Analysis

Contents:

• This is a Man’s World: A Critique on Gender Stereotypes in Murder, She Wrote: "If It's Thursday, It Must Be Beverly" (Season 4, Episode 7)
  DeiMarlon Scisney

• Gender Stereotypes: Reinforced through Popular Media such as Ben Ray Redman's "The Perfect Crime"
  Jeremy Soto

• White Saviorism in Knives Out
  Ian Skalla

• The Mystery of Justice: Classical versus Feminist Critiques of Justice in Susan Glaspell’s "A Jury of Her Peers"
  Blake Thomas

• Revising Sherlock: "The Five Orange Pips" and The Abominable Bride
  Jacob Reid

• The Symbol of the Shotgun in Sue Grafton's "The Parker Shotgun"
  Thai Phung

In Aspects of the Novel, E.M. Forrester characterizes individuals in texts as either “flat” or “round.” Inevitably, a flat character serves only one purpose in the story and is typically a woman or marginalized group. On the other hand, a rounded character flourishes and is typically represented as a man. Analyzing one episode of Murder, She Wrote, there is a cogent gender critique that arises; there is an inherent gendering of society that causes women to be put on the backburner and treated differently despite their intricate roles in society. During the 1980s, gender roles, though lacking in universal equality, were getting some critical attention due to Second Wave Feminism (1960-1980). Second Wave Feminism combats the “glass ceiling,” a metaphor for the lack of social/economic progress women could achieve. Frantz Fanon coins the term interpellation to explain how ideas get into our heads and influence us, so much so that “cultural ideas have such a hold on us that we believe they are our own” (Fanon Black Skin, White Masks). Interpellation inevitably is a process, a process in which we internalize what has been socially constructed. Socialization is the process by which people are taught how to behave and operate in society. However, to be an “ideal” member of society often caused conformity and assimilation into society. Female stereotypes, or femininity, function within the structure of gender. It’s important to understand that gender and femininity do not operate mutually exclusive but co-exist within the socialization process. Because Cabot Cove, the primary setting for Murder, She Wrote, is small with a population of 3,500, the viewer quickly sees how everyone socializes within this “cozy” town. Therefore, I argue that the character Jessica Fletcher, through the genre of cozy mystery, resides in a setting, Cabot Cove, that inevitably reinforces “traditional” gender stereotypes about women and how their role is viewed in society.

Gender roles are just that, a set of roles that society constructs that govern how we’re expected to act, speak, dress, and conduct ourselves based upon our assigned sex. However, “gender should be understood as a social, not physiological, construction: femininity and masculinity, the terms that denote one’s gender, refer to a complex set of characteristics and behaviors prescribed for a particular sex by society and learned through the socialization process” (Butler, Judith, and Sara Salih Collective, 37). The “traditional” social role of women is typically viewed as domestic (taking care of the house, family, etc.). However, in the context of Cabot Cove, women are always put on the backburner, inevitably telling, and crafting the story through the eyes of the “great man,” Sheriff Tupper, despite the work that Jessica Fletcher does. The episode in question, "If It's Thursday, It Must Be Beverly" (Season 4, Episode 7), begins in an all-pink hair salon. One thing that arises from gender stereotyping is ascribing colors such as pink for girls and blue for boys. Right away, the viewer is introduced to the women’s “safe space.” It is somewhat ironic that the salon is all pink, only older women are there, and they seem to be gossiping with only one out of the seven women being concerned about getting to work: “Lorretta, I’m really running late, if I don’t get back to my computer, it’s going to get lonely.” (Phyllis 2:46). The women talk, “this small town-itus,” and even make a joke about Eve, “soaking her husband for all he is worth,” which reinforces this idea that women are dependent on men. Furthermore, despite Phyllis having a job and serving as an empowered female character, these women are still buying into America’s standard of beauty and what society deems as “feminine.” Eve reinforces the importance of beauty for women by her reaction. Once Ideal tells her that Audrey died, she states, “good thing she got her hair done yesterday…well, admit it Ideal when you go to that great coffee klatch in the sky you want to look your best” (Eve 16:40). Even when the subject of death is at hand, the women are still focused on being beautiful and defined within the social construct of beauty. As Jessica Fletcher walks out of the salon in the first scene, Beverly pulls up with the doctor, and she hears him say, “I can hardly wait to see the beauty parlor magic Loretta works on you this time, Beverly,” further reiterating that women are supposed to look a certain way in society (Seth 5:22). The diction here, “magic,” implies that there are mysterious or supernatural forces at work that will “fix” Beverly. Inevitably, men are objectifying women as pawns for dress up. Seth, the doctor, even says “this time,” which implies that this “magic” is reoccurring, and his tone seems somewhat excited for this “transformation” Beverly is about to undergo.

