Comedies | Dramas | Playwrights | Cast-Size

TRIFLES a play in one-act

by Susan Glaspell

The following one-act play is reprinted from . Susan Glaspell. New York: Frank Shay, 1916. It is now in the public domain and may therefore be performed without royalties.

CHARACTERS

GEORGE HENDERSON, County Attorney HENRY PETERS, Sheriff

LEWIS HALE, A neighboring farmer MRS. PETERS

MRS. HALE

COUNTY ATTORNEY: This feels good. Come up to the fire, ladies.

MRS PETERS: I’m not—cold.

SHERIFF: 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?

SHERIFF: It’s just the same. When it dropped below zero last night I thought I’d better send Frank out this morning to make a fire for us—no use getting pneumonia with a big case on, but I told him not to touch anything except the stove—and you know Frank.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: Somebody should have been left here yesterday.

SHERIFF: Oh—yesterday. When I had to send Frank to Morris Center for that man who went crazy—I want you to know I had my hands full yesterday. I knew you could get back from Omaha by today and as long as I went over everything here myself—

COUNTY ATTORNEY: Well, Mr Hale, tell just what happened when you came here yesterday morning.

1 of 9

 

 

HALE: Harry and I had 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 in with me on a party telephone.’ I spoke to Wright about it once before and he put me off, saying folks talked too much anyway, and all he asked was peace and quiet—I guess you know about how much he talked himself; but I thought maybe if I went to the house and talked about it before his wife, though I said to Harry that I didn’t know as what his wife wanted made much difference to John—

COUNTY ATTORNEY: Let’s talk about that later, Mr Hale. I do want to talk about that, but tell now just what happened when you got to the house.

HALE: I didn’t hear or see anything; I knocked at the door, and still it was all quiet inside. I knew they must be up, it was past eight o’clock. So I knocked again, and I thought I heard somebody say, ‘Come in.’ I wasn’t sure, I’m not sure yet, but I opened the door— this door and there in that rocker— sat Mrs Wright.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: What—was she doing?

HALE: She was rockin’ back and forth. She had her apron in her hand and was kind of— pleating it.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: And how did she—look?

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?

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. I guess you would call it a laugh. I thought of Harry and the team outside, so I said a little sharp: ‘Can’t I see John?’ ‘No’, she says, kind o’ dull like. ‘Ain’t he home?’ says I. ‘Yes’, says she, ‘he’s home’. ‘Then why can’t I see him?’ I asked her, out of patience. ”Cause he’s dead’, says she. ‘Dead?’ says I. She just nodded her head, not getting a bit excited, but rockin’ back and forth. ‘Why—where is he?’ says I, not knowing what to say. She just pointed upstairs—like that I got up, with the idea of going up there. I walked from there to here—then I says, ‘Why, what did he die of?’ ‘He died of a rope round his neck’, says she, and just went on pleatin’ at her apron. Well, I went out and called Harry. I thought I might—need help. We went upstairs and there he was lyin’—

COUNTY ATTORNEY: I think I’d rather have you go into that upstairs, where you can point it all out. Just go on now with the rest of the story.

HALE: Well, my first thought was to get that rope off. It looked … … but Harry, he went up to him, and he said, ‘No, he’s dead all right, and we’d

better not touch anything.’ So we went back down stairs. She was still sitting that same way. ‘Has anybody been notified?’ I asked. ‘No’, says she unconcerned. ‘Who did this, Mrs Wright?’ said Harry. He said it business-like—and she stopped pleatin’ of her apron. ‘I don’t know’, she says. ‘You don’t know?’ says Harry. ‘No’, says she. ‘Weren’t you sleepin’ in the bed with him?’ says Harry. ‘Yes’, says she, ‘but I was on the inside’. ‘Somebody slipped a rope round his neck and strangled him and you didn’t wake up?’ says Harry. ‘I didn’t wake up’, she said after him. We must ‘a looked as if we didn’t see how that could be, for after a minute she said, ‘I sleep sound’. Harry was going to ask her more questions but I said maybe we ought to let her tell her story first to the coroner, or the sheriff, so Harry went fast as he could to Rivers’ place, where there’s a telephone.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: And what did Mrs Wright do when she knew that you had gone for the coroner?

HALE: She moved from that chair to this one over here and just sat there with her hands held together and looking down. I got a feeling

that I ought to make some conversation, so I said I had come in to see if John wanted to

2 of 9

 

 

put in a telephone, and at that she started to laugh, and then she stopped and looked at me—scared, I dunno, maybe it wasn’t scared. I wouldn’t like to say it was. Soon Harry got back, and then Dr Lloyd came, and you, Mr Peters, and so I guess that’s all I know that you don’t.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: I guess we’ll go upstairs first—and then out to the barn and around there, You’re convinced that there was nothing important here—nothing that would point to any motive.

SHERIFF: Nothing here but kitchen things.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: Here’s a nice mess.

MRS PETERS: Oh, her fruit; it did freeze, 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.

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.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: And yet, for all their worries, what would we do without the ladies?

Dirty towels! Not much of a housekeeper, would you

say, ladies?

MRS HALE: There’s a great deal of work to be done on a farm.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: To be sure. And yet I know there are some Dickson county farmhouses which do not have such roller towels.

MRS HALE: Those towels get dirty awful quick. Men’s hands aren’t always as clean as they might be.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: Ah, loyal to your sex, I see. But you and Mrs Wright were neighbors. I suppose you were friends, too.

MRS HALE: 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?

MRS HALE: I liked her all well enough. Farmers’ wives have their hands full, Mr Henderson. And then—

COUNTY ATTORNEY: Yes—?

MRS HALE: It never seemed a very cheerful place.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: No—it’s not cheerful. I shouldn’t say she had the homemaking instinct.

MRS HALE: Well, I don’t know as Wright had, either.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: You mean that they didn’t get on very well?

3 of 9

 

 

MRS HALE: No, I don’t mean anything. But I don’t think a place’d be any cheerfuller for John Wright’s being in it.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: I’d like to talk more of that a little later. I want to get the lay of things upstairs now.

