i
MALE CHARACTERS’ REACTIONS LEADING TO
THE FAILURE OF MOTIVE DISCLOSURE
IN SUSAN GLASPELL’S
TRIFLES
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of Requirements
for the Degree ofSarjana Sastra
in English Letters
By
ELIZABET AYU ANGELIIA
Student Number :114214114
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
1 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
Humans are social creatures. They cannot live without other humans. They
need to get along with others in order to fulfill their needs. Both primary and
secondary needs cannot be completed all alone. People make a family to fulfill the
need of affection and procreation. It started with a small group of family. A family
needs house to live in, clothes to wear, and also food to eat. The needs will
become easier to get when some families gather and make a society. In a society
they can divide the job and share what they have to complete their need. The
people who are gathered then also make some rules and customs in order to make
the life runs better. Smith stated as follows:
As populations began to grow, more and more people had to live together to maximize resource utilization and provide adequate safety. Just as biological entities adapt and evolve to survive better, the societies that people found themselves living in began changing with time. Rules and customs arose, which led to the formation of Freud's superego, that aspect of the mind that compares oneself to the ideal member of the society. (Brian: 2015)
Living in society also leads human to fit in. Humans will try to be
accepted and have status in the society. They are also living in a group that
rises because of the same personality. InTrifles,the play that is discussed in this thesis, we can see the characters are divided into two groups. The
first one is the women and the second one is the men. The grouping exist
each group. What make it important is that those different nature of each
group finally lead to the failure of motive disclosure, the main purpose of
Trifles. As stated by Spirkin:
Through the group a person rises to the level of a personality, a conscious subject of historical creativity. The group is the first shaper of the personality, and the group itself is shaped by society. (Spirkin: 2015)
In the life with others in group, human will have something that is expected from.
Furthermore, besides running their status in society they also have to play their
role. Human are created differently one another. There are men and women. Men
and women have role in society. The attitude and action that expected from men
and women by the society are different. In the article “What do we mean by “sex”
and “gender”?”:
"Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. (apps.who.int, December 5th 2016)
In this study, the different nature of men and women is really important
because it is actually the main cause which makes the disclosure of the motive in
Susan Glaspell’s Trifles failed. The nature that is being a focus here is also influenced by the gender which is constructed by society where the characters
live. Different perception toward something, different point of view, and different
way of thinking make their ideas about motive are also different.
At the end of the play the men are still uninterested to what women do.
They also do not care about the things that the women bring. That became a good
important, although they did. The men did not expect the women to find the
motive so anything done by the women seemed unimportant. This phenomenon is
interesting, how the men act toward women, and what is expected from women
also become a matter because by looking down something, an important thing that
may lays behind it will be covered.
As Nicole Smith stated:
Because the men do not expect the women to make a contribution to the investigation, they are disinterested in the women’s astute impressions and valuable findings that solved the murder case. (Nicole:2011)
Trifles is a gilt edged play script because it riches of culture and message.
Susan Glaspell, the author, is a journalist and the book she wrote which was based
on true case play script is exactly the reflection of social condition at that time.
This play is also well-known as a strong feminist play which has important role of
feminist movement as supported by Jaworowski.
“Trifles,” written by Susan Glaspell and first performed in 1916, has become a staple of theater studies. Though the play is celebrated as an early feminist drama, it stands on its own as an engrossing story. In the tale, two women, Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale, gradually uncover the motive for a murder, while their male counterparts are blinded by ignorance and insensitivity. (Jaworowski: 2015)
The message conveyed in this play script can be relevant to any era. Many
failures in this world happen because of the ignorance of trifles. Those reasons
make this play script worth analyzing.
There is a correlation between many cases happening today with Trifles.
corruption case of Angelina Sondakh. The text she sent to her partner used the
words Apel Malang and Apel Washington as symbol of money.
“Menurut Rosa, istilah "apel malang" berarti "uang rupiah", "apel washington" berarti "dollar AS", "pelumas" berarti "uang", demikian juga dengan arti "semangka" yang menunjukkan "permintaan dana". "Apel malang, apel washington, pelumas, semangka," tutur Rosa saat bersaksi untuk terdakwa kasus dugaan suap wisma atlet, Muhammad Nazaruddin,
Trans : According to Rosa, the term “Malang Apple” (Apple that grown in Malang, East Java) means “Rupiah”, “Washington Apple”, means “US Dollar”, ” lubricant” means “money”, and it is similar with the meaning of “watermelon” which means “money proposal”. “Malang Apple, Washington Apple, lubricant, watermelon” Rosa said in his statement as a witness for a defendant of Wisma Atlet bribe assumption case, Muhammad Nazarudin,”(Icha: 2012)
The symbol is so meaningful, if the symbol is ignored, the case will never be
revealed. In trifles the man characters ignore simple thing and do not consider the
background of the murderer in examining the motive.
The woman who is being the murderer in the play is being underestimated
by the men. One important message that is conveyed in Trifles is we should not
look down things that seem unimportant because anything can be valuable, and
has possibility to reveal something. Another point is about the discrimination of
women. Today, the discrimination of women still exists and that may result in bad
things like what is happened in Trifles. Not to stand for the murdering action, but
writer also think that no one is fair to be looked down. Everyone has his/her
B. Problem Formulation
To proof that the natures of man characters in Glaspell’s Trifles influence the failure of motive disclosure, writer make these three questions. These
questions will answer the problems that are disclosed orderly.
1. What are the natures of male characters in Susan Glaspell’sTrifles? 2. What happened in the each part of plot?
3. How do male characters’ reactions lead to the failure of motive disclosure?
C. Object of the Study
The aim of this study is to get the explanation of the failure of motif
disclosure by examining first, the nature of man characters. After that, writer
analyzed how the story is constructed. Finally, the relation of male characters and
how the story flows disclosed the failure
D. Definition of Terms
There are several terms that are decent to be explained.. The first one is
male. Male refers to sex of human. It is biologically built or naturally given from
the birth.
Male is a sex of human in general. It refers to a biological aspect of human that
carries some natural characteristic. Male has interest to Female. Male is a human
with testosterone. Male does not always refer to man because man is given the
expected role by the society while male is not. Male as a sex is naturally given
instead of made by expected role from society.
The second one is Motive. Motive here related to law. This refers to the
reason why Minnie foster kill her husband.
In Law, this is why one committed the crime, the inducement, reason, or willful desire and purpose behind the commission of an offense. Whether the purpose was good, like helping someone commit suicide, or bad, like committing murder, it is not a deciding factor in deciding guilt or innocence. But, intent is. In a libel case, it has importance. It may be used by a defending attorney in punishment mitigation or by a prosecuting attorney as circumstantial evidence to prove guilt. (http://thelawdictionary.org/motive/: 2016)
The motive can be a consideration of the Attorney in punishment mitigation.
