RESTRICTED SECTION: SHORT STORY DISCUSSION

[angeleyesjg24.livejournal.com]

JOIN THE CLUB!!
(hey mods, would you mind putting a link up to the application on the userinfo page?)

"THE LOTTERY" SHORT STORY DISCUSSION
(the book discussion is above this discussion)


It's time for the two readings discussions!


Rules, Regulations, and Points:

This discussion will run much like the debates held in the main community. To earn points, be sure to heed the following:
-The comment is at least five sentences long.
-The comment stays on topic. No personal attacks or arguments will be tolerated.
-The comment is signed. If you accidentally forget to sign it, please delete the comment and repost it with your name and house in it. No name/house= no points.
-Remember to comment with your subject in the subject line. Like "Christine/Phantom," for example. That way, people can more readly track discussions.

Points will be awarded as follows:
-10 points for your first comment (this will only be awarded once. Not twice, once for each discussion)
-50 points to the top commenter, one in the novel and and one in the short story discussion.
-40 points for second, one for novel and one for short story discussion
-30 points for third, one for novel and one for short story discussion.



Discussions will end Friday, March 24th. This will give you all two full weeks for discussion. Don't hesitate to ask me any questions!

Anna M // Restricted Section Mod

Comments

[karinablack.livejournal.com]

does the discussion/debate start in this post? What are the books again?

[angeleyesjg24.livejournal.com]

The discussion for the short story "The Lottery" is in this post. The discussion for the book, Phantom of the Opera will be up as soon as it gets through the mod queue (hopefully some time today).

Anna M

the ritual

[aurora-rose-fsu.livejournal.com]

This is an antiquated ritual that has no place in the towns anymore, as evidenced by neighboring towns discontinuing their lottery. The whole ceremony has been reduced to a quick call of names and then a finishing of the job. The citizens don't know why they do this or even that the ceremony used to include some sort of purpose for their actions. Why does no one disagree publicly with this practice? There are characters who are very nervous and don't seem to agree with it, why do they still hold themselves to this ritual slaughter when they are the only ones who expect it of themselves?

This could all be ended if one person had the nerve to say no before the excitement of the afternoon was upon them.

Re: the ritual

[rocknrollpixie.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you. I think it is a case of not being the one to stand out or speak out against the masses. It is a type of self preservation, not wanting to mark yourself out as different or trouble, or perhaps even a potential target.

There were many unanswered questions which I think are also in the minds of many of the townsfolk, such as why the lottery began, and why don't they just stop? It was remarked in the story that other neighbouring towns had stopped their lotteries, but people said that it was a bad idea and would lead to disruption. Is this what they really believed or what they felt they should say?

What do you think would happen if someone did have the nerve to say no?

Pixie // Hufflepuff

Re: the ritual

[sleep-x-dream.livejournal.com]

I'm not one to argue but I do enjoy playing Devils advocate every now and then. Most of what I am about to say is coming from a sociological/cultural anthropological standpoint.

Simply because the ritual has been stopped in one location does not mean that it has no purpose or value in another. Many of the various traditions/practices that were once shared by different cultures have become culture specific developing and advancing within that said group. For example the practice of slavery as it is seen in its more traditional forms (Greeks/Romans, African Tribes, etc).


trent|slytherin

Re: the ritual

[angelofstrange.livejournal.com]

But there WAS a point to the lottery. The point was to sacrifice someone so that their crops would provide enough for the village to eat. It was a traidition that had seeped so far in to them that they feared that if they didn't do it the village wouldn't be able to survive. Which is why when it's brought up that another villiage is thinking of stopping the lottery it's said that next thing they know that they'll be back living in caves. It seems perposterus to them this tradition wouldn't be continued.

Jen//Hufflepuff

Re: the ritual

[indilwen.livejournal.com]

I don't think so- there's a reason this sort of thing gets wildly popular, even out of control, quickly, and lasts for a long time. Look at the Nazis in Germany -not everyone was a Nazi, but they sure had a lot of supporters, even young kids. And not all of these people were getting into it because they originally had it in for Jews, mentally handicapped people, gypsies and homosexuals: they all had some common ground, something to stand together over and believe in, and a lot of people got very, very far into what they were doing without realizing how their mindset had changed, or how conventionally terrible what they were doing was. There's a reason that deprogramming is necessary for people who have been in cult activities: It's a way of life. It's the social norm, and it's not as simple as standing up and saying "This is wrong" before another bout with long-standing tradition begins.