SHERIFF: I suppose anything Mrs Peters does’ll be all right. She was to take in some clothes for her, you know, and a few little things. We left in such a hurry yesterday.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: Yes, but I would like to see what you take, Mrs Peters, and keep an eye out for anything that might be of use to us.

MRS PETERS: Yes, Mr Henderson.

MRS HALE: I’d hate to have men coming into my kitchen, snooping around and criticising.

MRS PETERS: Of course it’s no more than their duty.

MRS HALE: Duty’s all right, but I guess that deputy sheriff that came out to make the fire might have got a little of this on. Wish I’d thought of that sooner. Seems mean to talk about her for not having things slicked up when she had to come away in such a hurry.

MRS PETERS: She had bread set.

MRS HALE: She was going to put this in there,

It’s a shame about her fruit. I wonder if it’s all gone. I think there’s some here that’s all right, Mrs Peters. Yes—here; this is cherries, too. I declare I believe that’s the only one.

She’ll feel awful bad after all her hard work in the hot weather. I remember the afternoon I put up my cherries last summer.

MRS PETERS: Well, I must get those things from the front room closet, You coming with me,

Mrs Hale? You could help me carry them.

MRS PETERS: My, it’s cold in there.

MRS HALE: Wright was close. I think maybe that’s why she kept so much to herself. She didn’t even belong to the Ladies Aid. I suppose she felt she couldn’t do her part, and then you don’t enjoy things when you feel shabby. She used to wear pretty clothes and be lively, when she was Minnie Foster, one of the town girls singing in the choir. But that—oh, that was thirty years ago. This all you was to take in?

MRS PETERS: She said she wanted an apron. Funny thing to want, for there isn’t much to get you dirty in jail, goodness knows. But I suppose just to make her feel more natural. She said they was in the top drawer in this cupboard. Yes, here. And then her little shawl that always hung behind the door. Yes, here it is.

4 of 9

 

 

MRS HALE: Mrs Peters?

MRS PETERS: Yes, Mrs Hale?

MRS HALE: Do you think she did it?

MRS PETERS: Oh, I don’t know.

MRS HALE: Well, I don’t think she did. Asking for an apron and her little shawl. Worrying about her fruit.

MRS PETERS: Mr Peters says it looks bad for her. Mr Henderson is awful

sarcastic in a speech and he’ll make fun of her sayin’ she didn’t wake up.

MRS HALE: Well, I guess John Wright didn’t wake when they was slipping that rope under his neck.

MRS PETERS: No, it’s strange. It must have been done awful crafty and still. They say it was such a—funny way to kill a man, rigging it all up like that.

MRS HALE: That’s just what Mr Hale said. There was a gun in the house. He says that’s what he can’t understand.

MRS PETERS: Mr Henderson said coming out that what was needed for the case was a motive; something to show anger, or—sudden feeling.

MRS HALE: Well, I don’t see any signs of anger around here,

It’s wiped to here,

Wonder how they are finding things upstairs. I hope she had it a little more red-up up there. You know, it seems kind of sneaking. Locking her up in town and then coming out here and trying to get her own house to turn against her!

MRS PETERS: But Mrs Hale, the law is the law.

MRS HALE: I s’pose ’tis, Better loosen up your things, Mrs Peters. You won’t feel them when you go out.

MRS PETERS: She was piecing a quilt.

MRS HALE: It’s log cabin pattern. Pretty, isn’t it? I wonder if she was goin’ to quilt it or just knot it?

SHERIFF: They wonder if she was going to quilt it or just knot it!

COUNTY ATTORNEY: Frank’s fire didn’t do much up there, did it? Well, let’s go out to the barn and get that cleared up.

MRS HALE: I don’t know as there’s anything so strange, our takin’ up our time with little things while we’re waiting for them to get the evidence.

I don’t see as it’s anything to laugh about.

MRS PETERS: Of course they’ve got awful important things on their minds.

5 of 9

 

 

MRS HALE: 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!

MRS PETERS: Oh, what are you doing, Mrs Hale?

MRS HALE: Just pulling out a stitch or two that’s not sewed very good. Bad sewing always made me fidgety.

MRS PETERS: I don’t think we ought to touch things.

MRS HALE: I’ll just finish up this end. Mrs Peters?

MRS PETERS: Yes, Mrs Hale?

MRS HALE: What do you suppose she was so nervous about?

MRS PETERS: Oh—I don’t know. I don’t know as she was nervous. I sometimes sew awful queer when I’m just tired.

Well I must get these things wrapped up. They may be through sooner than we think, I wonder where I can find a piece of paper, and string.

MRS HALE: In that cupboard, maybe.

MRS PETERS: Why, here’s a bird-cage, Did she have a bird, Mrs Hale?

MRS HALE: Why, I don’t know whether she did or not—I’ve not been here for so long. There was a man around last year selling canaries cheap, but I don’t know as she took one; maybe she did. She used to sing real pretty herself.

MRS PETERS: Seems funny to think of a bird here. But she must have had one, or why would she have a cage? I wonder what happened to it.

MRS HALE: I s’pose maybe the cat got it.

MRS PETERS: No, she didn’t have a cat. She’s got that feeling some people have about cats—being afraid of them. My cat got in her room and she was real upset and asked me to take it out.

MRS HALE: My sister Bessie was like that. Queer, ain’t it?

MRS PETERS: Why, look at this door. It’s broke. One hinge is pulled apart.

MRS HALE: Looks as if someone must have been rough with it.

MRS PETERS: Why, yes.

MRS HALE: I wish if they’re going to find any evidence they’d be about it. I don’t like this place.

MRS PETERS: But I’m awful glad you came with me, Mrs Hale. It would be lonesome for me sitting here alone.

MRS HALE: It would, wouldn’t it? But I tell you what I do wish, Mrs Peters. I wish I had come over sometimes when she was here. I—

—wish I had.

MRS PETERS: But of course you were awful busy, Mrs Hale—your house and your children.

