Comparing 'Trifles And A Jury Of Her Peers'

1430 Words3 Pages

Susan Glaspell was able to present to us a story about a woman who murdered her husband and during the journey of finding evidence to prove her guilty, her friends later ended up hiding the evidence for the protection of the woman. This was wonderfully proven to us in a play “Trifles” and a short story “A Jury of Her Peers”. These two were placed in the early 1900s where women and men played a gender role. Each serving a great purpose to society. Even though this was greatly explained with imagery and description, I do believe that “A Jury of Her Peers” aptly serves fundamentally better than the other. The reason why I believe this to be true is the short story was able to give us more content towards the story that Glaspell was trying to get …show more content…

The short story when reading it provided me with greater word usage, so that I was able to understand everything that each character was going through. Leading me to feel empathy for the woman herself. I do believe that the writing that Glaspell did was better left as a short story. You as the reader can get a better understanding of what is going on and are able to put yourself in the place as the individual characters. It didn’t leave your mind open for an interpretation or in a state of confusion. It was written well, and it provided great description and greater understanding of what women were struggling with in the 1900s. It shows you a good look at what womanhood looked like, even though murder was involved in the story. Compared to the play, I feel it just didn’t really grasp well onto the whole theme of what Glaspell was writing about. I felt as if it somewhat got looked over and dismissed. When reading the play, I couldn’t comprehend what was happening and honestly got confused about the situation

Open Document