made a reader and writer as myself learn new tactics for writing and see what different strategies can be used when it comes to writing plays weather they be short or long plays.
-Alicia Lucio
The way Susan Glaspell in “Trifles” represents men as the dominant gender amused me slightly in this piece. We’re able to clearly witness that times have evolved from the nineteenth century and now woman can say that they can present a dominant gender role to society as well. In this piece, Glaspell works to get that the women in “Trifles” are more in tune with the ideas of the crime and what is happening. In this play, Mrs. Wright’s daily activities are able to better determine if she is innocent or guilty from a crime that has been assumed of her. I come to appreciate this play and enjoyed reading because in some way I was able to build small likings to the central idea of inequality. I liked certain characters which had me reading faster while at the same time tried to analyze the central conflict occurring and unfolding within the scenes. Having the two men presented in this play are men of law and, although they suspect Mrs. Wright to be the one who murdered her husband, they couldn’t seem to draw the motive. The women on the other hand, were familiar with the daily activities of house keeping along with building that sympathy and understanding towards the hidden female world behind closed doors. With this in notion, the women can better see with Mrs. Wright and discover the abnormalities of the crime scene the men were unable to see. I believe that gender profiling in this playwright was an example that the men are unable to determine and the women discussing sewing and the cleanliness of Mrs. Wright’s house.
ReplyDelete-Natasha Villarreal
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found this piece new since I have not read a play in forever since high school. You really have to pay attention to the dialogue and specific details in the play piece. Reading the introduction that the writer supported feminism and lived in a community of socialism and feminism. Seeing as her background was for this, I could see why others saw the males stuck together and the females stuck to themselves. The females may have felt the males would not understand. The males were men of the law, a sheriff and a county attorney. I don't get why their wives had to join but they had their own opinions on their on sexes. The victim was a dead man and the wife of the dead man was just there shocked. She was knitting or something and seemed suspicious even when asked questions by the men. They tried finding clues but could not find much on the case. The woman felt they knew what had happened but did not seem to really care to help because the men were quick to say females had to do all these duties. But could be it was hard for the men to quickly determine what their opinion was without evidence. The characters were different and interesting with how they reacted to the scene.
ReplyDelete-Adelisa Fuentes
Trifles was an interesting play, I wasn’t really drawled into it at first. The play seemed a little dull when the men were talking, even with the aspect of murder looming over the play. I think that this was intentional, seeing as how the focus was on the women. It wasn’t until Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters started talking that the story really picked up. The manner in which the dialogue was exchanged and the right amount of detail explain what was going outside of the conversations really put me in that same room with the characters. The conversations were very much alive. One aspect I enjoyed more than anything else was the way the men were so smug about the situation, looking down on the women when in reality they had a better understanding of what was going on. Another noticeable aspect of the play was how subtle a lot of the meanings were. The choir girl, the bird, and the knots. Not all of it was laid out and spoon fed to the reader but rather very subtle and that speaks louder for the motives of the murderess. In our readings I have consistently seen examples of how well subtlety works in literature. In this play it was particularly noticeable because of the fact that two main characters were only in this setting, not because they were a part of the investigation but just to gather clothes and in doing so actually figured out more than those who were meant to. All of the conversations leading to the conclusions made it that much more powerful. In my works I hope to actively engage my readers to the point that they aren’t reading this story in their own voice but in the voice of my characters. I want to remove them from the mindset that they are simply just reading a play and place them in the world that I have created. Trifles did exactly this with its brilliant use of character development, dialogue, setting, and most importantly it’s conclusion, which really spoke volumes for women and their state of mind in this particular time period.
ReplyDelete- Alvaro Pulido
While reading this, I feel as there were a lot of characters, it kept going from back and back and forth jumping to character. It seemed a bit overwhelming for me throughout the entire play. I like how a play has a bunch of action scenes in italicized, it makes more sense if they are being read. I myself tend to skip that in plays but in this one, there was no way I could just read pass them because they make the play so much understandable. I’m not too sure what was the point of this, I like stories and plays to have a meaning in the end. I think it makes its more realistic. Maybe with the authors point for this, I could think that the husband and the bird had the same type of death with the rope strung on the neck, the same marking a rope would leave on a neck were the same for both. I believe the wife could have possibly murdered both. Another possibility I’m thinking was how they were both killed, the bird and the man…maybe the man killed the bird to keep out of its own misery because while living with the woman the bird was going to die eventually. I believe without the scene action words this play wouldn’t have the same effect as it already gives it off. i then looked up what "trifles" means and its something little that has important value, so in my opinion, i believe the bird is the trifles in this play.
ReplyDelete-arianna tabares