6 of 9

 

 

MRS HALE: I could’ve come. I stayed away because it weren’t cheerful—and that’s why I ought to have come. I—I’ve never liked this place. Maybe because it’s down in a hollow and you don’t see the road. I dunno what it is, but it’s a lonesome place and always was. I wish I had come over to see Minnie Foster sometimes. I can see now—

MRS PETERS: Well, you mustn’t reproach yourself, Mrs Hale. Somehow we just don’t see how it is with other folks until—something comes up.

MRS HALE: Not having children makes less work—but it makes a quiet house, and Wright out to work all day, and no company when he did come in. Did you know John Wright, Mrs Peters?

MRS PETERS: Not to know him; I’ve seen him in town. They say he was a good man.

MRS HALE: Yes—good; he didn’t drink, and kept his word as well as most, I guess, and paid his debts. But he was a hard man, Mrs Peters. Just to pass the time of day with him— Like a raw wind that gets to the bone,

I should think she would ‘a wanted a bird. But what do you suppose went with it?

MRS PETERS: I don’t know, unless it got sick and died.

MRS HALE: You weren’t raised round here, were you? You didn’t know—her?

MRS PETERS: Not till they brought her yesterday.

MRS HALE: She—come to think of it, she was kind of like a bird herself—real sweet and pretty, but kind of timid and—fluttery. How—she—did—change.

Tell you what, Mrs Peters, why don’t you take the quilt in with you? It might take up her mind.

MRS PETERS: Why, I think that’s a real nice idea, Mrs Hale. There couldn’t possibly be any objection to it, could there? Now, just what would I take? I wonder if her patches are in here—and her things.

MRS HALE: Here’s some red. I expect this has got sewing things in it. What a pretty box. Looks like something somebody would give you. Maybe her

scissors are in here. Why— There’s something wrapped up in this

piece of silk.

MRS PETERS: Why, this isn’t her scissors.

MRS HALE: Oh, Mrs Peters—it’s—

MRS PETERS: It’s the bird.

MRS HALE: But, Mrs Peters—look at it! It’s neck! Look at its neck! It’s all— other side to.

MRS PETERS: Somebody—wrung—its—neck.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: Well ladies, have you decided whether she was going to quilt it or knot it?

MRS PETERS: We think she was going to—knot it.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: Well, that’s interesting, I’m sure. Has the bird flown?

7 of 9

 

 

MRS HALE: We think the—cat got it.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: Is there a cat?

MRS PETERS: Well, not now. They’re superstitious, you know. They leave.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: No sign at all of anyone having come from the outside. Their own rope. Now let’s go up again and go over it piece by piece. It would have to have been someone who knew just the—

MRS HALE: She liked the bird. She was going to bury it in that pretty box.

MRS PETERS: When I was a girl—my kitten—there was a boy took a hatchet, and before my eyes—and before I could get there— If they hadn’t held me back I would have—

—hurt him.

MRS HALE: I wonder how it would seem never to have had any children around, No, Wright wouldn’t like the bird—a thing that sang. She used to sing. He killed that, too.

MRS PETERS: We don’t know who killed the bird.

MRS HALE: I knew John Wright.

MRS PETERS: It was an awful thing was done in this house that night, Mrs Hale. Killing a man while he slept, slipping a rope around his neck that choked the life out of him.

MRS HALE: His neck. Choked the life out of him.

MRS PETERS: We don’t know who killed him. We don’t know.

MRS HALE: 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: I know what stillness is. When we homesteaded in Dakota, and my first baby died—after he was two years old, and me with no other then—

MRS HALE: How soon do you suppose they’ll be through, looking for the evidence?

MRS PETERS: I know what stillness is. The law has got to punish crime, Mrs Hale.

MRS HALE: I wish you’d seen Minnie Foster when she wore a white dress with blue ribbons and stood up there in the choir and sang.

Oh, I wish I’d come over here once in a while! That was a crime! That was a crime! Who’s going to punish that?

MRS PETERS: We mustn’t—take on.

MRS HALE: I might have known she needed help! I know how things can be—for women. I tell you, it’s queer, Mrs Peters. We live close together and we live far apart. We all go through the same things—it’s all just a different kind of the same thing,

If I was you, I wouldn’t tell her her fruit was gone. Tell her it ain’t. Tell her it’s all right. Take this in to prove it to her. She— she may never know whether it was broke or not.

MRS PETERS:

8 of 9

 

 

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!

MRS HALE: Maybe they would—maybe they wouldn’t.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: No, Peters, it’s all perfectly clear except a reason for doing it. But you know juries when it comes to women. If there was some definite thing. Something to show—something to make a story about—a thing that would connect up with this strange way of doing it—

HALE: Well, I’ve got the team around. Pretty cold out there.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: I’m going to stay here a while by myself, You can send Frank out for me, can’t you? I want to go over everything. I’m not satisfied that we can’t do better.

SHERIFF: Do you want to see what Mrs Peters is going to take in?

COUNTY ATTORNEY: Oh, I guess they’re not very dangerous things the ladies have picked out.

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.

SHERIFF: Married to the law. I just want you to come in here a minute, George. We ought to take a look at these windows.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: Oh, windows!

SHERIFF: We’ll be right out, Mr Hale.

COUNTY ATTORNEY: 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: We call it—knot it, Mr Henderson.

CURTAIN

Browse more Plays by Susan Glaspell

Home | Comedies | Dramas | Playwrights | Cast-Size | Monologues | Acting Scenes | One-Act Bookstore

9 of 9

How Do I Write a Critique? Engaging the Writing Process

No two people compose in exactly the same way, and even the same person may go through the writing process in different ways with different assignments. Nevertheless, because no one can attend to everything at once, there are phases in handling any significant writing task. You explore the topic to get a sense of whether it will work for you and what you might be able to do with it; if the topic is working out for you, then you move into preparing to write, generating more content and planning your draft.

The next phase is drafting your paper, getting a version, however rough it may be, on screen or paper so that you can work toward the final draft. Getting there involves two further phases: (1) revising your draft, making major improvements in it, followed by (2) editing your draft, taking care of errors, sentences that do not read well, paragraphs lacking focus and flow, and so on.