In Murder She Wrote, at times, women are left out of the narrative. Jessica Fletcher is instrumental in catching Audrey’s murderer. Inevitably, the omission or lack of recognition for Jessica Fletcher makes Sheriff Tupper’s masculinity seem entirely self-asserted. For example, when Audrey is first found, Jessica Fletcher immediately begins to ask questions. Still, before she could even get everything out and says, “something doesn’t add up,” Sheriff Tupper speaks over her and says, “Oh, no, I’ve been waiting for that, Mrs. Fletcher. You’re going to tell me there’s no suicide note” (Tupper 12:40). By saying he was “waiting,” it is as if he anticipates what she is about to say, a common problem when women are objectified and don’t hold a say in society. However, what really strikes me about this scene is the Sheriff’s inability to credit Mrs. Fletcher, “…women don’t shoot themselves, Amos, they are more likely to take pills, which was certainly at Audrey’s disposal” (Fletcher 12:54). Mrs. Fletcher goes on to ask the doctor questions about Audrey’s wrist. Once the doctor, a man, approves that the bruises on Audrey’s wrist could be from a struggle, it seems that the idea of suicide could be ruled out. It isn’t until Deputy Martin finds out that it was his gun that could have been used, he said, “I never thought she would use it to kill herself.” The Sheriff then states, “ladies usually take pills.” It’s as if he recognized that what she said was applicable and important to the case but failed to recognize who said it, a woman, Jessica Fletcher. This further reiterates how women are viewed in society and redefines the “invisible work of women.” Traditionally, women's work was relegated to the caretaking duties within the domestic sphere of the home. However, socially we have constructed the idea of work to surpass the confines of the house. This is a prime example of how women are present and share good ideas just as men, but because they are women, they are put on the backburner or not given the credit that a man would received during the time in similar contexts.

Another instance where “traditional” gender stereotypes about women are reinforced occurs when Mrs. Fletcher receives a visit from Deputy Lenz. Objectification involves viewing and/or treating a person as an object of thought or feeling. Often, objectification is targeted at women and reduces them to objects of sexual desire and gratification. Inevitably, in a male-dominated world, men can take advantage of women and treat them as sexual objects. During the visit, Deputy Lenz asks if Jessica Fletcher could assist the Sheriff in the case. Deputy Lenz’s character contrasts with the Sheriff's characterization in that he recognizes the capabilities that Mrs. Fletcher has from her work with writing detective mysteries. However, what Deputy Lenz does is offer to rub Mrs. Fletcher's neck when she says she has a “crook.” He rubs and begins to get closer to Mrs. Fletcher; so close that it makes her very uncomfortable. Jessica is the first woman that the viewer sees that is almost seduced into Deputy Lenz’s arms. However, as the viewer realizes these “companionships” lead to an affair with Eve, Ideal, Beverly, Lorretta, etc— on the grounds of what? Loneliness. Sex is directly related to power, and traditionally it is the man who yields the power within our patriarchal society. Therefore, this inevitably reinforces “traditional” gender stereotypes about women and how they are viewed as objects for men to console in “lonely” times.

All in all, Jessica Fletcher, through the genre of cozy mystery, creates a setting, Cabot Cove, that inevitably reinforces “traditional” gender stereotypes about women and how their role is viewed in society. Through setting the viewer dives deep into time (1980s) and place (small town, Cabot Cove) unveiling the gender critique that arises and reinforces within this small-town things such as America’s standard of beauty, gender stereotyping (ascribing colors such as pink for girls), women providing knowledge/insights, being seen/heard, and even female objectification. It’s important to understand that gender and femininity do not operate mutually exclusive but co-exist within the socialization process. The “small town-itus” caused allot of socialization but reinforced and ascribed many gender stereotypes that seem to really affect women. Jessica Fletcher, by the end of the episode, solves Audrey's murder. Her knowledge of the murder marks her as self-important or more important than the men; she's "uppity." Meaning, Mrs. Fletcher was somewhat arrogant; why? It's safe to say that if Mrs. Fletcher were Mr. Fletcher instead, the same thing wouldn’t have been said, but because of the social stigma behind female beauty and dependence on men, Mrs. Fletcher is "uppity" for solving the case.

Work Cited

Butler, Judith, and Sara Salih. The Judith Butler Reader. Blackwell Pub, 2004.

Fanon, Frantz, and Charles L. Markmann. Black Skin, White Masks, 1967. Print.

Murder She Wrote. 1984. [film] Directed by S. Anthony Pullen. Cabot Cove: Universal Television Corymore Productions.

Why do many people in our society believe that women are better caregivers than men, or that crying is something that a real man never does? There are so many gender stereotypes, some that we aren’t even aware of, because it’s been ingrained within our society. With that being said, how did these gender stereotypes come about? It wasn’t something that happened over night, but rather over many years. Our society has built this system which constricts men and women into very specific roles. One such way that these gender stereotypes were normalized was through different forms of popular media, such as literature. "The Perfect Crime" written by Ben Ray Redman highlights negative gender stereotypes that have been prevalent throughout literature and continue to affect our society even today.

To begin with, "The Perfect Crime," is a short story that was written in 1928. "The Perfect Crime" is about a detective named Dr. Harrison Trevor describing how the perfect crime could be committed to his “most intimate acquaintance,” Gregory Hare. Dr. Trevor is a brilliant detective with over 20 years of experience. Audiences are led through several possibilities, until Dr. Trevor reveals how to commit the perfect crime. Gregory Hare then asks Dr. Trevor about a specific case and it is revealed that Dr. Trevor had made a mistake. In reality it was a woman named Alice who manipulated a man who loved her, Harrington, into taking the fall for the murder she committed. In order to not blemish his spotless record, Dr. Trevor commits the perfect crime he had just told Gregory Hare. On the surface, it is just a clever mystery with a shocking twist. Nevertheless, it is also a glimpse as to how gender stereotypes took hold within our society.