Sangrita, Slytherin

dehumanization

[aurora-rose-fsu.livejournal.com]

These people gather yearly to slowly destroy a member of their small town at random. This person has committed no crime and yet the community is ready to completely separate themselves from who ever is chosen in one moment and kill them the next. It isn't plausible that in a seemingly normal town a child could detach themselves from their parent and throw rocks that kill them or that the adults who have grown up with the victim could live with the results of their actions. Especially when this ceremony no longer has any recognized purpose. A town small enough that everyone knows EVERYone else and all of their children can not be made to be that dehumanized on only one day of the year.

Re: dehumanization

[rocknrollpixie.livejournal.com]

(ack! I wrote a huge comment there but LJ just ate it! ...I hope I can remember what I said!)

I toally agree with you! That's exactly what I thought when I first read it. The dehumanisation and friends and children turning against people reminded me of many dystopian novels, such as 1984, Brave New World and Handmaid's Tale. However, in those novels, people were living with a constant, daily fear, not one that comes just once a year.

This raises the interesting point of how the way you are raised might shape you. In the story a sixteen year old boy (I think...?) picks for the first time, yet even this fairly young person, did not say no. I feel that the stroy is written so that the families seem indistinguishable from each other and blend together, so that in the end not even a sixteen year old boy stands out from the crowd.

Pixie // Hufflepuff

Re: dehumanization

[possibilities.livejournal.com]

I made a comment to the next thread down that I think the story focuses a lot on the "sheep mentality" and without that dehumanization that you're talking about, I don't think any attempt at that would have been successful. Dehumanization is definitely a big part of the story.

I think by the time the story is set, the town has reached a point where they don't see each other as humans anymore - at least not in the way we define human. The only way I can see people doing that to each other is if the dehumanization is constant throughout the year. Everyone around you is your potential murder victim and your potential murderer. How could you ever learn to trust someone fully and have them as your equal in that enviroment? The results of it can't just come out one day a year. There must be consequences of it in every day life, and we just don't see them within the story.

That is definitely no normal town the rest of the year.


- Becker, Slytherin

Re: dehumanization

[angelofstrange.livejournal.com]

But it seems more like a game to the kids. They show up early. They pick the best stones and they protect them because they want the best ones. They're almost giddy to be able to do this to someone yearly. They can hardly wait to be able to murder someone. But I agree that if it were a parent they would have a harder time but if you've seen the movie the daughter actually does help in the murder of her parent, though she is older than say a 5 year old doing the same thing, and basically the next day, she's mourning but they ignore the fact of HOW the parent was killed.

Jen//Hufflepuff

Re: The Lottery

[acidroses.livejournal.com]

I think Shirley Jackson is making a deliberate attack on tradition here. The idea of the 'lottery' is almost comical in a sick way. I mean, the purpose of it is to make the crops grow. How ridiculous is that? But if you think about it, how many traditions are out there that are just completely ridiculous and pointless?

acidroses//Ravenclaw

Re: The Lottery

[possibilities.livejournal.com]

I don't think it was an attack on all tradition, though. I think that it was an attack on traditions that we follow blindly, with a refusal to see their harm. Sure, lots of traditions are silly and pointless, but in and of themselves, traditions aren't necessarily dangerous. The danger is in the fear to not do exactly what the tradition demands - to not criticise it, or really think about it.

I've always felt that The Lottery is more about the sheep mentality than tradition. Tradition just happens to showcase that particular mentality quite well. "Let's kill someone all together! Let's not protest the idea! Let's get caught up in how cool it is to kill someone and completely miss the point that we're killing someone, cuz everyone else is doing it too!"

(My apologies for having to delete the unsigned comment.)

- Becker, Slytherin

Re: The Lottery

[angelofstrange.livejournal.com]

I completely agree that it was an attack on traditions and why we keep these traditions going. But I can aslo say that thought there might seem to be a lot of traditions that might seem silly to us have a true basis to people. If I can bring up obsessive compulsive disorder, it's the same principle that things someone does over and over again seems so stupid to other people but for the person doing they fear that something bad will happen if they don't do it. Like my completely irrational fear that if I don't touch the alarm as I walk down the hall and make sure it's flat against the wall we're going to get broken in to or the house is gonna catch on fire. >.>

Jen//Hufflepuff

[karinablack.livejournal.com]

Der of course everyone's going to say how wrong, and it should be discontinued. It should go without saying.