Exploring Your Topic

To see how to explore the argument you are about to critique, we need an example argument to illustrate the process. Here is one on an issue of some concern on most college campuses. Read it once or twice, just to understand what it says and to form a first reaction to it.

Page 214 READING 9.4 Open Your Ears to Biased Professors DAVID FRYMAN

 

 

 

Page 215

David Fryman was a senior at Brandeis University when he wrote this opinion column for the school’s newspaper, the Justice. He is offering advice to younger college students who often encounter professors with political opinions different from those endorsed at home or in their local communities. Fryman’s question is, How should they respond?

ne of the most important lessons I’ve learned in three years of higher education is the value of creativity and critical thinking, particularly when confronted with a professor whose ideology, political leanings or religious viewpoint fly in the face of what I believe. In fact, with a good professor, this should happen often. It is part of a professor’s job to challenge you, force you to reconsider, encourage you to entertain new ideas and the like. My first year here, it bothered me. Some professors subtly endorsed certain ways of thinking over others without always justifying their biases. They offered opinions on issues beyond their academic expertise. Many showed partiality to the political left or right.

How should we react when a professor with a captive audience advances a perspective we find offensive, insulting or just ridiculous? Perhaps we would benefit from treating our professors, who often double as mentors and advisers, the same way that we’re taught to approach great works of literature: with critical respect.

The truth is many faculty members are at the top of their fields. They read, write and teach for a living. We’re generally talking about the most well­educated and well­read members of society. So when a professor has something to say about politics, religion, war or which movie should win the Academy Award, I think it’s a good idea to take him seriously.

 

 

It certainly doesn’t follow, though, that there’s a direct relationship between what a professor says and what’s true. In fact, there may be no relationship at all. While our professors generally are leading scholars, some are also biased and fallible. I don’t mean this as an insult. Professors are human beings and, as such, carry with them a wide array of hang­ups and prejudices.

Interestingly enough—if not ironically—our professors often teach us how to deal with biased and opinionated scholars like themselves. When we read novels, journal articles, essays and textbooks for class, we’re taught—or at least this has been my experience—to be critical. We’re expected to sift through material and distinguish between what holds water and what doesn’t, what is based on reasoned analysis and what is mere speculation.

If we treat our professors similarly it should no longer bother us when they use the classroom as their soapbox. They have important things to say and we’re here to learn from them. I’ve come to appreciate professors’ opinions on a variety of issues not directly related to the subject at hand, and I think it helps us build relationships with them. While it’s unfair for a professor to assign high grades only to students who echo their view or to make others feel uncomfortable to disagree, I prefer that professors be honest about what they think.

While it’s a disservice to our own education to be intimidated or too easily persuaded by academic clout, it’s just as problematic, and frankly silly, to categorically reject what a professor has to say because we take issue with his ideology, political leanings, religious views or cultural biases.

It’s become popular, particularly among conservatives responding to what they perceive as a liberal bias in academia, to criticize professors for espousing personal views in the classroom. The ideal, they argue, is to leave students ignorant about their instructors’ beliefs.

First of all, I think there’s a practical problem with this strategy. It’s more difficult to be critical if we’re unsure where our professors stand. For the same reason that it’s often helpful to have background information about an author before analyzing his work, it’s useful to see our professors’ ideological cards on the table. For instance, if I know my professor loves hunting and believes everybody should have firearms in his basement then when I hear his interpretation of the Second Amendment, I’m better equipped to evaluate his thoughts.

Secondly, if we proscribe what views may or may not be expressed in the classroom, we limit our own access to potentially useful information. Even if most of the extraneous digressions aren’t worthy, every once in a while we might hear something that goes to the heart of an important issue. To limit this because we don’t trust our own critical abilities is cowardly.

To return to the question I posed above: How should we respond to politically­charged, opinionated, biased professors? I think we should listen.

Forming a First Impression

Forming a First Impression   It is impossible to read an argument without having some kind of response to it. Start by asking yourself, “What is my first impression?”

 

 

ACTIVITY 9.1 Writer’s Notebook State Your First Impression

State your reaction simply and directly. Write it down in your notebook or a computer file reserved for this assignment. Read the selection again. Is your reaction changing? How? Why? ▀

Most of our students’ first response to Fryman was favorable. He offered practical advice, and more appealing yet, safe advice. You may have had an entirely different reaction. First reactions cannot be right or wrong, good or bad. They just are what they are. The important thing is that you know what your reaction is.

Page 216 Asking Questions: Achieving Critical Distance through Analysis

Asking Questions: Achieving Critical Distance through Analysis   Critiques require critical distance from first responses. “Critical distance” does not mean “forget your first response.” On the contrary, first impressions often turn out to be sound. Critical distance does mean setting your first response aside for a while so that you can think the argument through carefully.

Use the questions for critiquing an argument in Best Practices to guide your analysis.

BEST PRACTICESQuestions for Critiquing an Argument

1. What is the context for this argument? As we said earlier (pages 202–3), arguments take place in contexts—situations that prompt people to write. Ask, therefore, “Who wrote this? What prompted him or her to write? What might explain his or her perspective?”

2. What is the author claiming? Find the main point or thesis that the writer wants you to believe and/or be persuaded to do. Sometimes the claim will be stated, sometimes implied. Then ask: Is the claim clear and consistent? Is it absolute, no exceptions allowed? Is it reasonable, desirable, practical?

3. What reasons does the author provide for accepting the claim? Reasons answer the question: Why? Given the claim, what explains or justifies it? Like the claim, reasons will be stated or implied. Then ask: Does each reason actually explain or justify the thesis? How convincing is the reason? If the author reasons by means of an analogy (comparison, reasoning that what is true in one case should be true in a similar case), does the comparison really stand up to inspection?

4. What evidence has the author given to support the reasons? Reasons need support using examples, data, or expert opinion. Look at the evidence offered for each reason and ask: Does the evidence actually support the reason? How convincing is each piece of evidence, and how convincing is the evidence for each reason taken together?