Motive is something that stimulate someone to do a crime. There are many
reasons for someone to do a crime for example; to revenge the death of his father,
a man killed his uncle, who had killed his father. The motive here is a triger of the
criminal case.
The third one is Character. According to www.playwriting101.com
character is any personified entity appearing in a film or a play. Character is the
actor of the play which is made b the author to run the story. Character’s action,
7 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A. Review of Related Studies
A research of related study which is relevant to equip writer’s knowledge
in doing this thesis research is very important. Writer uses “A Futile Attempt at
Destroying Part of Existence: A New Criticism Study of Edgar Alan Poe’s The
Fall of The House of Usher” by Tita Perwitasari and “Susan Glaspell View
Toward Women’s Position in Her Age as Seen in Her Trifles” Female Character”
by Ratna Kumalasari as references of related studies.
First, writer reviewed on Perwitasari’s. She takes the same approach as the
writer, which is new criticism. In her work she analyze how the character, setting,
plot, symbol, motive are described in the short story. Some of the aspects of
fiction that are being analyzed are similar with the writer’s. Perwitasari also does
further analysis and looks deeper to the significance of those elements interrelated
to convey the meaning of the title.
The same thing is done by the writer. First the writer analyzes some
aspect of the literary text and then correlates it to find the final message. As she
uses new criticism as her approach, Perwitasari only refers to what stated in the
text and does not go outside the text. The step that she take also set in order and
relevant to get the aim of her study.
Perwitasari used the theory of symbol to disclose the symbols that may
carry the meaning of the story. By using theory of setting Perwitasari can differ
which have connection with setting and the character of Rodrick Usher. Then she
uses theory of setting to know whether the setting has influence to the story or not.
The theory of character and characterization is also used. It is really important to
her to use the theory because there are three characters which are significant to
comprehend the story. The theory of plot is used to construct the arrangement of
the story so that she can disclose the events and the reaction of the character
toward it. After all Perwitasari also reviews on Gothic romance. Gothic romance
will help her to find out the motif of the story and finally the overall meaning of
the story can be revealed.
The overall meaning of the story is about a futile effort of destroying a part
of existence. This is how it becomes. Roderick Usher and Madeline are identical
twins. Usher was also born with the same soul as Madeline. What is felt by
Madeline is also felt by Usher. One day. Madeline felt sick and since she and
Usher shared the same fate, Usher also felt sick. Usher could not bear it anymore.
He buried Madeline in the lowest part of the house so that he could stay away
from Madeline. Madeline was dying and so was Usher. Finally Usher gave up and
let Madeline destroyed his struggle.
Another study that the writer takes is “Susan Glaspell View toward
Women’s Position in Her Age as Seen in Her Trifles” by Ratna Kumalasari. She
uses feminism but the object that is taken is similar with writer. Kumalasari
analyzedTriflesthrough the women characters to get the knowledge about women position in Susan Glaspell age.
First, Kumalasari analyzed how the female characters are described in the
play-script. Then, she reviewed about women position in Susan Glaspell’s age
seen in female characters. At the end, Kumalasari concluded about Susan
Glaspell’s view toward women’s position through her female characters inTrifles.
Kumalasari reviewed the female characters one by one and analyzed their
characters. She used the theory of character and characterization and so did the
writier. She got the characters of women characters by analyzing their act,
utterances, and also by what was stated by the narrator.
After that in her study Kumalasari reviewed about women position in
Glaspell’s era seen through her female characters. Mrs. Peters, Mrs. Wright, and
Mrs. Hale reflected the position of women in the society.
“The writer sees that there is a relation between Susan Glaspell’s female character in herTrifles and the women in Susan Glaspell’s age that is their position in the society (politics, economics, education, and a family) concerned to men’s.” (Kumalasari, 2008:35)
Women’s position in society depends on the men’s. Men became the leader to
At the last part of her analysis, Kumalasari stated some views of Susan
Glaspell toward women position in her age. The first one is that Susan Glaspell’s
view about the inferior position of women in her age. This is happened in a
marriage life and also in education field.
The second one is the truth about women’s strength and intelligence.
Kumalasari stated that Glaspell through her Trifles shows the reader about the strength of women in her age. Women can overthrow men oppression although
they are not as strong as men physically. Women are also brilliant and critical. It
is proved by Mrs. Hale’s and Mrs. Peter’s success to find and hide the motive
from the men (Kumalasari, 2008:48)
The third one is about Susan Glaspell’s view about the equality between
men and women. The facts that women are strong, brilliant, and critical lead us to
the equality between them.
“In the play, Susan Glaspell showed that female characters are lacked of freedom and chance to improve themselves. Mrs. Wright lost her right to develop her ability in singing. Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale are not given the opportunity to join into men’s investigation”(Kumalasari, 2008: 49)
The fourth is Susan Glaspell’s criticism toward her patriarchal society.
Glaspell saw that society create obstacles towards women to improve their ability.
Patriarchal society judge women do not have some abilities that finally made
women stuck in that determination. (Kumalasari, 2008:49)
The fifth is Susan Glaspell’s view about women’s need of awareness of
and surrender to men oppression. They gave up on those thought that they were
less intelligent, strong, and they also felt unworthy. The last one is Susan
Glaspell’s view about the opportunity for women.
“As the result, women did not try to change the condition. Therefore, Susan Glaspell saw that women in her age should be made aware of the truth about women.”(Kumalasari, 2008:51)
Different to Kumalasari, writer focuses on the male characters failure to
disclose the motive of the murder. Kumalasari work is also important to this
study. It is really helpful to see the nature of women who successes to reveal motif
of the murder. By seeing the nature of women, writer can seek for the contrasted
natures belong to the men. Furthermore, writer can also analyze what background
belongs to the women which do not belong to the men which influence the
success of motive disclosure.
Besides those studies, writer also takes some articles about Susan Glaspell
Trifles. They are “A Woman's Place: Literary Background for Glaspell's Trifles”
by Mikes Maillakais and “Sometimes, It Takes a Woman to Solve a Murder”by Ken Jaworowski.
Mikes Maillakais in his article said that Glaspell is coming along with the
message of inequality of sexes. Glaspell is just like two other her predecessor
Kate Chopin and Fanny Fern. The topics they are talked about are the same. It is
about how female defend in the patriarchal world.
In his article Maillakais also wrote that Glaspell started to write openly
Player. In Princetown Player there are also Chopin and Fen that finally give much
influence to Glaspell’s Trifles.