When trying to solve a mystery the murder weapon is a key piece of evidence that reveals far more than guilt. In most mysteries, the object used to take a life is rarely portrayed as small and effeminate. Yet, on page 172 of The Perfect Crime, Dr. Trevor says, “Why, it was a .25, pearl-handled and nickel-finished. Rather a dainty weapon altogether; Harrington was a bit apologetic about owning such a toy.” Here, we can see Dr. Trevor implies the weapon used to kill a man as a small gun that a real man would never use. He goes as far as to say Harrington was embarrassed about owning the gun. This is an example of a gender stereotype that is a harmful depiction of both men and women. First, we can see how Ben Ray Redman begins to hint at the true perpetrator of the crime. The way in which Ben Ray Redman chose to have Dr. Trevor describe the weapon alludes to the reader that it isn’t something that a man would and should use. Therefore, we have an example of how smaller weapons are used not only as a metaphor to describe women as weak and frail, but also as something only a woman should use with almost nothing having changed since the creation of "The Perfect Crime." Which is in contrast to how men believe they need to be perceived in order to be truly masculine. For example, a man would need to use a higher caliber weapon, or something that looks more aggressive. Such a negative gender stereotype will only make men more violent, because if it doesn’t look and feel more aggressive, then it isn’t seen as manly. Such a behavior is being reinforced in our day and age as well. For example, such a message is present in many forms. For instance, Mask Off: Masculinity Redefined states:

As I got older, I started reflecting more on how boys are socialized into domination and violence - fighting, playing with toy guns and toy soldiers as part of imaginary war games. Patriarchal society normalizes male dominance.” (Bola 54)

In other words, from an early age men are taught to be aggressive, to view a tool whose sole purpose is to kill as a manly thing. Rather than understanding that guns should not be put on a pedestal young men are taught that guns are something a real man should have. The bigger the gun and the higher the caliber the more manly it is. Nevertheless, that isn’t the only gender stereotype that is depicted within "The Perfect Crime."

When describing Alice within the short story Ben Ray Redman pushed many negative stereotypes against women. In particular:

He was too level-headed. Alice, on the other hand, is an extremely hysterical type; I've seen her go completely off her head with anger. Beautiful, Lord, yes! But dangerous, and in the last analysis a coward.

Here, we can see how Ben Ray Redman wrote Alice to be a “hysterical type”, someone who couldn’t control her emotions, while portraying Harrington, a man, as being calm and composed. Moreover, he makes a comment on her appearance which adds nothing to the story. The writer’s objective was to make general statements about a woman. Furthermore, it is important to take note of where the word hysterical comes from. According to an article published by The Guardian titled, "The feminisation of madness is crazy," by award winning journalists Gary Nunn hysterical means, “a condition thought to be exclusive to women - sending them uncontrollably and neurotically insane owing to a dysfunction of the uterus.” For many years women have been treated as being inferior to men. There are words within our vocabulary such as hysterical that were meant to bring women down and to make them seem emotionally unstable. It is much easier to simply brush a wide stroke when depicting women. Rather than writing a more complex character, Ben Ray Redman decided that it would make more sense to just call her hysterical because it was something that people would “understand.” One could argue that the author didn’t intend to objectify Alice because he said she was a good shot. Nevertheless, it is clear to see the difference in the two murders that were described within "The Perfect Crime." On one hand, we have someone who is depicted as being hysterical and using someone else for their murder with almost no thought. On the other hand, we also see how Dr. Trevor is depicted killing Gregory with precision. There is no emotion behind this killing; it is cool and calculated. Alice is depicted as hot tempered, while Dr. Trevor’s murder has no hint of “hysteria.” In addition, the way in which Alice used Harrington as a scapegoat is another negative stereotype that is attributed to women.

Women are often depicted as nothing more than using men as a means for their own goals. Such a negative stereotype can be seen within "The Perfect Crime:"

He loved her if any man ever loved a woman; and she loved him in her own way, but it wasn’t the best way in the world. She loved her own white neck considerably more. (Redman 174)

To put it another way, Harrington absolutely adored Alice and did everything he could for her, but Alice loved herself more than she loved Harrington. We can see how Alice is being portrayed in a negative light by using the man who loved her in order to evade capture. Throughout the short story we can see how she is described as beautiful and these traits are then used against her. In the sense that her beauty allowed for her to make Harrington fall for her. Whereas, this is in stark contrast to how Harrington is portrayed. Harrington is seen as selfless and level headed, he did what he had to for the woman he loved. One could argue that Harrington taking the blame only made him look better, because it shows how truly devoted he was towards Alice. Alice on the other hand is seen as the beautiful, hysterical woman who is a coward. Lastly, I would like to discuss the long lasting damage that is put on men when they’re taught that they should show no emotion.

At the end of the short story we can see how Dr. Trevor kills Gregory, so that no one would know he made a mistake. For many individuals it would seem as if it were just a narrative device in order to end the story, but in actuality it highlights another negative gender stereotype. Men believe that showing emotion is a sign of weakness. By admitting that he was wrong, then Dr. Trevor would have to make himself vulnerable and admit that he got something wrong. For example in Masculinity: gender roles, characteristics and coping, we can see:

an individual may be raised to believe that part of being a man involves being stoic and not showing emotion. However, conflict may arise when such behaviors interfere with the development of meaningful relationships with others. (Buchholz & Boyce xi)

In other words, people believe that being a man means never showing how you truly feel; however, it will not allow individuals to grow close with others. This can be clearly seen within the short story, Dr. Trevor didn’t have any friends, Gregory was merely the closest thing he had to one. The obsession he had over his work and his lack of communication made this outcome inevitable. Dr. Trevor didn’t have the proper outlet to handle the situation at hand. Although written in the 1920’s this sentiment has yet to change. It is still common amongst many men to not have the proper skills to handle their emotions.

All in all, "The Perfect Crime" gave us a glimpse into how many gender stereotypes have been normalized within our society. There isn’t a single gender stereotype, but through popular forms of media many have become a common theme. Whether that be through the use of language to make women seem less than men or how men are taught to be aggressive with no tools to help express their emotional state. By recognizing how these gender stereotypes we can take steps in order to break their hold on our society.