5. What are the key terms, and what do they mean? Writers use words, often without defining them, that should be carefully examined. When a claim is justified, for instance, as the right or moral thing to do, we need to ask what “right” or “moral” means in

 

 

this case.

6. What is the author assuming? It is impossible to argue without assuming many things, and “assumed” means “not stated.” Ask: What must I believe to accept that claim, or reason, or piece of evidence? Is the assumption “safe,” something that any reasonable person would also assume?

7. What are the implications of this argument? The implications are what the argument suggests or implies. Like assumptions, implications are usually not stated. To uncover them, ask: If I accept this position, what logically follows from it? Are its implications acceptable or not?

8. What values motivate the argument? What priorities does the author have? What other priorities or values conflict with those of the author?

Page 217

9. What voice and character are projected in the argument? We talk about voice and presence in writing, and these are important to an argument’s effectiveness. How would you describe the speaker and on what evidence from the text?

10. Who is the audience for the argument? Who is likely to agree with this argument? Who might want to refute it? What might an opponent object to and why? ▀

Example: Critiquing an Argument

Here is a model of how some of these questions could be applied to Fryman’s argument (pages 214–15):

1.  Thesis: What is the author’s main claim?

Fryman: College students should listen with critical respect to biased and opinionated professors.

Comment: Be clear about the argument’s main point. Note that with this argument you have to piece together the thesis from several statements Fryman makes.

2.  Context: What prompted the author to write the argument?

Fryman: In paragraph 8, Fryman explains the situation that prompted him to write this argument. Conservative students had been protesting what they saw as an abuse of academic freedom by liberal professors.

Comment: Fryman is not arguing directly to conservative activists. Whom do you think he sees as his audience? How would his argument be different if he were to address the more politically active protestors?

 

 

3.  Reasons: What are some reasons, and how well do they hold up to examination?

Fryman: One reason given is: “Many faculty members are at the top of their fields.”

Comment: Clearly, this statement is a reason—it explains why the author thinks students should accord professors respect. We can respond by saying, “Yes, some professors are quite accomplished in their fields. But when they venture outside them, do their opinions count for more than any other relatively well­informed person’s?”

4.  Key terms: What words are important to the argument, and would there be any confusion about what they mean?

Fryman: “How should we react when a professor with a captive audience advances a perspective we find offensive, insulting or just ridiculous? … with critical respect.”

Comment: It is important to note that Fryman is not saying that students have to agree or even be neutral but rather that they should think critically as they listen.

5.  Assumptions: Does the author make any assumptions you might question?

Fryman: He is assuming that professors airing their views in class will not take away from class time devoted to material that must be covered or will not distract from the course material.

Page 218

Comment: We might respond by suggesting that Fryman should have qualified his argument by putting a limit on how much class time might be devoted to professors airing their biases.

6.  Implications: What happens in reality if we accept the argument?

Fryman: He implies that students should tolerate whatever the professor dishes out.

Comment: We can respond by saying, “How much student toleration is too much toleration? Suppose that a professor is openly sexist, for instance? Shouldn’t we not only reject the opinions but also report the behavior to university authorities?”

7.  Analogies: How well do comparisons hold up?

Fryman: He compares the approach students should take to opinionated professors with the critical respect accorded great works of literature (paragraph 2).

Comment: We can respond by saying, “Great works of literature have typically survived for years. We call them classics. Does it make sense to meet the casual opinions of professors the same way that we approach Shakespeare?”

 

 

ACTIVITY 9.2 In Your Own Work Exploring Your Argument

If you are working alone on an argument, use the ten questions in Best Practices: Questions for Critiquing an Argument (pages 216–17) to find possible content for your critique. Record the results in your notebook, your computer file for this assignment, or online—for example, as a blog that presents the argument and your analysis of it.

If all members of your class are critiquing the same argument, divide into small groups of about three or four people and do an analysis. Share what your group found with the class as a whole in discussion. Summarize what each group came up with in your notebook, computer file, or online as a blog entry or e­mail addressed to the entire class. Indicate which analytical comments you consider strongest. ▀

Personal Engagement in Critiques

Personal Engagement in Critiques   Critique focuses on what an argument says. The challenge of critique is to discover what you can say back.

Part of a good critique is to test the argument against what you know about reality. Test what the argument says against your experience with life and the world, and against what you know about the topic. Add to your knowledge of reality by gathering information through research.

Asking Questions: What Information Is Relevant to My Critique?

Asking Questions: What Information Is Relevant to My Critique?   The following questions should help you add insights about an argument:

1. What is my own experience with the topic or issue or problem the argument takes up? In the case of Fryman’s argument, when have the comments of “biased teachers” been illuminating or helpful to you? When have they been boring, irritating, or useless? What’s the difference between the two?

Page 219

2. What relevant information do I have from reading or from some other source? Perhaps you have heard other students complain about professors pushing their political convictions on their students. What did the students say? Did their complaints seem justified? Why or why not?

3. What could I find out from research that might be relevant to assessing the argument? Most arguments suggest opportunities for at least checking up on information relevant to the argument. For instance, you might investigate the idea of academic freedom. How does it apply to professors? How does it apply to students?

 

 

4.  If the argument reasons from data, in what other ways might the data be interpreted? What other data might contradict the information given? Research will often lead you to other arguments that interpret the same or similar data differently or that supply additional data the argument you are critiquing did not know or ignored. For example, arguments for stronger border patrol enforcement sometimes fail to mention that about 40 percent of undocumented immigrants came here legally and simply stayed. Enhanced border control obviously will have no effect on that group.

See Chapter 16, pages 412–24, for detailed guidance on ways to research any topic.