“Like many other women writers, Chopin and Fern wrote about the inequality of the sexes and the inability of women to live their own lives without reliance on men; in this way, they helped pave the way for female writers of the twentieth century. Glaspell, who struggled with similar themes and concerns, inherited a rich legacy from these women.(Maillakais: 2015)
Glaspell’s work was also influenced by her husband. She married to
George cook who was also Princetown Player. Using Glaspell word “A New
Vision”, an expression that she used in her second novelThe Visioning, Cook had given her a new idea about socialism, how women supposed to get in social life,
and also the realistic view of a world around women.
“Her husband, George Cook, also a member of the players, introduced her to new ways of thinking: "she had met Cook and was pulled into the world of socialism, a concern with women's suffrage, and a more realistic apprehension of the world around her--a new vision--which was expressed in her second novel,The Visioning(1911)" Maillakais: 2015)
Another article is “Sometimes, It Takes a Woman to Solve a Murder” by
Ken Jaworowski. Jaworowski said that Trifles is “The experimental troupe
Theater of a Two-Headed Calf”. It means that this play showed contrast between
foolishness and cleverness, weakness and strength, and tenderness and rudeness.
It made the reader to see deeper to the story because what behold in surface can be
so different from what the true meaning is.
Jaworowski also stated that the women succeeded to uncover the motive
while the men could not. The women who were looking for the trifles, which were
considered as useful deeds by the men, on the other hand became the search of the
detailed information of the murderer. Men in this play were so ignorance and
insensitive that make them could not see the motive, or they were just too
confident that they could not relate the murderer and the things which is related to
it. With the sense of women, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peter easily colud get the motive
by following the clue step by step through the things they found in the kitchen.
Kitchen is the place they knew well, and the murderer knew well too, but it was
unseen by the men.
These two articles help the writer to gather the ideas which are relevant to
this study. The ideas that are shared in the articles are also in line with this study.
Writer uses the information from these two articles, which mostly looks closely to
the role of women, to figure out the failure of men characters to disclose the
motive of the murder.
B. Review of Related Theories
1. Character and Characterization
Character is an important element in the fiction. Roger B. Henkle
(1997:88) stated that there are major and secondary characters. Henkle stated that
using the term hero and heroine is not proper because in some work of literature
The major character is the most supported character in the novel. The other elements in the novel are created to support it existence while the secondary character is a character which is less prominent than the major character. (Henkle, 1977: 88)
The major character is the focus of the story. All of the elements in the
story support the major character to reach the goal of the story. The secondary
character is also important because it makes the story goes. Secondary character
as a proponent acts to show how the major character is built.
In his book, Henkle also mention theory by E. M. Foster which stated
about flat and round character.
In a famous definition of fictional characters, the early twentieth-century novelist E. M. Foster said that there are “flat” characters who are compelled by a set idea in their creator, and “round” characters who embody all the variations and complexities of human nature. (Henkle, 1977: 91)
Flat characters are characters which remains the same from beginning until the
end of the story. Its character is brought by the creator. Usually secondary
characters are flat characters. They carry the quality that support the major
characters. Round characters are the characters which experience a change. They
are livelier and show reaction toward event or other things by changing their
characters. Round characters show the reader the nature of human that make the
story more actual.
Here are the characteristics of major character found in Henkle’s book.
The first one is that the major character built the value and encouraged the reader
As we noted in Chapter 3, the major character in a novel perform a key structural function: upon them we build expectations and desires, which, in modification, shift or establish our values. (Henkle, 1977: 92)
The creation of major character here is to make a convincing drama and to show
human issues of the book by the amplitude and attention given to it.
As the writer turn to secondary character, however, we discover that they perform more limited functions. In order to understand the role of a secondary
character, we must identify some of those functions.
The most obvious function of secondary characters is to populate the world of the novel. Since fiction presents human context, the secondary character establish that context. (Henkle, 1977:94)
In other word secondary character is made to support the real-like world in the
novel. It also stands for the better understanding of the major character.
To give a certain character the author do what is called characterization.
Characterization is the central to the fictional experience. Factors that enable author to communicate human qualities and guide us to understanding of human themes in the novel are complexity of the characterization. It is about the attention given certain figures and personal intensity that a character seems to transmit. (Henkle, 1977: 86,87)
Characterization is the way how the characters are made by the creator. The
process of the characters maker, why do they have certain natures, how do impact
of their nature to other characters, and also why do they have certain habits are
some of the consideration that the author make to create a characters in a story.
There are some clues of how the characters are disclosed. The first is from
what they themselves say. The second one is from what other characters say about
them. Then, it also stated implicitly in the action that they did. The last one is
from the statements of the author of the story (Jacobs, 1986: 122-124)
Reader can disclose the nature of characters in fiction by analyzing what
they themselves say. For example, in Glaspell’s Trifles the writer can conclude that the men underestimate women by their saying. The men said that women
used to worry over trifles.
The second one is by what other say about them. From the utterances of
other character reader can get the characteristic of a character. Sometimes in a
daily life human also likely to judge other or just say that some people like this
and that. That is also happened in the narrative story since it is a picturesque of
the real life.
The third one is stated implicitly in the action that they do. In real life the
character of human is often reflected by their deeds because it must be based on
their way of thinking. An easy going person will not think too much to do
something. That person will immediately say yes if asked to do something or go
somewhere. That is also what we will find in the story.
Another one is by statement of author of the story. This one is like a
easiness that the reader will get in reading a story. Sometime in the story the
play in a story. By reading that, the reader can gather information about the
characters and what role they maybe play in the story.
2. Plot
A plot is a plan or groundwork for a story, based on conflicting human
motivations, with the action resulting from believable and realistic human
response. In a well-plotted story, nothing is irrelevant. Plot is in the other words
the flow of the story. (Jacobs, 1986: 87).
Narrative text has plot in it. It can be simply understood as events which
happened in the story. It is usually divided into three parts. The first part is in the
beginning, then in the middle, and at the end of the story. According to
quickbase.intuit.com In the beginning we will find what is called Exposition.
Then it is followed by raising action, climax, falling action, and resolution.
This is a theory from Fretag which is usually called Fretag’s Pyramid. He
develops the structure of plot by Aristotle and divides it into five major part as
have mentioned in previous paragraph.
In the exposition reader usually find the general description of the story. It
can be about where the setting is taken place, what the characters of the story are,
and also when the story did happened. By reading this part reader can have the
picture about how the story is going to be. Then there will be inciting incident, a
usually a clue of something which stimulates the reader to questioning or to grab
something which is not right.
Raising action is the part when the conflict starts rising. In this part, reader
can see how characters react against the conflict. This is made the story live and
real because here, the writer brings conflict which reflects one that really
happened in the real life.
Climax is the point when the conflict in the story raises its top. It is usually
marked by the change of some characters. Conflict which has happened must left
some changes to some characters of the story. In the plot there are conflicts.