Work Cited

Buchholz, Zachary D, and Samantha K Boyce. Masculinity : Gender Roles, Characteristics and Coping. Nova Science, 2009. INSERT-MISSING-DATABASE-NAME, INSERT-MISSING-URL. Accessed 3 May 2021.

Bola, J. J. Mask Off : Masculinity Redefined. Pluto Press, 2019. INSERT-MISSING-DATABASE-NAME, INSERT-MISSING-URL. Accessed 3 May 2021.

“The Feminisation of Madness Is Crazy | Mind Your Language.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 8 Mar. 2012, www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2012/mar/08/mind-your-language-feminisation-madness.

Redman, Ben Ray. The Perfect Crime. Harper's Magazine, 1928.

Photo by Zachary Olson on Upspash

In 2019 the Golden Globe-nominated whodunit film Knives Out grossed $311.4 million at the box office. The film’s plot revolves around solving the apparent suicide of the elderly Harlan Thrombey, an incredibly successful mystery novelist and family patriarch who left everything he owned to his caregiver. The film features a large cast of characters including Harlan’s adult children (Linda, Walt, and Jodi), grandchildren (Ransom, Meg, and Jacob), and the caregiver and protagonist (Marta Cabrera). In addition to its commercial success, Knives Out offers commentary on several issues in American society including politics, class, and social justice all while solving a compelling, elaborate mystery. Although, when viewed through a symbolic lens, Knives Out offers insightful and nuanced commentary on polarizing politics, class, and the concept of American meritocracy, I argue that the solution the film offers (expropriative redistribution) is problematic when viewed from a social justice perspective because it propagates the white savior trope.

It is hard to miss the political and class commentary in Knives Out. In one scene in particular, during a flashback we see from Marta’s perspective, the Thrombey family discusses politics. Walt Thrombey and his wife Donna express traditional conservative views. In the context of immigration, Donna says, “We are losing our way of life” and that “Mexicans are coming in . . . we let them in, and they think they own what’s ours” (Johnson). Joni (Harlan’s daughter-in-law) expresses traditional liberal views and proffers liberal arguments in response to Walt and Donna. In the same scene, she points out that kids are being kept in cages for simply trying to achieve the American dream (Johnson). Linda Drysdale (Harlan’s daughter) and her husband Richard seem to represent opposing moderate views, evidenced when first greeting Marta after Harlan’s death. Both Linda and Richard ask Marta how she is doing with the same words: “How are you doing kiddo,” however, Linda speaks with warmth and a hug (representing moderate left) while Richard says it distractedly while looking at his phone (representing moderate right) (Johnson). During the aforementioned discussion, Richard says, “no one is saying kids in cages isn’t bad, but the parents have some blame here, they are breaking the law,” “America is for Americans,” and “It doesn’t matter how good your heart is, you have to face the consequences” (Johnson). During this conversation, Linda does not seem to agree with everything that is being said, but she does not voice her own opinion. Walt and Donna’s son Jacob is described by the rest of the family— though not his parents— as an “alt-right troll dipshit” and a Nazi, representing the far-right and explicit racism on the right. Meg (Joni’s daughter) is attending college, pursuing an “SJW degree,” and she smokes marijuana; these are character traits stereotypically associated with the progressive left. Ransom Drysdale (Linda and Richard’s son) is not present at the discussion, however, later in the movie, he expresses disdain for what he perceives as the lower class, calling them the “Help” and ordering them around with derogatory nicknames while simultaneously demanding to be called by his first name Hugh (“Only the help call me Hugh”)(Johnson). Ransom does not appear to express an explicit political orientation (at least early on); however, he clearly equates economic class with intrinsic human value and thus is an apt representation of classism. Marta simultaneously represents the working class, immigrants, minorities, and moral integrity, made evident by the fact that she vomits if she tells a lie. It follows then that the Thrombey family’s estate/fortune represents white America. And Harlan himself represents the framers of the constitution and their will.

With the stage now set and these symbolic relations in mind, many of the inter-character relations and interactions take on new meaning. For instance, both Linda and Walt tell Marta that they consider her family and wanted her to be at Harlan’s funeral, but were outvoted (Johnson). However, this does not add up. Both Walt and Linda are the dominant partner in their respective marital relationships and enjoy outsized influence on the family. If they wanted Marta at the funeral she would have been there. On a casual viewing, the audience interprets this as Walt and Linda being disingenuous, however, through this new lens, it becomes the political right and even the moderate left paying only lip service to the idea that legal immigrants are real Americans. This line of thinking extends to the left when Meg says (in the context of asking Marta to renounce the will), “I know he was like family to you, but he was our actual family” (Johnson). In essence, saying that she knows the constitution says all people are created equal and deserve equal rights, but they are the people who the country is really for.

Another example of this type of commentary can be observed when Richard uses Marta as an exemplary legal immigrant, saying, “she did it the right way and is earning her keep from the ground up— just like the rest of us” (Johnson). In addition to the questionable comparison between Marta and the rest of the family, Richard punctuates his statement by dismissively handing her his dirty dish; showing that she was just a tool to make a point that he does not even believe in. Furthermore, nearly every family member at some point tells Marta that they think she deserves something from the estate, that is until she actually got a piece of it. They were comfortable sharing with Marta as long it was on their terms.

