1. I enjoyed the trifles version. The events were narrated through several perspectives; therefore the play was able to cast the theme clearly. Two men that bared witness to the first moments of the murders and how the wife acted. I was able to depict one judgment from the other, and cast my own judgment as to why the wife slayed her husband.
4. The play does have a specific symbolism within the plot. The main symbol that was transparent in the plot was the importance of trifles. Trifle can be one of two definitions. One definition could be something of little importance, or desert such as custard, jelly, and jam. In the play there is a scene were the two men stumble upon jarred trifles, and stated how important they were to Minnie. She truly wanted to save the jarred trifles, and worried about them freezing in the cold weather. On the other hand trifles additional definition was a direct reference to Minnie's feelings within her broken marriage. The symbolic message sent by these two definitions were that Minnie's feelings were important, and just as important as a jar of trifles.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was a bit confused about how the title related to the play. Now that you explained it it seems so obvious and I like the double meaning. I also like the title "A Jury of Her Peers" because she really did get a jury of her peers, just not in court. Hales and Peters took the matter in their own hands and became the jurors.
ReplyDeleteThis made me think about whether or not it is good to have a journey of peers or "friends". Yes it is important to be just fairly but it seems as though friends would be just as bias as strangers because friends like Peters and Hale would try to hide evidence and that's not very fair in a legal sense.
I didn't get the same perspective that you gleaned from Trifles. Although you clearly explained it, it was still difficult to see it this way -- from multiple perspectives. I felt that the writer of the play left so much for interpretation. I appreciate your viewpoint and wish you would've expounded on it a bit more since I didn't agree with it! Great job and I appreciate your viewpoint very much!
ReplyDelete