Detecting Sympathy in “A Jury of Her Peers”

Not all fictional detectives are the distant, objective Sherlock Holmes; not all detective stories end with clear, clean solutions like Holmes' does; and not every mystery is rooted in the overtly threatening scandal and conspiracy, bringing to light the evil machinations of villainous figures. Some detectives are sympathetic, amateurs, and their adventures offer more criticism than resolution.

For this, turn to Susan Glaspell's “A Jury of Her Peers,” a 1917 short story that uses a crime and elements of detective fiction in an early feminist critique of the expectation that a woman stays in the home and supports her husband. If that seems like a tall order, it's a major plot point in "A Scandal in Bohemia" and "The Speckled Band". However, instead of the conservative British Doyle and his Holmes who preserve the social order, we're looking at the fiction of an early American feminist critiquing the social order.

Ostensibly, the story is a murder investigation: Mr. John Wright has been killed and his wife, Minnie Foster, claims to have been asleep while he was strangled. She has since been taken away, held for the murder, while Sheriff Peters and County Attorney George Henderson investigate. To help, they bring along Mr. Hale, who discovered the murder, and his wife, Martha Hale, was brought to help the Sheriff's wife gather a few items for Mrs. Wright while the men check out the bedroom – the scene of the murder – and the barn. Martha Hale and Mrs. Peters therefore spend the story in the kitchen, analyzing and commenting on the state of Minnie Foster’s life once she was married.

A traditional detective story would follow those investigating the murder and look for clues about the murder weapon and motive, to prove whether or not Mrs. Wright did or did not kill her husband. Most detective stories make this easy by bringing in outside detectives, like Holmes, or following the police force, like Sheriff Peters, to investigate. Doing so allows for an objective, almost scientific perspective. “A Jury of Her Peers,” however, chooses to go the sympathetic route. Martha Hale was once Minnie Foster's friend, and laments never visiting her old friend, and it's Martha's role as a friend and fellow country housewife that allows her and Mrs. Peters to read the clues that amount to a life and not just to an event.

It becomes clear to the women that Minnie Foster killed her husband, but that she isn't the villain. The story juxtaposes Martha Hale's memory of Minnie Foster, a happy, friendly person who loved to sing, with the dark, hollow, unkempt house filled with half-completed housekeeping tasks, she has occupied for 20 years as Mrs. Wright. The name “Wright” becomes ironic: Mr. Wright is hardly “Mr. Right,” and even suggesting that Minnie Foster, Mrs. Wright, was right to do what she did. This becomes clearest with the death of the canary, a songbird, whose body Minnie kept in a box. Martha reflects on how Minnie used to sing, a comment that symbolically brings the two together: both sang, and singing is a public act. One can certainly sing in private, but singing is often done for the enjoyment of others. Just as Mr. Wright broke the bird's neck, Minnie Foster, literally, crushed his neck and windpipe. A retaliation for twenty years of marriage wherein she was silenced and kept at the house in the hollow.

It can be easy to look at this story and simply say it's interesting because of its use of detective fiction and how it uses personal relationships and connections in ways more traditional detective fiction doesn't. There is still, however, the social perspective: how the characters and events become critiques of larger, real world social issues and concerns.

More on that in the next post.

Too Much Information: Charles Augustus Milverton

“The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton” is a popular story. I think it's popular because it's fun to read about the heroes having to outright break the law. I'm not talking about bending the law or keeping something back from the police on behalf of someone innocent or repentant: I'm talking about burglary, theft, and arson. Oh, and there's a murder.

Milverton deals in information, specifically, scandalous information that he can use to blackmail people. In the story, Holmes is hired by an heiress to negotiate with Milverton on her behalf. Milverton has secured some scandalous letters and he threatens to reveal them just before her wedding. After their interview with Milverton ends without success, Holmes straight up decides to use his own mastery of disguise and people to burgle Milverton's estate and steal only the articles that will be used for criminal purposes. Things don't go quite as planned though, hence the murder and arson.

When people discuss “Milverton,” it's usually about how entertaining it is to see Holmes and Watson on the wrong side of the law, even if they have noble intentions. In this regard, it's a story about how far good people will go to stop evil. Though Holmes and Watson may take the legal system upon themselves on more than one occasion, they are never quite as in the wrong as they are here. 

This, following the spirit rather than the letter of the law, tells us more about the good guys, not the social anxiety the heroes fight against. So what threat does Milverton pose? He threatens personal and private lives with exposure. Accidents or poor decisions, serious or minor, can suddenly be paraded before the world, much to our horror. We like our private lives to remain private and Milverton publicizes all.

So, is Milverton the same as fellow blackmailer Irene Adler, just without the sex?

Hardly.

Adler blackmails, but she is, by profession, an opera singer. Milverton's a professional blackmailer. His position and wealth rely on his ability to blackmail, whereas Adler's was a combination of talent and cunning. Where Adler blackmailed because it was in her interest and typical for her tendency to cross boundaries, Milverton just outright blackmails for his own benefit.

So what kind of a crime and anxiety stem from blackmail itself? As addressed above, it's the threat of the scandal that comes from our secret lives being made public. But there's something more to Milverton, and the fact that he is able to move freely despite his crimes and Holmes and Watson must turn to crime to defeat him only brings the detective and blackmailer closer together, because their work relies on the same commodity: information.

Holmes is a successful detective because of his wealth of knowledge and information and his ability to make significant conclusions from mere trifles. At a glance he can tell significant things about who someone is and where they've been. For the sake of his detective work, this proves useful (especially because it is the gimmick on which the stories hinge). Holmes uses this to discover what remains unknown to everyone else. He deals in hidden secrets: the lives and actions of criminals so he can unravel their schemes and bring their secrets to light for retribution.

Milverton also deals in information and brings secrets to light, but rather than criminals, Milverton punishes the wealthy for their social transgressions. If the victim pays, Milverton returns the evidence. If the victim refuses or can’t, the information is made public and the victim is scandalized. Holmes surprises people with his deductions, but he never uses them to scandalize someone or for personal gain. Both represent the careful use of information but in different spheres and to different ends. Milverton not only shows the power of blackmail, but he shows us the kind of villain Holmes himself could be.