The American Dream has proven to be a highly elusive goal for many people. While there are quite a few stories of people who made themselves into successes, for many other people, that success has not only proven to be hard to come by, the difficulties of life, even in America, have shown that human nature can overcome even the best of intentions. From the very earliest American writers, such as Washington Irving and Nathaniel Hawthorne, to such satirists as H.L. Mencken and Mark Twain, to the pessimistic worldviews that emerged during the Jazz Age with Fitzgerald and Hemingway, and even to contemporary literature, in the majority of stories, even the best of intentions end up coming up short, and oftentimes the depravity that lies within each of us keeps those intentions from even beginning to manifest. In “A Jury of Her Peers” and “His America,” Susan Glaspell uses several literary elements to express her opinion that American culture shows the same flaws in humanity that people in other cultures have; ultimately, our ability to overcome those flaws lies only in ourselves. Through the use of point of view, dialogue, and irony, Glaspell expresses her rhetorical arguments concerning her view of the characteristics – and the prospects – of human nature.
Both “A Jury of Her Peers” and “His America” are written in the third person. Because the scope of the stories is fairly narrow, the narrative decision here involves the choice between personal involvement and a sort of objective distance from the story. Because Glaspell is using the stories, at least in part, to comment about the culture in which the stories takes place, distancing a bit from the action lends her an aura of objectivity that makes the commentary more valid. If the narrator were a first person character that had a stake in the story, the commentary that takes place in the story would be compromised by the character’s involvement in the outcome. As it is, though, the pathos of watching Herman Beckman, in “His America,” have to put up with the condescension that comes from his son Fritz, is sharper. If the narrator were, for example, Fritz’s mother, we would expect the narrator to be on Herman’s side. Since the narrator has objectivity, though, the vision that Herman has of “an America of realities, and yet an America of dreams[with] strength and the dignity and harmony of unity” (Glaspell) resonates more with the authority of objectivity. Even though Fritz cannot see that reality, thinking that it has dwindled, and even though Mrs. Wright lost sight of the great possibilities that come with life in America, in “A Jury of Her Peers,” the idealism of Herman Beckman and the gracious decision that Mrs. Wright’s friends make to absolve her of her crime show that there is still hope.
Both “A Jury of Her Peers” and “His America” are dominated by dialogue. Neither story has much in the way of action; “A Jury of Her Peers” revolves around the anticlimax after the discovery of John Wright’s body, as a group of men and women move through the house, trying to sort through what has happened and come to a conclusion about the truths involved. “His America” revolves around the conversation that Herman and Fritz have about Fritz’s upcoming speech, focusing on the ways that Fritz believes that his speech will disappoint his father, because Fritz does not share his father’s optimistic beliefs about America. Instead of using action and description to express her rhetorical argument, Glaspell uses the words and nonverbal cues associated with conversation to express what she has to say. An example from “A Jury of Her Peers,” the author wants to establish Mr. Hale as someone who talks unnecessarily. For this reason, it makes more sense to have him ramble about what he sees, rather than describe him seeing it for the first time. Following his remarks, the narrator jumps in with a judgment: “Now there he was! – saying things he didn’t need to say.” His nonsensical explanation of events includes this typical mishmash:
“You see," he explained to Henderson, "unless I can get somebody to go in with me they won't come out this branch road except for a price I can't pay. I'd spoke to Wright about it once before; but he put me off, saying folks talked too much anyway, and all he asked was peace and quiet--guess you know about how much he talked himself. (Glaspell)
In “His America,” the interplay between father and son escalates through their words, instead of through actions. The only significant action in the story is Herman’s decision not to go to his son’s graduation and hear the speech; the rest of the escalation of emotion takes place in their conversation.
Irony, or the use of the unexpected, also serves to express a general disappointment in American culture in these two stories. Perhaps the greatest irony in “His America” is the difference between the beliefs that Herman Beckman tried to instill in his son and the actual values that end up motivating Fritz. While Herman was still a proponent of hard work, Fritz “wanted to make money. Fritz wanted to have it easier.” (Glaspell). For a father, devoting an entire life to a set of values, only to see one’s children throwing those values aside, is a cruel and crippling variety of the unexpected that ends up shaking all of Herman’s assumptions. In the case of “A Jury of Her Peers,” the crowning irony is the fact that all of the women who are going through the Wrights’ home can figure out, at least well enough to cobble together some suppositions, that Mrs. Wright not only killed her husband, but why she did it. As the men are wandering around the house, oblivious to the evidence that the women are finding, the women decide to hide it, so that she will not be implicated, because the “jury” decides that the evidence indicates that Mrs. Wright had reason to be that unhappy in her marriage. This irony can be summarized by the fact this “jury” was not operating according to the standards of the law, instead using human nature to make its decision.
Point of view, dialogue and irony all serve to support Glaspell’s rhetorical arguments in “A Jury of Her Peers” and “His America.” Both stories have main characters who are beyond disillusionment (Mrs. Wright and Herman Beckman). Both of these characters have been driven to make significant decisions based on that disillusionment (murdering one’s husband, skipping one’s son’s college graduation). The disappointment that comes to all of us at different points in time, based on the truths of human nature, can take the American Dream and make it seem like a cruel joke.