ACTIVITY 9.3 In Your Own Work Assessing the Fit of Argument and Reality

In your notebook or computer file, sum up the results of applying the above questions. Freewrite about what you might add from your own experiences and observations, or from research. Highlight the best insight you gained. It could be a major point in your critique, perhaps even the central point around which you structure it. ▀

Preparing to Write

Thoughtful exploration of an argument—responding to what it says and pondering its fit with reality—results in much you could say. However, a critique is not a collection of comments or a list of criticisms. Rather it’s a coherent evaluation from a particular point of view— your view. Consequently, formulating your position, your main point about the argument’s validity, matters most.

Formulating Your Position

Formulating Your Position   Your critique will need to focus on one main point: your position about the merits of the argument. You can reject an argument in general but see value in a part of it. You can accept an argument in general but with major reservations.

Page 220

In response to Fryman’s argument, a wide range of stances are possible. Someone in agreement could say:

Fryman acknowledges that biased professors can be annoying, but he makes an effective argument that opinions have a role in the education process.

Someone disagreeing could say:

Fryman would have a stronger argument if he did not imply that students should open their ears but not their mouths.

Or, among many other possible positions, someone could say:

 

 

It is easy to agree with this argument in the abstract because Fryman avoids actually quoting any of the biased views he has heard.

ACTIVITY 9.4 In Your Own Work Formulating Your Position

Using the suggestions above, write a position statement. If you are having difficulty, consider the following possibilities:

Return to your first impression. Perhaps a revised version can be your stance.

Review the statements in the argument that you found open to question. Is there a pattern in your criticisms? Or perhaps one statement stands out from the rest and seems central? Your position may be implied in your most important criticism.

Do you detect one place where the reasoning breaks down? You could focus your critique on the major weakness in the argument’s case, that is, its claim, reasons, and evidence.

Look for places where the author’s view of reality and/or what is needed or desirable part company with yours. Your position might be that the argument sounds logical but is not realistic or practical.

Talk through possible positions with another student or your instructor. Just talking helps, and sometimes a comment from someone else can help your stance emerge.

Sometimes you will discover the best statement of your position only through writing a first draft. For now, try out the stance that appeals to you most. You can always revise and rewrite. ▀

Drafting Your Paper

In your first draft, focus on organizing and voicing your main points fully and clearly.

Page 221 Thinking as a Writer: What Voice Is Appropriate for a Critique? Voice

VoiceThe voice of critique or analysis shares much in common with the voice of case­making: State your position clearly, directly, and forcefully, using a style more formal than conversation but less formal than a public speech. Remember that critique is not name­calling, insults, outrageous claims, or partisan bickering, but rather the calm voice of reason, opinions stated precisely and defended well.

See Chapter 10, page 249, for a discussion of voice in case­making.

Here is a good example of the voice for critique from Hanson’s introductory paragraph:

 

 

In “Responses to Arguments against the Minimum Drinking Age,” the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) identifies arguments against the minimum legal drinking age and then suggests counter arguments. But in doing so, it plays fast and loose with the facts, a common tactic in politics.

It is acceptable to say that an argument “plays fast and loose with the facts” or that it is illogical or inconsistent, providing that you can back it up and make your accusations stick, as Hanson does in the rest of his article.

Your voice in critique, therefore, depends largely on how you assess the quality of the argument you are critiquing. Hanson boldly accuses the NIAAA’s argument of being politically motivated, not supported by available data, and poorly reasoned. But his voice is intelligent, informed, and logical because he develops his counter­arguments thoroughly.

ACTIVITY 9.5 Writer’s Notebook Reader, Purpose, and Voice

Add notes about the key variables to your position statement. Answer these questions: Do you intend to address the same readers that the argument does? Why or why not? How exactly does your version of the truth differ from the author’s, and how great is the difference? How friendly to the author do you want to sound? ▀

Thinking as a Writer: Developing and Organizing Your Critique Organization

OrganizationWhether you write first drafts in chunks and then fit them together or write from a plan more or less in sequence, have the following organizational principles in mind:

Introduction

Begin by identifying the argument you are critiquing: who wrote it and for what group of readers, when and where it appeared, what it is about, and the position the author takes.

Make your own stance clear and give it an emphatic position, near the end of your introduction.

Page 222 Body

From everything you found questionable in the argument, select only what is relevant to your stance. No one expects a critique to deal with everything an argument says or everything that can be said about it.

Don’t let the order of the argument determine the order of your critique. Organize around points that develop your position, and think about what order would have maximum impact on your readers.

 

 

If you can say positive things, deal with these points first. Readers listen to the negative more willingly after hearing the positive.

Conclusion

ConclusionShort critiques of short arguments do not need summarizing conclusions. Strive instead for a clincher, the memorable “parting shot” expressing the gist or main thrust of your response.

Development

DevelopmentFor each part of your critique, you have many options for development. Here are some of them.

Introduction

IntroductionBesides identifying the argument and taking your stance, you can also include material about context, background information, and a preview of your critique. A critique of Fryman’s argument, for instance, might place it in the context of efforts to restrict academic freedom; research about the author might reveal relevant background information, such as what was happening at Brandeis University when he wrote the article. Previews summarize the points you are going to make in the order in which you are going to discuss them.

Body

BodyTake up one point at a time. Each point will challenge either the reasoning of the argument or its fit with reality. If the former, be sure to explain inconsistencies or contradictions fully so that your reader understands exactly where and why the reasoning went wrong. See Hanson’s critique (pages 208–10) for examples. If you want to show that it is unrealistic, provide counter­evidence from personal experience, general knowledge, or research.

Conclusion

ConclusionTo clinch your critique, consider the following possibilities: a memorable quotation with a comment on it from you; a return to a key statement or piece of information in your introduction that you can now develop more fully; a reminder to the reader of your strongest point with additional support or commentary.

Revising Your Draft

Write a brief assessment of your first draft. Exchange draft and assessment with at least one other student, and use the critique revision questions in Asking Questions on page 223 to help each other decide what you each need to improve.

Page 223 ASKING QUESTIONSRevision Checklist for Critiquing an Argument

1.  Look at all places where you have summarized or paraphrased the argument. Compare them against the text. Are they accurate? Do

 

 

they capture the author’s apparent intent as well as what she or he says?