That's our cultural backup. I saw a made-for-tv movie based on this short story that did it a bit more justice, I think.

In the show, the villagers did this yearly using the person drawn in the lottery as a scapegoat for all their sins. They poured their sin and hate into that one person, a stand-in for Christ, I think because someone long ago interpreted a Biblical passage as such.

The filmmaker gave an explanation of why the stoning was necessary and continued. The interwoven story was a love story between a local and an "outsider." I don't remember any more details.

It's creepy, but it does have an underlying point.
Shirley Jackson's story "The Lottery" was published in the June 28, 1948. It is no accident that it was published in the New Yorker in the midst of World War II. That it vividly describes herd mentality and dehumanization of ones' own out of tradition is no accident.

There's a really good essay on the piece located here (http://www.netwood.net/~kosenko/jackson.html) by Peter Kosenko.

Shirley Jackson refused interviews, and gave only a cryptic answer when asked, by her stunned public, why she had written this horrific piece about an "average New England Village."

It is my firm belief she wrote it in response to the climate of the times. The Japanese, Germans, and Italians had been villified and revealed as an "other," but in mere decades prior (and after) they were just other world citizens. They had scapegoated the Chinese, Jews, and French respectively, a never-ending cycle of scapegoating and murder.

Karina Black//Ravenclaw

[rocknrollpixie.livejournal.com]

World War II ended in 1945 ;)

Pixie // Hufflepuff

[karinablack.livejournal.com]

You forgot to sign this, may want to repost so you get points for the comment :)

That's absolutely one way of looking at it. The reasoning isn't explained in the short story, it leaves a lot for inference.

Christians do complain about Jesus having had to be killed for everyone's potential for salvation, though, if anyone's curious. There's a lot of Christian guilt and thankfulness and joy, yes, but the cross is about the constant reminder to mourn that someone else had to die to atone for the crap we pull every day.

Karina Black//Ravenclaw

The ritual - why is it tradition?

[devils-sidekick.livejournal.com]

Why do they feel the need to sacrafice someone each year? No matter how old or young the person is their name is put into a hat and they have a chance to be killed. What for? Tradition? Did something happen one year, that someone died by a stoning and they got good crops that year? Yes, I agree that this is tradition but how and why did it start in the first place?

Deborah/Hufflepuff

Re: The ritual - why is it tradition?

[karinablack.livejournal.com]

It isn't outlined. There are some interesting theories cropping up based on the short story.

Possible reasons the tradition started:
1) Human sacrifice for thanks and continued blessings upon the town.
2) Scapegoat for sins committed by the community.
3) Keeping the "small" in "small town."
4) A measure of control.
5) A reminder of mortality.
6) Getting all their evil out in one day.
7) Extermination of a bitchy spouse.
8) Target practice.

I think part of the premise is to leave us to wonder why such senseless killing is deemed "necessary" in the world at large. I think the story was written as a starting point and was meant to fuel domestic or international discussion to some degree. The town seems so "average, right and moral" yet they engage in this horrific practice.
I see this as simply a metaphor for the world we live in, and the story seems as relevant (or more so) today than ever before.

Karina Black//Ravenclaw

Is it only wrong because we might get caught?

[karinablack.livejournal.com]

What strikes me, is that while we're supposed to remember the lady begging for her life, and crying out how it's not right, and it's not fair... I think most of us are misinterpreting. She's not saying the whole thing is unfair, she's saying in effect that it's unfair that SHE got caught.
I think this is something of an allegory to the fact that we as humans are generally only opposed to an action if there's a chance we might be at the receiving end.

This is to say, that if she hadn't been the one to be picked- I think she would have been all for it.
And I think that the reason that we're so against murder as a society, is because WE might be the ones to get murdered. As a society (please don't reply and say OH NOT MEEEE! because I mean this as a society as a whole- take a look at our laws on the books if you disagree) we seem to be all FOR organized murder.

We are pro-death penalty in most states. This, to me, is sanctioned murder. It's how we choose to deal with someone who might otherwise be rehabilitated, in favor of running the risk of their repeating their crime.

And then there's abortion, which I won't go into because I feel this is an inappropriate venue and the point would be lost completely in the pro-choice vs pro-life furor.