Conflict rose to deliver the message that would be delivered by the author via the
characters. How characters deal with the conflict finally becomes the point of
stories. The value is implied in the action of characters overcome the conflict.
Conflict can be an opposition of two people, between larger groups of
people, or between individual and larger forces (nature). “Unless there is doubt,
there is no tension, and unless there is tension, there is no interest” (Jacobs, 1987:
87-88)
Conflict in Plot is the establishment of contrasting or conflicting situations
and responses that produces the interest the short-short story contains. So there
may be more than one conflict in the fiction. It also may lead to one major conflict
in the end of the story.(Jacobs, 1987: 88)
There is a falling action. It is like a cooling down after the climax is
reached in a play. Here, the tense is decreasing as the story comes to the end
In the resolution, there is a conclusion about the answer of the conflict
which is happened. It can be the declaration or statement of the writer to end up
the story. It also can be an action of the characters to close the story by solving the
problem arising in the play.
C. Theoretical Framework
The theory character and characterization is used to analyze the natures of man
characters which are shown in the play. The natures of man characters can be derived
from first, the description of the author. Second, It can be shown frim the other
characters’ utterance about the character. Third, behind the utterance of the character
himself there is the implication of the nature of the character. Forth, the nature of the
character is lied behind the action that the character did.
The theory of plot is really important to see the flow of the story in the play. There
are five steps of the flow of the story. The first one is exposition. The second one is
raising action. The third one is climax. The forth one is falling action and the last one
is resolution. In each part of the plot there are some reactions from the man characters
that finally lead them to the failure of motive disclosure. The characters of man in
Trifles which had been found in the first part of analysis using the theory of character and characterization is used to see how the character react against the condition
20
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
A. Object of the Study
The object of the study is a play script by Susan Glaspell entitledTrifles. It is a one act play-script released on January 7, 2004 and updated on March 17,
2011.Trifles is released at gutenberg.org with other Glaspell’s play script. There areTrifles, The Outside. The Verge, and Inheritors. The e-book was produced by Suzanne Shell, Sandra Brown and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team.
Trifles is a firstly played by Princetown Players at Wharf Theatre, Provincetown, Mass., August 8, 1916.
There are seven characters but, only five characters plays in this story. The
two characters are Minnie Foster and John Wright. They are a married couple.
Both of them are not shown in the story. The readers know them from the
description of other characters and the author’s statement. The five characters are
those who came to the house of Minnie Foster to looking for the evidence to show
the motive of the murder of John Wright. They are Mr. Henderson as a County
attorney, Mr. Hale as a farmer neighbor and his wife Mrs. Hale, Mr. Peters the
sheriff and his wife Mrs. Peters.
The whole story takes place in the kitchen. The place reflects the role of
women in that story. Susan Glaspell is a feminist writer and she carries a message
to not underestimate women in her story. The kitchen and how the women show
This one-act play script tells about the struggle of motive disclosure. In this
play the characters sems like divided into two groups, the men and the women. It
is about the struggle of men characters to find the motive of the murder. Finally
the motive is found but instead of the men, the women find it out. Glaspell’s
Trifles shows the reader that women also has power to find the “Trifles”, the thing that is considered as unused thing by the men, which is actually the motive
of John Wright Murder.
B. Approach of the Study
Writer use new criticism to analyze Trifles. New criticism is a literary theory that focuses on the work itself without considering other elements outside
the work. New Criticism is an approach that is established as a reaction to liberal
humanism. It is firstly invented by T. S. Eliot, an American poet who settled in
London.
They firstly invented New Criticism as a way of seeing literature separated
from other element such as social condition which is mainly discussed in that
time. The New Criticism brings new way of seeing work of literature. It sees the
more aesthetic aspect of the literature and concern only with the work itself. T. S.
Eliot considers that literary work, especially poetry, the genre he most interested
in, is impersonal. He does not deny that poet cannot express their feeling through
poetry but according to him it is more important to focus on the poetry itself then
In “Tradition and the Individual Talent’, for instance, we find him claiming that the poet has ‘not “a personality to express, but a particular medium’ (Eliot[1919] 1972: 75). Eliot’s main aim, however, is to deflect his readers’ attention from everything he considers of at best secondary importance—the poet’s personal or social circumstances, and so on—and to get the poetry itself centre stage.(Hans, 2003:12)
The attention of the reader is expected to focus on the poetry itself. The
elements inside the poetry such as the diction, rhyme, metaphor, etc will leads to
the reaching of the feeling or emotion as a result of reading the literary work. Eliot
use the words “objective correlative” to stands for the reaction of the reader after
reading the poet that stimulate their emotion toward the poetry.
What the poet needs to look for, Eliot tells us in ‘Hamlet’ another essay from 1919, is an ‘objective correlative’: ‘a set of objects, a situation, a chain of events which shall be the formula of that particular emotion’ (Eliot [1919] 1969:145). Emotion must be conveyed indirectly. The poet’s emotion should be invested in such ‘objective correlative’, (Hans, 2003: 12)
C. Method of the Study
Writer use library sources to do this study. Some of the important books that
writer use are Edgar V. Robert and Henry E. Jacob’s Fiction: An Introduction to Reading and Writing, Raman Selden, Peter Widdowson, Peter Broker’s A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory: Fourth Edition, Hans Bertens’
Literary Theory : The Basics, and Roger B. Henkle’s Reading the Novel : An Introduction to the Techniques of Interpreting Fiction.Beside that, writer also had taken some of the writing and theory from credible website.
The theories in those books are applied to analyze the play script. First,
character in Trifles. With theory of character and characterization writer got the natures of men by looking for the evidence of men natures through the men
utterances, attitude, or other character’s utterances.
After the nature found then, by using theory of plot by Fretag, writer
analyzed the flow of the story. The plot is about how the story constructed. It is
important to know the plot because plot is the way from the beginning of the story
until the end. When the plot is gotten it is possible to know how the story end up
and what is the aim of the story.
Then, writer analyzed both characters and what happened to them by the
time the story flow. In this part, it is also important to get how the characters react
against condition that is happened. Finally, the reason of men failure to disclose
24
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS
This analysis starts from the nature of male character using theory of
character and characterization. Writer uses the theory by Roger B. Henkle, Edgar
V. Robert, and Henry E. Jacob. The next analysis is about plot of Susan Glaspell
Trifles. Writer uses theory of plot from the book by Edgar V. Robert and Henry E. Jacob. The plot here is how the story flows from the beginning until the end.
The last analysis is about the relation of the nature of male character with
the failure of motive disclosure. Writer relates the nature of male character in a
subchapter I to the Plot of the play in chapter II. It is about how the male
characters react toward events which happened in the play that finally lead to the
failure of motive disclosure.