In addition to commentaries on political and class relations, Knives Out critiques the idea that America is a Meritocracy. All of Harlan’s children present themselves as self-made and as such, deserving of the wealth they enjoy. Linda owns her own real estate company, Joni is a social media influencer/skincare company owner, and Walt runs a publishing company. While these things are true, a very important part of the story is left out, at least at first. Walt, when questioned by the police says, “it’s m— our company that dad trusts me to run,” apparently only stopping himself from repeating the phrase “it’s my company” because his claim could be challenged (Johnson). Moreover, Walt’s character uses a cane (a crutch if you will) which represents the relationship he shares with Harlan. Linda claims to have built her company from the ground up but neglects to mention that she started with a million-dollar loan from her father. And Joni does not mention that she is broke. While the irony of these claims is obvious to the audience, it is clear that it is lost on the family themselves. Again, this line of analysis can extend to Meg. While she does attend college, Harlan pays $100,000 a year for it (Johnson). In other words, she did not receive a merit-based scholarship. Ransom flaunts his wealth and revels in the feeling of supremacy it brings him, despite “never working a day in his life” (Johnson). The family is disproportionally wealthy when compared to the average American citizen and at the same time is disproportionally less beneficial to society. This commentary culminates when the family explodes in anger when they learn that they will not be inheriting the fortune they took for granted. Through this frame, the family as a whole is contrasted with Marta. While they were all born with the proverbial silver spoon, Marta is a first-generation American who is a skilled member of the working class. She does not leech off of Harlan’s money, she works and gets paid. As a nurse, she is literally a caregiver. In addition to actually earning a piece of the pie, Marta is also genuinely Harlan’s friend. Translating these characterizations and relationship dynamics: the framers share more in common with nascent immigrant families than the people currently benefiting the most from the society they established.

In Knives Out, justice is portrayed in several different ways. For instance, Ransom receives poetic justice in that it is by his own hand that he guarantees his failure. Different family members receive karmic justice for various misdeeds. Richard’s affaire is uncovered, Joni is removed from the will for stealing from Harlan, and for trying to assume control of Harlan’s books Walt loses the privilege of publishing them (Johnson). However, the most salient form of justice in the film is the social justice Marta receives in the form of Harlan’s inheritance.

This form of social justice can be described as economic redistribution as taking or in other words, expropriation without compensation (Barry). Expropriation is defined as the act of a government claiming privately owned property, against the wishes of owners, to be used for the overall benefit of the public (Kenton). Indeed, this is what the end of the film portrays. Knives Out ends with Marta standing on the terrace with Harlan’s “My house, my rules, my coffee” mug in hand, looking down on the family while they look back up at her from the driveway, symbolizing a change in ownership and a shift in power.

Knives Out justifies this ending by contrasting the moral goodness of Marta with the relative depravity of the family and due to the fact that Harlan willed it. While it is easily argued that Marta was more virtuous than the family, it still remains that without Harlan’s will she would not have inherited anything; and this is problematic. If my symbolization holds, this ending seems to say that it was/is the will of the framers that minorities, the lower class, immigrants, etc. deserve egalitarian justice and even advocate/condone redistribution through expropriation. Granted, this would be an ahistorical interpretation of the system the framers actually implemented, but beyond that, this ending propagates the white savior trope.

The white savior trope is anytime a white messianic character saves a lower-class nonwhite character from a sad fate and this is problematic because this trope undermines minority groups' abilities to advance on their own merit (Denzin). How then should Knives Out have ended to avoid this problem? If for example, we set the mystery and story aspect aside and the family had willing shared part of the estate with Marta, that too would have constituted a white savior ending. Furthermore, if instead there was some mechanism such that the state collected Harlan’s assets after his death and then redistributed them, this would also be a white savior ending because the government that passed such mechanism would probably have been majority white. The only ending that seems to avoid the white savior trope would be one where Marta takes Harlan’s inheritance for herself. Somehow Marta would have had to have gotten Harlan to make her the benefactor of his will and then actually have killed him. While this would make Marta the villain of the story instead of the hero, it would constitute a non-white savior ending. Translated through the symbolic lens this ending would constitute a violent uprising reminiscent of the French Revolution.

In conclusion, Knives Out, while being an entertaining mystery film that critiques racism, xenophobia, classism, and the concept of meritocracy, is still problematic because it enforces the white savior trope. For this film to not be problematic, Marta would have had to take Harlan’s inheritance for herself rather than having it given to her because Harlan deemed her worthy. With all this in mind, a new question arises: Is violent revolution the only way to truly achieve egalitarian justice without it being cheapened by the white savior problem?

Works Cited

Barry, Christian. “Redistribution.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 7 Feb. 2018, plato.stanford.edu/entries/redistribution/#RediTaki.

Denzin, Norman. "The savior trope and the modern meanings of whiteness." The white savior film: Content critics, and consumption (2014): 1-17.

Johnson, Rian. Knives Out. Lionsgate, 2019.

Kenton, Will. “Expropriation.” Investopedia, Investopedia, 14 Dec. 2020, www.investopedia.com/terms/e/expropriation.asp.

Susan Glaspell’s "A Jury of Her Peers" effectively uses setting and symbolism to convey brutality and isolation. Minnie Foster and women more generally are isolated due to contemporary social conventions. The text initially focuses on the mysterious murder of John Wright; however, Glaspell skillfully captures the reader and entrenches them into the conversation about the lives of women. The culmination of the text is the juxtaposition of right and wrong: should the murderer be held responsible if the legal system is incapable of providing justice?