Point is- the story was written to make us take a good hard look at ourselves. A question was posed (Hitchcock I think?) If you could win a million dollars, or 10 million, or 100 million, simply to push a button, knowing someone that you didn't know and would never find out about would die, would you do it?

All your financial problems gone, poof, in an instant.
Most people say no, but the underlying reason behind their declination is because they think they might someday be at the receiving end.

It's inference. Of course, this is never stated, and it's never stated that if you DON'T you'd be safe... it's simply assumed that if we remain free of this sin that we'll be kept "safe."

Is safety simply an illusion? Do we pay for this illusion with the shedding of others' blood?

People- men and women- have been put to death for killing in self-defense. Is society any safer for their extermination?

The story is an excellent springboard for a number of offshoot questions and discussions.

Karina Black//Ravenclaw

Re: Is it only wrong because we might get caught?

[rocknrollpixie.livejournal.com]

'And I think that the reason that we're so against murder as a society, is because WE might be the ones to get murdered. As a society (please don't reply and say OH NOT MEEEE! because I mean this as a society as a whole- take a look at our laws on the books if you disagree) we seem to be all FOR organized murder.
'

I think you've got a point there. Whenever I hear of a murder on TV I always imagine what it woudl be like if that was someone I know, and that's what makes me feel outraged about it I suppose.

As for organised murder, it depends, we don't have any death penalty here in the UK so again, that's another thing that depends on your 'society.'

It's quite weird because we've been talking about 'our society' like we're all part of the same society, but we aren't really. Sure we're in developed countries in the western world, but I (think) in the US laws even vary in between states, so even in the same country what might be acceptable in one part isn't in another.

Pixie // Hufflepuff

[fyrefaerie.livejournal.com]

Ok, I agree with most of what others have stated about dehumanizaton and the fear of change. However, in order to move the discssion onto another subject, I wanted to bring up the idea that the lottery actually improves the lives of the people who live in the town.

The fear that one might die allows the person to live life to the fullest and truly enjoy life. This is espicially noted in the teenagers participating for the first time. Teenagers too often tend to think themselves invincible. This leads to teenager's not appreciating life and taking dangerous risks. Growing up in this society, one would never forget their own mortality. This fact would put life into a new persepective and make every second count.

Of course, it seems terrible that someone should have to die every year to allow for the town's overall well-being. However, if the stoning is looked at as the sacrifice of one to provide for the hapiness of all, it does not seem as horrible. According to Christians the sacrifice of one man provided for the eternal happiness of everyone else. With that idea in mind "The Lottery" reads in an entirely different light, doesn't it?

I hope I've provided something new to think about/discuss.

Melissa/Slytherin

[indilwen.livejournal.com]

I was thinking the same thing while reading, but I've got some additional comments:

Jesus ultimately sacrificed himself. Yes, the people were the ones who sentenced him to death, and Pontius Pilate was the one who decided to just let them do whatever they wanted, but Jesus had made the decision to sacrifice himself to save the world from sin. The people in the lottery enter their names because there's an unspoken rule that they have to. It's just something you do.

Also, in Christianity, Jesus was the first and last sacrifice to save the souls of others. The same group of people didn't get together the year after that and decide that a few Apostles had to go, too. In the lottery, the sacrifice of one person doesn't provide eternal happiness or salvation: it supposedly provides good luck for a year, then you have to repeat the ritual again the next year.

Sangrita, Slytherin

S/he who throws the first stone

[karinablack.livejournal.com]

It just hit me. (haha... hit me. heerm.. sorry.)

"Let he who is without sin throw the first stone."

Could this be why the interpretation of the stoned person as a scapegoat for sin came into play? A sacrifice of sin to please God and make the crops grow?

Karina//Ravenclaw

Re: S/he who throws the first stone

[rocknrollpixie.livejournal.com]

Oh yes! And why the children were the first to gather the stones and to begin chasing her with them, because they're young and had less oppurtunity to sin yet! heh.

I'm actually leaning heavily towards the idea of the stoned person being a scapegoat for their sins, a sacrifice almost. Yes. this makes sense to me!

Pixie // Hufflepuff

Influence of norms and group mentality

[indilwen.livejournal.com]

I'm glad I joined this discussion when I did, because I've already been doing some research on group mentality and why people do things that other people see as obscene, inconceivable or cruel, and protest that "I would never do that."