A. The Natures of Male Characters
In this part the nature of male characters are explained one by one. Using
theory of character and characterization and relate it with setting of the play
1. Mr. Lewis Hale
The first approach to know about character is by seeing what is stated by
the narrator. At the beginning the narrator stated about the age of Mr. Hale. It is
stated; the sheriff and Hale are man in middle life. From that line we can assume
The other way to see the characters’ personality or nature is by examining
their action or utterances.
COUNTY ATTORNEY: How did she seem to feel about your coming? HALE: Why, I don't think she minded—one way or other. She didn't pay
much attention. I said, 'How do, Mrs Wright it's cold, ain't it?' And she said, 'Is it?'—and went on kind of pleating at her apron. Well, I was surprised; she didn't ask me to come up to the stove, or to set down, but just sat there, not even looking at me, so I said, 'I want to see John.' And then she—laughed.” (lines: 52-57)
From the answer of Mr. Hale to Mr. Henderson as a county attorney the nature of
Mr. Hale can be revealed. He is a naive person. He honestly answers the question
complete with the details. He also said who was saying this and that and also
stated what is exactly Mrs. Foster did when she answer the question. Mr. Hale
keeps answering the question about what was happened when he came to Mrs.
Wright’s house the day before. He answers it one by one as clear as possible. He
followed all instructions that Mr. Henderson and Mr. Peter gave.
Besides those personalities, Mr. Hale is also just like Mr. Peters and Mr.
Henderson. He underestimates women and considers the thing that women
worried about is trifles.
SHERIFF : Well, can you beat the women! Held for murder and worryin' about her preserves.
COUNTY ATTORNEY: I guess before we're through she may have something more serious than preserves to worry about.
HALE : Well, women are used to worrying over trifles.(lines: 104-108)
From conversation above Mr. Hale used to think that women usually worrying
over trifles. It means that not only at that time he thinks about that, but many
At the very first part of the play in the cast list there stated Mr. Lewis Hale
is a farmer neighbors. From that information and from the setting which is stated
in the first sentence of the play we can conclude that Mr. Hale was living in a
farmer society. Mr. Hale and Mr. Wright who was murdered is a fellow farmer.
As a farmer they usually have to work hard every day. Sometimes farmers have a
party telephone. It is stated by Mr. Hale while he is explaining what happened at
the first time.
HALE: Harry and I started to town with a load of potatoes. We came along the road from my place and as I got here I said, I’m going to see if I can’t get John Wright to go with me on a party telephone. I spoke to Wright about it one before and he put me off, saying folks talked too much anyway... (line: 30-33)
Mr. Hale is naive or just being what he really is. He also always obeys
what is asked by Sheriff or County Attorney. He must respects County Attorney
and Sheriff as they are from upper class. On the other hand, the respect toward
women is the same with other men in the play.
From those analyses it is derived that Mr. Hale is a middle-aged farmer,
honest, naive, and underestimating women.
2. Mr. Henry Peters (Sheriff)
Mr. Peters is a sheriff and he came to the house with his wife. He is in his
middle of age just like Mr. Hale. We can found it in the text stated by the narrator.
“The sheriff and Hale are men in middle life, The County Attorney is a young
man; all are bundled up and go at one to the stove. They are followed by two
Natures of Sheriff can be found also from his act and utterances. Not long
after entering John Wright house, Mr. Peters started to ask Mr. Hale about what
happened yesterday morning when he came to the house.
Mr. Peters is a straight forward person as reflected from his utterances to
Mr. Hale. After unbuttoning his coat he straightly ask Mr. Hale about what did
happened when Mr. Hale came to the house yesterday. He also has a character as
a leader since he is the one who start the investigation.
SHERIFF: (unbuttoning his overcoat and stepping away from the stove as if to mark the beginning of official business) Now, Mr. Hale, before we move things about, you explain to Mr. Henderson just what you saw when you came here yesterday morning. (lines: 15-17)
Mr. Peters do not want to waste the time. He immediately start the investigation
by the time they get insdide the house. As a sheriff it is proper for him to have
such a character. He wants to clear up the case as soon as possible.
As a leader he is also a well prepared person. He asked Frank to go to the
house this morning to make a fire because it dropped below zero at the night. He
said it is no use getting pneumonia with a big case on. He also makes sure that
Frank will not touching anything but the stove. (lines: 20-23)
Just like Mr. Hale, Mr. Peters also underestimating women and women’s
stuff. From these utterances he undervalues women and even laughs at them.
SHERIFF: Nothing here but kitchen things.
[The COUNTY ATTORNEY , after again looking around the kitchen, opens the door of a cupboard closet, He gets up on a chair and looks on a shelf. Pulls his hand away, stiky.]
COUNTY ATTORNEY: Here’s a nice mess.
MRS. PETERS: (to the other woman) Oh! Her fruit; it did freeze, (to the LAWYER) She worried about that when it turned so cold. She said the fire’d go out and her jars would break.
SHERIFF: Well, can you beat the women! Held for murder and worryin’ about her preserves.(lines: 95-105)
Kitchen things are considered as nothing to Mr. Peters. Kitchen is identical with
the women and he sees it as an unimportant things. The thing which is done by
women also becomes a joke for him. He thinks that in that situation, worrying
over preserves is really ridiculous. From those explanation, Mr Peters is a good
leader, well-prepared person, and also underestimating women.
3. Mr. Henderson (County Attorney)
Based on the writer statement in the script Mr. Henderson is a young man.
He is a County Attorney, so he has a higher position among other men. It can be
said so because of his manner in asking question and giving direction to others.
At the rear of the outer door opens and the SHERIFF comes in followed by the COUNTY ATTORNEY and HALE. The SHERIFF and HALE are men in middle life, the COUNTY ATTORNEY is a young man; all are much bundled up and go at once to the stove. (lines: 4-8)
Mr. Henderson shares some natures in common with the other male
characters in this play. He is a strait forward people who trying to keep the
conversation on the right track. He tries to get the Mr. Hale back to the main topic
so that they are not wasting the time. This is what he says to Mr. Hale when Mr.
Hale begins to talk aside from the topic that they have been discussed. “Let's talk
about that later, Mr. Hale. I do want to talk about that, but tell now just what
As a county Attorney Mr. Henderson is a critical person. He is trying to
catch what he want and focus on it so that if there is something that is out of the
point or something not clear he will soon ask for the explanation.
HALE: Well, she looked queer.
COUNTY ATTORNEY: How do you mean—queer?
HALE: Well, as if she didn't know what she was going to do next. And kind of done up.