This paper will address justice through two methods. First, through classical conceptions of morality. This allows the reader to deconstruct the critique of justice presented by Glaspell in a way that is likely to be commonly understood, seeing that modern legal systems evolved from classical philosophical works. Second, justice will be examined from a feminist perspective, which was until recently mostly excluded from these conversations. Under the latter examination, the text assumes a new form, the subjectivity of individuals is highlighted, and the possibility that justice may not exist as a fixed concept due to the subjective nature in which the concept is built. This paper will show how the text "A Jury of Her Peers" challenges the claim of judicial objectivity. This paper analyzes this challenge and argues that justice cannot exist due to its need for objectivity which itself does not truly exist.

Susan Glaspell's "A Jury of Her Peers" is based on the true 1901 case of Margaret Hossack; a case that has seen prolific study in law schools. This alone signals the importance of the text beyond a good mystery. The dichotomy necessary for establishing the story's stark juxtapositions is set up quickly as we are introduced to three men, the Sheriff, county attorney, and a witness, who then are subsequently joined by three women Mrs. Peters, the Sheriff's wife, and the witness's wife. This sets the stage for the contrasts that ultimately highlight the question of whether or not justice can exist. As the men walk through the house commenting on its dirtiness the women defend Mini Foster, explaining that the men do not have an understanding of the work necessary for keeping a a farmhouse clean. This is one of the first instances where the subjective positions of the male investigators are highlighted, and the women are required to explain concepts that escape the men’s understandings—such as the fruit jars breaking due to the cold (Glaspell 102). Although the women offer insights into the murder, the County Attorney doubts the ability of the women, even going so far as to challenge their cognitive abilities, stating “would the woman know a clue if they did come upon it” (Glaspell 92). The story continues along with this same trope where the men overlook and discredit their female counterparts. The women can assess the significance of Minnie’s quilt and various other pieces of evidence which leads them to conclude that Minnie had justification for murdering her abusive husband. Therefore, the text shows that different groups of people come to different conclusions based on their subjective positions. However, since the men who represent the legal institutions do not involve or consider their subjectivity the women realize that the law is incapable of understanding women and therefore cannot properly organize and distribute justice. Therefore, the women hide the evidence of the dead canary as a collective act of defiance against the male-dominated legal system.

The first attempt to define justice is through the use of classical moral philosophy. Plato's Gorgias discusses the concept of justice and the health of the soul. Plato claims that punishment is equivalent to medicine in that it heals the sore from unjust action. According to Plato, Minnie Foster should welcome punishment since she has harmed her soul. Following this logic, he argues that avoiding punishment counteracts the healing process of the soul. Therefore, Plato argues, “it is better to suffer wrong than do wrong” (Gorgias 473a- 475e). The women’s attempts to hide the canary to circumvent punishment for Minnie is the worse option. Regardless of the systematic sexism and oppression, Plato’s moral philosophy emphasizes a need to accept punishment for one's owns actions. Therefore, the alternative form of justice does not offer a morally superior process and ultimately inflames the moral issue by not allowing Minnie Fosters' soul to heal. Yet, this is a poor explanation of human action. People naturally do not seek out punishment and under this moral epistemology. All actors in "A Jury of Her Peers" would be acting outside of Plato’s ideals. Perhaps natural law may be a superior teleological system of rationalizing the actions taken by the women in "A Jury of Her Peers."

The theologian and philosopher St. Aquinas describes natural law as a universal set of goods set by a divine being that acts as the fundamental tenets upon which the principles of justice are founded. In short, natural law tells us that we should do and seek good and shun evil and the ability of humans to rationalize (Aquinas 47). Natural law, however, is counter to our vices, and so natural law requires rational thought to accurately choose between right and wrong (Treatise on Law 20). But rationality is not objective. Orit Kamirs’ article, To Kill a Songbird: A Community of Women, Feminist Jurisprudence, Conscientious Objection and Revolution in A Jury of Her Peers and Contemporary Film argues that the women are acting rationally. As the men conduct their investigation the women are conducting an investigation of their own relying on their shared experiences and intuition to determine the relevancy of small details such as Minnie’s quilting. Women’s shared experiences enable them to understand the circumstances surrounding Minnie’s life. This process mirrors the type of rational thought that Aquinas builds his natural law off of. Using their form of natural law, “they establish the existence of a ‘reasonable woman,’ determine her distinctness from the ‘reasonable man,’ and find that, placed in Minnie ’s situation, the ‘reasonable woman’ could well have acted as the accused did. In this, they find Minnie ‘reasonable’ and exonerate her” (Kamir 363). This proves that natural law is subject to the individual’s subjective position and therefore justice itself is adapted to particular social circumstances (Aquinas 21). Consequently, justice cannot be determined under classical moral philosophy seeing that it takes different forms depending on the particular perspective.

There is a distinct issue in this approach; the moral philosophy that has shaped our understanding of justice was prevalently restricted to men’s perspectives and therefore our basis of the analysis is subjective. Catriona Mackenzie’s paper Feminist innovation in philosophy: Relational autonomy and social justice describe the underrepresentation of women in philosophy because of the "chilly climate for women in the discipline; rewarding people (mainly men) who are perceived to be “smart”; and the devaluation within the discipline of the knowledge claims made by feminist philosophers” (Mackenzie 1). Therefore, women were unable to engage in this early discussion of natural law, ethics, and justice. This exclusion indicates Plato and St. Aquinas cannot claim objectivity and therefore their conclusions on moral philosophy cannot be reasonably used to analyze "A Jury of Her Peers." Therefore, to properly analyze this text feminist moral philosophy must be considered.