2.  Locate the argument’s context—the existing view or views the argument’s author addressed. If the critique does not mention context, would it improve if it did? If so, where might a discussion of context work best?

3.  Critiques seek the truth about some controversial issue or question. What is the issue or question the argument addresses? Is it stated in the critique? Does the difference between the argument’s view of the truth and the view in the critique emerge clearly? If not, what could be done to make the difference sharper?

4.  Underline the critique’s main point or stance. Is it stated explicitly and early in the essay? Examine each critical point. How does it develop, explain, or defend the stance? Consider cutting anything not related to the stance.

5.  Check the flow of the critical points. Does each connect to the one before it and the one after? If not, consider rearranging the sequence. How might one point set up or lead to another better?

6.  What voice do you hear in the critique? The tone should be thoughtfully engaged, fair, balanced, and respectful, but also confident and forceful. Look for places where the tone might make the wrong impression. Consider ways to improve it. ▀

Exchanging your draft with at least one other student and going over the Critique Revision Checklist together can help you decide what you each need to improve. Page 224 Formulating a Plan to Guide Your Revision

 

 

Formulating a Plan to Guide Your Revision   The plan can be a single sentence or two: “I’ll cut this, rearrange that, and add a section here.” Or if you work better from an outline, develop one now. The important thing is to have a definite, clear idea of what you want to do and what moves you will make to get the results you want.

Student Example: Excerpts from J. R. Solomon’s Draft

The following passages are excerpted from student J. R. Solomon’s draft critique of David Fryman’s argument, “Open Your Ears to Biased Professors.” These examples all illustrate common problems in first drafts of critiques.

Excerpt 1: Position statement not forceful enough

Fryman believes that students should treat professors’ personal opinions with critical respect. I agree, but think that his view is one­sided and therefore not fully persuasive.

All arguments present one position on an issue, so to say an argument is “one­sided” does not offer a valid critique. In fact, Solomon meant that the argument was unbalanced, tipping too far in favor of professors’ powers. Here is the revised version:

“Open Your Ears to Biased Professors,” by David Fryman, a student writing for the Brandeis University paper, The Justice, deals with a common complaint among students: teachers who express their political or religious views in class. Fryman believes that students should listen to the personal opinions of professors with “critical respect.” I agree, but the argument is not persuasive because Fryman describes an unbalanced situation where the professors have all the rights and the students have all the responsibilities.

Excerpt 2: Paraphrase or summary not accurate

In my ethics class last year, my teacher … believed strongly in the right of homosexuals to marry. Some of the students, including myself, did not agree with her. Yet, when we tried to discuss our side of the issue, she cut us off. Fryman neglects to discuss such instances when a teacher’s opinions infringe on the students’ right to open debate. I believe that if teachers can express their opinions openly in class, the students should be able to express theirs.

The bolded sentences do not accurately represent Fryman’s argument. Fryman also believes that students should feel comfortable expressing disagreement with the professor and says so in his paragraph 6. Here is the revised version:

Unfortunately, some professors do not want students to form their own opinions but rather convert to the professor’s ideology. In my ethics class last year, the teacher told us she was a lesbian. In one of our discussions we spoke about gay rights, and whether or not marriage should be legal for homosexuals. She believed strongly in the right of homosexuals to marry. Some of the students, including myself, did not agree with her. Yet, when we tried to discuss our side of the issue, she cut us off. Although Fryman says “it is unfair for a professor to assign high grades only to students who echo their view or to make others feel uncomfortable to disagree,” he does not go far enough to emphasize professors’ responsibility in ensuring students have a voice.

 

 

Page 225 Excerpt 3: Unfocused and underdeveloped paragraphs

Because he is writing only to students, Fryman has very little to say about how professors should conduct themselves. He deals with the problem of bias as if only what students should do matters. Actually, professors have more responsibility. They’re older, more knowledgeable, and more experienced. I think if professors are going to express their political and religious views in class, they should do so in certain ways or not do it at all.

These sentences move from professors to students and back to professors, ending with a vague point about what professors should do. In the revised essay, Solomon used the two main points to organize his entire critique. You can see parts of this draft paragraph in paragraphs 2 and 5 of the revised draft.

Editing Your Revised Draft

There is almost no revised draft that could not improve with proofreading for habitual errors and editing to tighten up the writing and make some points more clear. The highlighted words below indicate where the passage could be tightened up.

Original Version

The edited version that follows reduces the repetition and tightens up the style by using the pronoun it.

Edited Version

In my ethics class last year, the teacher told us she was a lesbian. When the class discussed gay rights and homosexual marriage, she expressed her view that it should be made legal. Some of the students, including myself, did not agree with her.

One grammatical problem remains in the edited passage. The word myself is a reflexive pronoun; it should not be used unless the word I has already been used in a sentence (“I hurt myself”). However, the ethics class anecdote does not use the word I; the pronoun is treated as an object and should reflect this. This mistake—using myself instead of me—is common in casual talk; we tend to make it when we write too. Be alert to reflexives in your drafts.

See “Common Errors” in the Handbook, Section W­1, for more explanation of reflexive pronouns.

Page 226 Edited Version

 

 

Some of the students, including myself, did not agree with her.

ACTIVITY 9.6 In Your Own Work Editing Your Paper

Edit your own draft to eliminate errors, such as confusing plurals with possessives, using singular pronouns to refer to plural nouns, and misusing the reflexive pronoun “myself.” Exchange your edited paper with another student. Help each other find and correct any remaining errors. ▀

REVISED STUDENT EXAMPLE

Page 227

 

 

Page 228 Sample Readings for Critique

READING 9.5 Does Patriotism Matter? THOMAS SOWELL

 

 

Page 229

 

 

A high school dropout who returned to school and completed a doctorate in economics at the University of Chicago, Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, author of a dozen books, and an award­winning newspaper columnist. The following article came from the Jewish World Review website.

he Fourth of July is a patriotic holiday but patriotism has long been viewed with suspicion or disdain by many of the intelligentsia. As far back as 1793, prominent British writer William Godwin called patriotism “high­sounding nonsense.”