COUNTY ATTORNEY: How did she seem to feel about your coming? (lines: 47-52)
As a County Attorney, Mr. Henderson is doing investigation clearly in the
house while they all trying to figure out the motive of the murder. He asked Mrs.
Hale about the thing she knows about Minnie Foster. By the questions which are
asked by Mr. Henderson, it can be said that he is a logical person. He keeps trying
to figure out the personality of Minnie Foster by the statement that comes from
Mrs. Hale. He said that if Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Wright were neighbors it is likely
for them to be friend too. Mrs. Hale then replies it with the answer that she is no
longer come to Mrs. Wright house for more than a year. Knowing that answer,
Mrs. Henderson thinks about the reason why Mrs. Hale did not come again to the
house. There must be something wrong that make neighbors do not visit each
other.
COUNTY ATTORNEY: Ah, loyal to your sex, I see. But you and Mrs Wright were neighbors. I suppose you were friends, too.
MRS HALE:(shaking her head)I've not seen much of her of late years. I've not been in this house—it's more than a year.
COUNTY ATTORNEY: And why was that? You didn't like her?
The County Attorney also comes with cynical expression toward the
women. He seems arrogant to talk about the women with such a cynical
expression. He is neither talking in a high voice nor saying bad words but he looks
down upon the women by his action and his satire words. From this, we can take
the point that County Attorney as a man considers that all the household duties
should be done by women. He indirectly blames the women for the dirty kitchen.
COUNTY ATTORNEY:(with the gallantry of a young politician)And yet, for all their worries, what would we do without the
ladies?(the women do not unbend. He goes to the sink, takes a dipperful of water from the pail and pouring it into a basin, washes his hands. Starts to wipe them on the roller-towel, turns it for a cleaner place)Dirty towels!(kicks his foot against the pans under the sink)Not much of a housekeeper, would you say, ladies? ( lines: 110-115)
In the stage drection above County Attorney seems so arrogant. He act like a boss
trying to give an example of the things that should be done by women by pouring
the water in a dipper. He also kicks the pans under the sink. He shows his power
in this part. The arrogancy shows more of his underestimation toward women.
B. The Plot ofTrifles
Plot is group of events which occur in the story. It can be called the back
bone. It controls the flow and also arise reader’s emotion by serving a life like
story. The collection of events can go back and fro based on the timing of events
told in the story.
InTriflesthe plot can be defined to the beginning of the story which gives the reader a general situation and characters knowledge. Then in the middle of the
conflicts later will finally reach the climax in a central conflict which is the
turning point of action and characters development. It is where the changes of
character shown and the main idea of the story arisen. After that at the end will
there will come a solution, a feedback given by the characters to the conflict. This
is an answer of the question which has become the reason why the story is written.
1. Exposition
In the exposition ofTriflesreaders are given the setting of the kitchen, the character of the play, and begin with the gestures of the characters entering the
house of Minnie Foster. First, there is the description of the kitchen of Minnie
Foster. It is said that the Kitchen is gloomy, left without having been put in order.
There are unwashed pans under the sink, a loaf of bread outside the bread-box, a
dish towel on the table, and also other unfinished work. From that description the
readers will feel the bad feeling, nerves, and confusion. After that there are some
descriptions of the characters and what they do in the kitchen.
[The kitchen in the now abandoned farmhouse of JOHN WRIGHT, a gloomy kitchen, and left without having been put in order—unwashed pans under the sink, a loaf of bread outside the bread-box, a dish-towel on the table—other signs of incompleted work. At the rear the outer door opens and the SHERIFF comes in followed by the COUNTY
There are some dialogues from each character that give the readers an
impression about their personality. They talked about what is happening yesterday
in that house and how the murder can be happened. In this part the exposition of
the story can be seen. Here we can conclude that the people coming there are the
Sheriff, County Attorney, Mrs. Peters, Mr. Hale, and Mrs. Hale. There
COUNTY ATTORNEY: (rubbing his hands) This feels good. Come up to the fire, ladies.
MRS PETERS: (after taking a step forward) I'm not—cold.
SHERIFF: (unbuttoning his overcoat and stepping away from the stove as if to mark the beginning of official business) Now, Mr. Hale, before we move things about, you explain to Mr. Henderson just what you saw when you came here yesterday morning.
COUNTY ATTORNEY: By the way, has anything been moved? Are things just as you left them yesterday? (lines:13-19)
They talked about what was happening yesterday in that house and how
the murder could happen. In this part the reader can know further about the
characters. What their role and position are. From this exposition we can derived
that man is so dominant to lead the women and start investigation. The women are
beholden as a follower and seem weak because of much sarcasm that is thrown by
the men.
The male characters make fun of the women because of what they do.
When the women worry about preserves the men just laugh and this give an
impression of the higher position of the men. It is not straightly stated but
pragmatically the words that are speaking by the men said how the stupid was the
women. The men also focus on the bad thing in the kitchen. When they see the
right. From that part there can be derived a conclusion that there is a different
perspective toward things in a kitchen and woman life between man and woman
characters.
The investigation continued to the upstairs to find the motive. This is
where the conflict is arisen. The focus of the play moves completely to the two
women Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale. They try to do what they should do. Mrs.
Peters take Minnie Foster clothes and shoes and then with Mrs. Hale they clean up
the kitchen a little. There is a little conflict between the two women because they
are not supposed to move anything. Mrs. Peters finds a sewing basket and quilt
inside it. They two is thinking about Minnie Foster is going to quilt it or knot it.
Then, naturally Mrs. Hale is fixing the quilt because she finds that the quilt is so
good and even at some part and in other part is so messy.
MRS HALE: (Examining another block) Mrs. Peters, look at this one. Here, this is the one she was working on, and look at the sewing! All the rest of it has been so nice and even. And look at this! It’s all over the place! Why, it looks as if she didn’t know what she was about.
(After she has said this they look each other, then start to glance back at the door. After an instant MRS HALE has pulled at a knot and ripped the sewing). (lines: 235 241)
After that, Mrs. Hale starts asking Mrs. Peters about what makes Mrs.
Wright so nervous. As women they share common knowledge about piecing a
quilt. Mrs. Hale thinks that when she is nervous about something she can make a
bad quilt but, Mrs. Peters says that she is sews awful queer when she just tired.
MRS. HALE : What do you supposed she was so nervous about? MRS. PETERS : Oh—I don’t know. I don’t know as she was nervous. I
sewing)Well I must get these things wrapped up. They maybe through sooner than we think,(putting apron and other things together) I wonder where I can find a piece of paper, and string. (lines: 249-254)
This exposition gives the background of the story so that the reader now
who and how the characters will develop in the story. There will absolutely be Mr.