The Philosopher Elena Flores Ruiz observes that moral philosophy has presumed its objectivity. This assumption is inattentive to the concerns of women and skews the definition of justice that it has constructed without properly including women. Feminist philosophy on justice differs from our classical descriptions. Ruth Groenhout offers a theory on justice that is not beholden to abstract and universal principles in the way that Plato and St. Aquinas’ theory are. Rather, Groenhout reasons that objectivity does not exist, and the simple dichotomization of society cannot be used to construct concepts of justice. This is because reducing such principles of virtue, justice, and goodwill ultimately exclude and marginalize individuals (Groenhout 171-200). Glaspell directs the reader towards the issue of subjective positions when Mrs. Hale remarks that women “all go through the same things—it's just a different kind of the same thing” (Glaspell 102). This comment is then followed by a realization by Mrs. Peters that the men would fail to understand the importance of the canary and use it to convict Minnie foster without thinking about the meaning of its brutal death. The women are confronting the issue of objectivity, realizing that they have shared experiences that the men do not, which causes the men to misinterpret clues and thus hinder justice. Glaspell's use of dialogue drags out this point, forcing the reader to think alongside Groenhout and Ruiz: challenging the idea that objectivity can exist in a way that would allow justice to operate as a singular idea. Consequently, this analysis has led to the same conclusions as that of the classical moral philosophy: universal ideas about justice are inherently flawed because justice cannot be detached from subjective views.

In short, institutions and judicial epistemologies claim objectivity, yet they are not objective. Feminist approaches will claim objectivity does not exist and thus institutions constructed through subjective processes are incapable of functioning objectively. This is however not a philosophical text; Glaspell is not constructing universals and therefore cannot be properly understood through comparisons to philosophical ideals. Glaspell tries to encourage different views on justice much in the same way that contemporary female philosophers such as Elena Flores Ruiz and Ruth Groenhout critique the established ideals of justice. "A Jury of Her Peers" not only engages the reader in a cold clouding murder mystery but also describes women's oppression within the legal system. This culminates in the indirect assault on the perfect ideal of justice as a fluid and subjective concept. The text exposes justice as a myth since both modes of analysis improperly define justice through the actions taken by the three women to protect Minnie Forster.

Glaspell’s social commentary and this paper's subsequent analysis can advise contemporary society. The people most affected by the justice system should have influence in the judicial process. The Black community currently faces significant levels of incarceration yet do not see a corresponding level of representation. The is also the issue of old white conservative men making decisions regarding women’s health without proper inclusions of women in that processes. We can still observe a gender bias today, similar to that observed in "A Jury of her Peers" which is set in the early 1900’s. This text underscores issues that can help inform our contemporary life and improve our systems of justice.

Works Cited

Glaspell, Susan. A Jury of Her Peers.

Groenhout, Ruth E., 1998, “The Virtue of Care: Aristotelian Ethics and Contemporary Ethics of Care,” in C. Freeland (ed.), Feminist Interpretations of Aristotle, University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 171–200.

Kamir, Orit. “To Kill a Songbird: A Community of Women, Feminist Jurisprudence, Conscientious Objection and Revolution in A Jury of Her Peers and Contemporary Film.” Law and Literature, vol. 19, no. 3, 2007, pp. 357–376. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/lal.2007.19.3.357. Accessed 30 Apr. 2021.

Mackenzie, Catriona. 2019. "Feminist Innovation in Philosophy: Relational Autonomy and Social Justice." Women's Studies International Forum 72: 144-151. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2018.05.003. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539517305137.

Platon, and Donald J. Zeyl. Gorgias. Hackett Pub. Co., 1987.

Ruíz, Elena F., 2014, “Musing: Spectral Phenomenologies: Dwelling Poetically in Professional Philosophy,” Hypatia, 29 (1): 196–204.

Thomas, and Richard J Regan. Treatise on Law. Hackett Pub, 2000.

Sue Taylor Grafton (April 24, 1940 – December 28, 2017) was an American author of detective novels. She is best known as the author of private investigator Kinsey Millhone in the fictional city of Santa Teresa, California. Grafton's style is characteristic of hard-boiled detective fiction, and the novels are framed as reports Kinsey writes in the course of her investigations, which are signed off in the epilogue of each novel. Additionally, her work featuring Kinsey Millhone "The Parker Shotgun" won the Anthony Award for Best Short Story.

"The Parker Shotgun" details the investigation by Kinsey Millhone into the Murder of ex-cocaine dealer, Rudd Osterling, over a valuable shotgun. The motive for the crime involves the greed of both Bill Barnett and Avery Lamb. In addition, the title of the story itself refers to a motive for the murder. In the story, the shotgun has the value of $96,000, as it is the rare gun in which only two of a kind were ever created. The shotgun does not only serve as a murder weapon, but it also serves as the form of the justice, the symbol of redemption, and the source of power and greed. Therefore, I argue that the shotgun image of the story does not only reflect the major theme of the central crime, which is consistent with other hardboiled mystery fictions, but it also symbolizes these themes to reflect the society and the reality of the law-enforcement system during that time.

To begin with, hard-boiled mystery fictions are “nose to the ground stories that involve a private detective solving a crime that is surrounded by violence, greed, and corruption” (Moore p. 3). In addition, Wade Richard Ripple and Sam Patrick Russell also states that: “The Hard-Boiled writing style resonates with the readers, because it deals with the real concerns of life, yet the story is still unrealistic because the problems are solved. The Hard-Boiled genre puts characters in bad scenarios that seem impossible to get out of, yet the characters' brawn, quick wit, and decisiveness lead the detective out of trouble.” (Ripple and Russel) This wholly reflects the situations of the victims in the story. Rudd Osterling is a retired drug dealer who was trying to earn money for his about-to-be-born child; he was accidentally killed by Bill Squires over greed and envy for the shotgun. Lisa Osterling is placed in the scenarios that seem impossible to get out of, but Kinsey Millhone helps her by solving the case and returning the gun to her.

