week2.html

<title> CS349 Spring 2019: Robert McInvale</title>
<h1 style = "font-size:300%;"><b> Robert McInvale CS 349 Blog</h1></b>
<h2 style = "font-size:200%;">Week 2 - Writing Analysis (A Jury of Her Peers)</h1></b>

<p>

At its core, “A Jury of Her Peers” is a story that asks the reader to examine the ethicality of supporting a system that systematically ignores and oppresses half of its population. Susan Glaspell’s story revolves around the murder of John Wright, but its key moral dilemma is not centered around the murder itself. Instead, Glaspell takes us on a journey through the eyes of two women, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters, peers of John Wright’s wife who are, throughout the story, treated with dismissive contempt by the men who rule their lives. This theme continues as Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters gradually piece together an image of Mrs. Wright’s home life, eventually coming to an understanding that she was guilty of murdering her husband - a cruel, harsh man who had long mistreated her. It is here that the moral dilemma of the story presents itself, as the two women are then forced to decide whether to reveal the the vital clues they have unearthed, leading surely to Mrs. Wright’s conviction for murder, or to remain silent, lending their tacit approval to her violent bid for freedom.
<br><br>

In the end, both women choose to play dumb, affording Mrs. Wright a powerful chance to be acquitted in court. Given Glaspell’s background as a feminist writer, this is not surprising<sup>1</sup>. “A Jury of Her Peers” was written in 1917, but was based on true events occuring in 1900 and covered by a young Susan Glaspell, who was working as a journalist at the time<sup>2</sup>. Nearly two decades later, she set pen to paper, working to convey her apparent approval of “Mrs. Wright’s” actions - the actions of a woman desperate to free herself from the cage of an abusive husband. Throughout the story we are repeatedly shown examples of the state of gender affairs in the early 20th century, and Glaspell’s feminist criticism of her patronizing male characters shines through clearly; while they haughtily pass over evidence critical to the case, the story’s female protagonists assemble a complete picture of Mrs. Wright’s life, and execute a form of justice that, it is implied, only women are capable of: verdict by a jury of her peers.
<br><br>

The heading of Glaspell’s moral compass seems clear from the style, presentation, and content of her story. However, becoming complicit to murder is neither an easy choice nor clearly a moral one, and so for many readers an ethical dilemma arises in evaluating the actions of Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters. On the one hand, in the early 1900s murder may have been the only recourse for a battered wife to find her freedom, and protecting Mrs. Wright’s choice may have, in some way, advanced the cause for gender equality. On the other hand, the judgement of the women was based largely on inference and guesswork, and they were, after all is said and done, protecting a likely murderer. The morality of their actions is not clear - though Glaspell certainly approved.

</p>

<p>
<sup>1</sup><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/theater/newsandfeatures/rediscovering-a-playwright-lost-to-time.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/theater/newsandfeatures/rediscovering-a-playwright-lost-to-time.html</a><br>
<sup>2</sup><a href="https://loa-shared.s3.amazonaws.com/static/pdf/Glaspell_Hossack_Murder.pdf">https://loa-shared.s3.amazonaws.com/static/pdf/Glaspell_Hossack_Murder.pdf</a>

</p>