Henderson, Mr. Peters, Mr, Hale, Mrs. Hale, and Mrs. Peters playing some roles
in the play. They will be discussing about motive disclosure of the murder og
John Wright, Minnie Foster’s husband.
2. Raising Action
The raising action begins when the women finds a bird cage inside the
cupboard. Mrs. Peters is looking at the cupboard to look for a piece of paper and
string. There she finds a bird cage. Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale are examining the
bird cage and then starting to question where the bird is. Mrs. Hale thinks that the
cat got it but Mrs. Peters says that Mrs. Wright did not like cats because when she
came to the house previous day Mrs. Wright really upset for Mrs. Peter’s cat
entering her room. Then, their suspicion raise when they find the cage door broke.
MRS. PETERS: (examining the cage) Why, look at this door. It’s broke. One hinge is pulled apart.
MRS. HALE: (looking too) Looks as if someone have been rough with it. MRS. PETERS: Why, yes. (lines: 268-271)
From those conversations we can conclude that both Mrs. Peters and Mrs.
Hale agree that someone has been rough with the door. That makes the curiosity
grows higher. The women start to feel something wrong but they try to ignore it
Another reason of why the bird cage is empty is that the bird got sick and
died. They finally agree that Minnie Foster used to have bird. The consideration is
that Minnie Foster was like bird herself. She used to sing in a church. She wore
pretty dress, but kind of timid and fluttery. Mrs. Hale realizes the change of Mrs.
Wright after the marriage. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters here can see the life of
Minnie Foster though the bird cage as a symbol.
3. Climax
The climax of this play occurs when the women are finding the real
answer of where the bird had flown. The women think about what makes Minnie
foster feel better because they know that Minnie Foster had been through a hard
life. They then consider taking the quilt with them and bringing it to Minnie
Foster so that she will have something good to do. While searching the sewing
thing Mrs. Hale finds a red box. She firstly guesses that there is scissors in it. The
thing inside it is shocking. They find a dead canary inside the pretty box. The
dead canary with the scars around the neck is found in the box. It seems like
somebody had wrung the bird’s neck.
MRS. HALE: (jumping up)But, Mrs. Peter-look at it! It’s all-other side to. MRS. PETERS: Somebody-wrung-its-neck.
[their eyes meet. A look of growing comprehension of horror. Steps are heard outside. MRS HALE slips box under quilt piece, and sinks into her chair. Enter SHERIFF and COUNTY ATTORNET. MRS PETERS rises.]. (lines: 320-326)
Knowing how the bird is killed just like Mr. Wright, the two women trying
to figure out what is really happened. The horror here immediately stopped by the
cage and Mrs. Hale says that the cat got it. Here, Mrs. Hale is making a lie. By
what she gets before, we know that the dead bird is found in the pretty box. By
this expression we can catch that actually the women have known the truth and
the motive of this murder. Mrs. Hale dares to make a lie and Mrs. Peters who is
said married to the law says no words but, they are still afraid to ensure their self
that the motive of the murder is because John Wright kills the bird. They try to
find the logic again together.
These are the logics that the women assume in order help them accepting
the fact that they actually have expected before. The first is the statement of Mrs.
Peters about her kitten. There was a boy who wants to hurt her kitten and that
makes her so mad that she is going to hurt the boy.
MRS PETERS :(in a whisper)When I was a girl—my kitten—there was a boy took a hatchet, and before my eyes—and before I could get there—(cover her face an instant) If they hadn’t held me back I would have—(catches herself, looks upstairs where steps are heard, falters weakly)—hurt him. (lines: 346-349)
Mrs. Peters implicitly feels the same way as what she assumes Mrs. Wright feels.
The bird and the kitten here is not considered as animal anymore. They are just
like human that Mrs. Peters thinks Mrs. Wright is fond of. From that utterances,
we can conclude that Mrs. Peters strongly thinks that Mr. Wright had killed the
bird so, Mrs. Wright killed him too but, she does not have heart to say it directly.
Mrs. Peters just says an analogy of herself in the same position with Mrs. Wright.
On the other hand Mrs. Hale is more straightforward to state her
assumption that John Wright killed the bird so Minnie Foster killed him too. She
Then, Mrs. Peters tries to ignore the fact again by stating that they still do not
know who killed the bird. Mrs. Hale speaks more straightforward. She said that
she knew John Wright, so she assures that it is possible for John Wright to do that.
Not only that, Mrs. Hale also adds more information to support her argument.
MRS HALE: (her own feeling not interupted) If there’d been years and years of nothing, then a bird to sing to you, it would be awful— still, after the bird was still.
MRS PETERS: (something within her speaking) I know what stillness is. When we homestated in Dakota, and my first baby died—after he was two years old, and me with no other then— (lines: 360-364)
Both Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters lament over the stillness that Minnie Foster felt.
Mrs. Hale understands that the bird has filled the empty heart of Minnie Foster.
After a long time of nothing without any children and she has a bird with her, a
thing that can sing and fill the silent. The bird must be so meaningful to her. Mrs.
Peters also states her feeling of stillness after her first son died in Dakota. She is
left with no child and she feels the stillness.
After those things, they realize Mrs. Peters says that the law has to punish
crime. Crime here means the things that Minnie Foster did, killing her own
husband, John Wright. She actually has the empathy to Minnie Foster but the
reality that they should face is that Minnie Foster has to be punished because of
murdering his husband. Mrs. Peters cannot stand for that reality. According to her,
the act of killing the bird which is done by John Wright is a crime too, but no one
is going to punish that.
The utterances of Mrs. Hale ensure how the bird is so meaningful to
Minnie Foster. The Bird is just like the reflection of Minnie Foster herself. The
logic that can be grabbed here is that the bird is the soul of Minnie Foster. John
Wright does not like the bird, a thing that sings. According to Mrs. Hale John
Wright does not like the bird and he is the only person who is likely to kill the
bird. Moreover, the way the bird is killed is similar to the way John Wright is
killed. Both Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters know that Minnie Foster is the murderer of
her own husband. They know that John Wright has killed the bird, the soul of
Minnie Foster so that Minnie Foster dares to kill him in the same way. The
passage above shows the beginning of characters’ personality change. The major
conflict in climax leads to the personality change of round character. Mrs. Hale
and Mrs. Peters are round characters because their point of view toward law
changes in this part of the play.
It is different to the attitude of the women in the beginning of the play
which is careful and standing for the law, the women in this part change to be
against the law. They know that the bird is the motive that has been searching for
but they decide to keep the bird instead of telling the truth to the men.
MRS PETERS: (takes the bottle, looks about something to wrap it in; takes petticoat from the clothes brought from the other room, very nervously begins winding this around the bottle. In false voice)
My, it’s a good thing the men couldn’t hear us. Wouldn’t they just laugh! Getting all stirred up over a little thing like a—dead canary. As if that could have anything to do with—with— wouldn’t they laugh!