The shotgun image of the story reflects many negative aspects of reality in the society throughout the storyline. Greed and envy play a pivotal role throughout the story: Bill Squires would not have shot Rudd Osterling if he did not covet the Parker Shotgun. According to Kinsey Millhone, Bill Squires “found out what Eric had done with the shotgun, and went over to Rudd to get it” and “took the L.C. Smith to blow Rudd’s head off for not returning the gun” (Grafton, 663). The Parker symbolizes the chance of redemption for Rudd from being a drug dealer, as he planned to use the money to support his unborn child. However, the gun also symbolizes Bill’s need for power in his life. Due to his difficult marriage and his health condition, the Parker is his way of maintaining the sense of power in life. In addition, the shotgun also arouses greed in Avery Lamb and Jackie Barnett. From the initial investigation, detective Millhone realizes that Avery Lamb always hides details and hesitates to discuss the details of Rudd Osterling crime. He tries to hide the market price for the Parker Shotgun, and “he hesitated for a moment” (Grafton, 656) when detective Millhone ask about the other contact of Rudd Osterling, which is Jackie Barnett. Jackie Barnett, according to detective Millhone, plans to earn Bill Squires’ money from inheritance and marry Avery Lamb. Overall, the greed and envy are the major theme throughout the storyline, which is the typical characteristics of a hard-boiled mystery fiction – solving a crime that is surrounded by greed and envy.

"The Parker Shotgun" also plays along the generalized belief that law enforcement does not care about drug addicts or drug dealers, deeming them unvaluable. In common belief, the gun represents the symbol of justice and law enforcement; it serves as a tool of enforcing law and justice. However, it does not reflect the same meaning in "The Parker Shotgun." In the first meeting, Lisa Osterling says: ”Jesus. Rudd was killed five months ago, and the cops have done shit.” ( Grafton, 649) and “The police are hoping I will drop the whole thing, but I got news for them.” (Grafton, 650) This indicates that the police in the story are not wiling to take involvement into this case; drug dealers are ignored by the law enforcement. This reflect the reality of the U.S in this period: the Crack Epidemic, which refers to “the significant increase in the use of crack cocaine, or crack, in the United States during the early 1980s” (Turner), as "The Parker Shotgun" was also written during that time. During the crack epidemic, the U.S was depicted as “overwhelmed by serious illness, fear, anger, mutual mistrust and a level of inequity and incompetence that mocks our self-image as Americans” (Times). Drug dealing, abusing, and other acts related to drug were considered serious crimes; criminals with drugs on their records would not be treated equally. In the story, the police ignores Rudd Osterling’s case for five months despite the constant updates on news from Lisa Osterling. This forces Lisa to look for support from other source (Kinsey Millhone). It indicates the fact that law enforcement only considered drug addicts or dealers unvaluable and the reality of U.S.’s society in the 1980s.

Beside the negative symbolizations of the Parker, it serves as the form of justice and redemption in this story. The shotgun represents Rudd Osterling’s will to redeem his life from the past of dealing drugs. Rudd’s intention is to sell the gun for the money to support his unborn child. The child is the reason that Rudd decided to abandon the life of a drug dealer. He chooses to sell the Parker to get the money for his child. In addition, the Parker also serves as the form of justice at the end of the story. Detective Kinsey Millhone decides to “substitute the L.C. Smith for the Parker” (Grafton, 664) and give the Parker to Lisa Osterling as the form of financial restitution. Detective Millhone also decides not to tell the police everything about the case, as she states: “sometimes justice is served in other ways”. (Grafton, 664) This decision not only serves to fulfill Rudd Osterling’s desire, as he could finally redeem from his past as a drug dealer and support his child, but it also serves justice, as the greed of Avery Lamb and Jackie Barnett is not fulfilled. The positive side of the shotgun’s symbol adds depth to the story that reflects the positive side of the society and helps the story be more enjoyable to the readers.

In short, "The Parker Shotgun" embraces the whole characteristics of the subgenre hard-boiled in mystery fiction and also reflects many aspects in the society of the U.S in the 1980s. It places Rudd and Lisa Osterling in bad scenarios: Rudd dies because of the Parker, and police tries to ignore the case from Lisa because they consider drug dealer to be invaluable. The greed of Bill Squires and Jackie Barnett leads to the scenarios that seem impossible to get out for Lisa. However, detective Kinsey Millhone helps Lisa Osterling to prove the innocence of Rudd Osterling, and give the Parker to Lisa as a form of financial restitution. The Parker Shotgun does not only embrace the hard-boiled mystery fiction, but it also reflects the reality of U.S society in the 1980s: the ignorance of law-enforcement on drug dealers and addicts and the greed and envy of people surrounding the area.

Works Cited

Moore, Lewis D. Cracking the Hard-Boiled Detective: a Critical History from the 1920s to the Present. McFarland, 2006.

Ripple, Wade and Russell, Patrick. “Hard-Boiled”. Detective Agency of Wabash, 2021. Website, https://sites.google.com/view/detective-agency-of-wabash

Turner, Deonna. “Crack Epidemic”, 2009. Website: https://www.britannica.com/topic/crack-epidemic

Los Angeles Times, “The 1980s crack epidemic was a fork in the road. America chose racism and prisons over public health”, 2020. Website: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-06-10/crack-policing-response-instead-of-health-care

Grafton, Sue. “The Parker Shotgun.” The Best American Mystery Stories of the Century, edited by Tony Hillerman and Otto Penzler, Houghton Mifflin, 2000, pp. 649—664.