Internationalism has long been a competitor with patriotism, especially among the intelligentsia. H.G. Wells advocated replacing the idea of duty to one’s country with “the idea of cosmopolitan duty.”

Perhaps nowhere was patriotism so downplayed or deplored than among intellectuals in the Western democracies in the two decades after the horrors of the First World War, fought under various nations’ banners of patriotism.

In France, after the First World War, the teachers’ unions launched a systematic purge of textbooks, in order to promote internationalism and pacifism.

 

 

Books that depicted the courage and self­sacrifice of soldiers who had defended France against the German invaders were called “bellicose” books to be banished from the schools.

Textbook publishers caved in to the power of the teachers’ unions, rather than lose a large market for their books. History books were sharply revised to conform to internationalism and pacifism.

The once epic story of the French soldiers’ heroic defense against the German invaders at Verdun, despite the massive casualties suffered by the French, was now transformed into a story of horrible suffering by all soldiers at Verdun—French and German alike.

In short, soldiers once depicted as national heroes were now depicted as victims—and just like victims in other nations’ armies.

Children were bombarded with stories on the horrors of war. In some schools, children whose fathers had been killed during the war were asked to speak to the class and many of these children—as well as some of their classmates and teachers—broke down in tears.

In Britain, Winston Churchill warned that a country “cannot avoid war by dilating upon its horrors.” In France, Marshal Philippe Petain, the victor at Verdun, warned in 1934 that teachers were trying to “raise our sons in ignorance of or in contempt of the fatherland.”

But they were voices drowned out by the pacifist and internationalist rhetoric of the 1920s and 1930s.

Did it matter? Does patriotism matter?

France, where pacifism and internationalism were strongest, became a classic example of how much it can matter.

During the First World War, France fought on against the German invaders for four long years, despite having more of its soldiers killed than all the American soldiers killed in all the wars in the history of the United States, put together.

But during the Second World War, France collapsed after just six weeks of fighting and surrendered to Nazi Germany. At the bitter moment of defeat the head of the French teachers’ union was told, “You are partially responsible for the defeat.”

Charles de Gaulle, François Mauriac, and other Frenchmen blamed a lack of national will or general moral decay, for the sudden and humiliating collapse of France in 1940.

At the outset of the invasion, both German and French generals assessed French military forces as more likely to gain victory, and virtually no one expected France to collapse like a house of cards—except Adolf Hitler, who had studied French society instead of French military forces.

Did patriotism matter? It mattered more than superior French tanks and planes.

Most Americans today are unaware of how much our schools have followed in the footsteps of the French schools of the 1920s and 1930s, or how much our intellectuals have become citizens of the world instead of American patriots.

 

 

Our media are busy verbally transforming American combat troops from heroes into victims, just as the French intelligentsia did—with the added twist of calling this “supporting the troops.”

Will that matter? Time will tell.

READING 9.6 Right to Bear Arms LINDA CHAVEZ Page 230

 

 

Once the highest­ranking woman in the White House when Ronald Reagan was president, Linda Chavez is an author (best known for Out of the Barrio), columnist, and radio talk show host.

ashington, D.C., will become a safer place to live and work thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday against the city’s absolute ban on handguns. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms is an individual right, not just one that permits states to maintain militias, striking down one of the nation’s toughest anti­gun laws. As someone who lived in the District at the time the city imposed its ban 32 years ago, I say it’s about time.

I bought my first gun in 1974 after my husband was mugged in broad daylight just blocks from the White House. My husband was picking up our six­year­old son from school when a man approached him and demanded money. When my husband refused, the man picked up a two­by­four and hit him on the back of the head, knocking him to the ground.

The event traumatized all of us and sent me to a local gun shop to purchase a handgun. I properly registered the .357 Magnum, according to the District law in effect at the time, learned how to shoot it, and kept it safely in my home for the next two years.

But in 1976, the city changed its law, grandfathering in people like me who already owned guns, provided they bring their guns to a government building downtown to re­register them. By that time, I was pregnant with my second child. As the deadline approached, I tried a couple of times to stand in line to re­register the gun but gave up as the wait stretched into hours. On the final day, I went downtown again, gun in tow, only to see a line extending for blocks. As pregnant as I was, there was no way I could stand in line for several hours. So, I returned home, knowing my gun would be illegal if I kept it in my home.

 

 

For the next several years, I stored my gun in Virginia, where we owned a small cabin, to comply with the law. Ironically, there was no crime in the area where my cabin was located, so I had no need of the gun there. But I had several brushes with crime in D.C.

Soon after the gun ban went into effect, an intruder hid in my house one day in what was one of the most terrifying incidents in my life. I happened to see the man lurking near my staircase as I headed into the kitchen. I managed not to scream but continued walking away and quietly phoned the police. I confronted the intruder once I knew the cops were on the way. He acted as if I had somehow wronged him by calling the police but didn’t stick around to explain to the authorities what he was doing in my house.

Around the same time, a serial rapist started attacking women in our neighborhood, including two women who lived within a block of my house. And even though I still owned a gun, I couldn’t legally keep it nearby to protect myself. Police eventually caught the rapist, a teenager armed with a knife, but all of us in the neighborhood lived in fear for the weeks he was preying on victims.

Then, two years ago, I was again living in D.C. on Capitol Hill when I heard an awful racket through the walls of my townhouse. It sounded as if someone was being thrown down the stairs, with men shouting and doors slamming. When my husband rushed outside to see what was happening, he found our young neighbor visibly shaken. He had come home to find a man in his upstairs hallway, obviously burglarizing the house. Again, I wished I had my gun in D.C., but bringing it into the city would have made me a criminal.

These incidents were all near misses. Many other D.C. residents haven’t been as lucky. They fall victim to violent crimes in their homes yet can’t do anything to defend themselves.

The D.C. gun ban never made a dent in the city’s gun crime; it still ranks among the most dangerous places in America. At least now, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the constitutional right of law­abiding citizens to protect their own lives when the police can’t.