[The men are heard coming down stairs.]
The women have known that they have found is the motive that the men
have been searching for. By saying “maybe they would maybe they wouldn’t”,
Mrs. Hale realize about it and they do it consciously.
4. Falling Action
The falling action is when the men come downstairs. They interrupt the
women who is still discussing about the bird. Again the men cannot catch the
signal or the weird expression of the women. County attorney is throwing sarcasm
again toward the women when Sheriff reminding him about if he is going to take
a look of what Mrs. Peters took for Minnie Foster.
[The LAWYER goes to the table, picks up the apron, laughs.]
COUNTY ATTORNEY: Oh, I guess they’re not very dangerous things the ladies have picked out. (Moves a few things about, disturbing the quilt pieces which cover the box. Steps back)No, Mrs. Peters doesn’t need supervising. For that matter, a sheriff’s wife is married to the law. Ever think of it that way, Mrs. Peters? MRS PETERS: Not—just that way. (lines: 397-402)
Here, the men are actually very close to the motive which is the bird that
covered by the quilt. Even the lawyer has touched it but, the thing that all those
stuffs are just trifles. County Attorney also says that the things the ladies going to
take in are not very dangerous. He asks Mrs. Peters about her utterances “married
to the law” to show both trust and underestimation that women will not do
important things. Then Mrs. Peters answer it with “not just that way”. It conveys
ambiguous meaning. The thing that is understood by the men is that Mrs. Peter
says yes, she is married t the law more than they think. The men think she will not
do things which are against the law. The fact is that Mrs. Peters not thing about it.
because John Wright had killed the soul of Minnie Foster she decides to cover the
motive.
5. Resolution
Finally, the resolution is when the women decide to keep the canary
themselves.
[HALE goes outside. The SHERIFF follows the COUNTY ATTORNEY into the other room. Then MRS. HALE rises, hands tight together, looking intensely at MRS. PETERS, whose eyes make a slow turn, finally meeting MRS. HALE’s. A moment MRS. HALE holds her, then her own eyes point the way to where the box is concealed. Suddenly MRS. PETERS throws back quilt pieces and tries to put the box in the bag she is wearing. It is too big. She opens box, starts to take bird out, cannot touch it, goes to pieces, stands there helpless. Sound of a knob turning in the other room. MRS. HALE snatches the box and puts it in the pocket of her big coat. Enter COUNTY ATTORNEY and SHERIFF. (lines: 407-416)
Their action shows their stand for Minnie Foster. With the empathy of
experiencing the same thing, at the end they are saving Minnie Foster’s deed for
killing the body of the men who has killed her soul. When the men are outside, the
women decide to keep the bird quietly. In this part the women are showing the
answer of the question that rose in the story. The question of what is the motive is
answered by this action.
It now becomes clear that the motive of Minnie Foster killing her husband
is because her husband killed the canary. Canary is the symbol of Minnie Foster
herself. The women can feel that too, the feeling that can be felt only by the
women. Only women can notice it because women consider about trifles. Women
women hide the motive in order to end the story and also stand for the justice.
They know no one will punish John Wright who has killed the soul of Minnie
Foster so it is fair that Minnie Foster killed John Wright.
The statement that declares the decision chosen by the women is
underlined behind these symbolic utterances:
COUNTY ATTORNEY: (facetiously) Well, Henry, at least we found out that she was not going to quilt it. She was going to—what is it you call it, ladies?
MRS. HALE: [Her hand against her pocket.] We call it—knot it, Mr. Henderson. (lines: 417-419)
At the very end of the play Mrs. Hale is saying a smart trick. She answers County
Attorney’s question but she is intended to give another meaning. It is true
considering the action that she did before with Mrs. Peters and her action of
reassuring the bird inside the pocket. The word knot that is spoken by Mrs. Hale
does not mean to knot the quilt but to end up the searching of motive. The quilt
here is also a symbol of this motive searching.
C. The Reactions of Male Characters Which Lead to the Failure of Motive
Disclosure.
In this play there are some reactions from the male characters toward the
situation. In the plot the natures of men characters are exposed step by step.
Sometimes the men are dominant but not in the whole play that finally lead to the
1. Underestimating Women’s things
In the first part the men is playing a quit big deal of contribution to
respond the situation around and to be the center of the story. The natures of men
which are leading and critical are helping the reader to get the setting of place and
situation in the first part of the play.
Mrs. Peters lead the women to come inside the house. Mr. Henderson also
lead the motive searching in the house by firstly ask Mr. Hale what was happened
in the house. Up to the middle of the play The County Attorney ask Mrs. Hale
critically about the relation between her and Minnie Foster.
On the other hand the arrogance of the men is starting to come out. It is
shown by their respond toward women and the kitchen. When the men examining
the kitchen they criticizing the condition unconsciously, like it is use to be like
that and it is a normal way to underestimate women’s things.
Their reaction of ignoring the women’s things in unproper. First they
blame women for the dirty kitchen. County Attorney kicks the pans under the
sink. Their attitude really show the underestimation toward women.
Those natures of man characters actually can lead them into finding of the
motive. Unfortunately, the man characters are also carrying the nature of
straightforwardness that makes them ignorance to the thing around them which is
really close to motive disclosure. Besides that, the male characters are
underestimating women and all the thing about women. They forget that women
2. Ignoring the Quilt and Bird Cage
In the second part, where the conflict arises, the men only show up in a
few times. In the little time, the men still do not understand what’s happening in
the story. The focus and straightforwardness of the men in finding the motive
disclosure is blocking their mind to see what is happening around them. They do
not catch the weird situation and gesture that is shown by the ladies in the kitchen.
The men stick on what is in their mind and not open it wider to see all the
possibilities that might happen.
When it comes to the raising action, the men also keep ignoring the thing
arround them and focusing on their own point of view. The raising action is
pinned with the founding of the awful quilt in the sewing basket by the women. At
that moment the men is going downstairs and found the women discussing about
that.
MRS HALE: It’s log cabin pattern. Pretty, isn’t it? I wonder if she was goin’ to quilt it or just knot it?
[Footsteps have been heard coming down the stairs. The SHERIFF enters followed by HALE and COUNTY ATTORNEY.]
SHERIFF: They wonder if she was going to quilt it or just knot it!
[The men laugh, the woman look abashed](lines: 219-224)
The men do not expect anything about the quilt all they know is just that is a quilt
which does not seem to have any relation with the motive. Actually this is where
the conflict is going to be started but for the men it becomes funny to talk over
trifles in that situation. They are being ignorance of the entire thing outside the
motive in their point of view. In this part they miss the very first sign of the