It is very easy to look at stuff like this from an outsiders viewpoint and say "Oh, that's horrible. I could never do that. I would be the voice of reason, the one telling everyone else that it's wrong." In the actual situation, however, it might be easier to be brought under the sway of the group than you might think.

I don't know if anyone is familiar with the story of "The Wave", a classroom experiment performed in Palo Alto, California in the 1960's, but it applies here. After viewing a video on Nazi Germany, Ben Ross's students ere all telling him that "it could never happen again" and that "I would never do that." He essentially made these students into guinea pigs in an "experiment that got out of hand": it started off simply -he presented them with the concept of "Srength through discipline, strength through community, strength through action", basically streamlining the students in his class for success through militaristic behaviors. Next came membership cards for those in The Wave, along with the appointment of "Monitors" who were to keep tabs on the other students who were in The Wave and to attempt to "convert" students who weren't. The students all went along with this because they felt it was what they were supposed to do: it became sort of a game for most of them, and they all wanted to be the best. Pretty soon they were segregating themselves into Wave members and non-Wave members, with those who were not in the Wave receiving some pretty harsh treatment from those who were, who felt they were elite.

My point is, most of the school went along with this programming without even realizing what it was that was happening to them. It was something that they were told to do, and they did it. It became the norm, and was hardly ever questioned, much like The Lottery. These behaviors are so deeply programmed into people that they don't even recognize them -it's just what's done, like wearing clean clothes to work or brushing your teeth at night. If rituals will make life better, then okay, let's do that.
There's a reason that deprogramming is necessary to stop this sort of thing when it gets extreme: everyone sees it as normal.


Sangrita, Slytherin

Re: Influence of norms and group mentality

[angelofstrange.livejournal.com]

Let me think about this for a second. I don't think that that is the best parallel because I don't think the Lottery was about superiority, I think it was more about tradiition. The fact that they continued to do this over and over because they feared wrath that couldn't happen. I do believe that this tradition was programed in to them but I don't think that it is the same process. I think the sotry has a lot to do with the desensitizing of the people to allow this to happen every year. They don't seem phased by the fact that yearly they murder someone because it was for the good of the community.

Jen//Hufflepuff

Social Deviance and Conflict Theory

[indilwen.livejournal.com]

What does everyone think about social deviance as applied to The Lottery?

We all know what a social deviant is: someone who goes against the grain of society's norms. Conflict theory argues that social deviance is necessary for those who remain in the sphere of normal society, because it gives them some common ground, something to come together over.

I feel that this applies to the end of The Lottery, when Tessie Hutchinson is saying "It isn't fair, it isn't right." Perhaps the fact that she is rejecting the norms of her town makes it even easier for them to stone her: she becomes the deviant that it's necessary for them to band together against.

Sangrita, Slytherin

Re: Social Deviance and Conflict Theory

[angelofstrange.livejournal.com]

If you notice WHEN she starts shouting that it wasn't fair, it was AFTER she was the one that was marked to death. It would have been fine for her if it had been someone else. They didn't just do it to her because she didn't think it was right, she was trying to save herself. I wouldn't be surprised if every person shouted out that it wasn't fair when it was their turn. But as you see, it doesn't seem to affect the crowd that's coming in on her, even the little kids don't seem phased by the fact that they're killing someone. They even took the time to collect the rocks needed for the stoning.

If I can also use the movie as an example. In the movie they change it up a bit to a son who was left behind after his mother got stoned and he returns to the village to find out what happened which is when he then witnesses the Lottery for himself. He was put in to an insane assylum and the Lottery continued. So even if someone opposed them I don't think that they would choose them to sacrifice because they are so stewed in the tradition of it that it would dis-please God to have them choose a person a different way.

Jen//Hufflepuff

The Lottery

[kitty4151981.livejournal.com]

Well I never quite got around to finishing the Phantom of the Opera although I fully intend to someday when I have no school work to do.

I still think that the Lottery is an odd story. No matter how many times I read it or try to look at it from different angles, it just sounds as if it's a stupid ritual to do. This lottery was started when the population was growing so why end a life when you need to have as many lives to reproduce children? Even when the story takes place, there is never a justification for ending a person's life just because they were unlucky.

I also don't understand why the people of the town couldn't understand why other towns have stopped following such a tradition. It's not a good tradition to follow and these people just don't seem to have grasped that fact. Sure traditions are great and all that, but times do change and new traditions are always coming up or old ones are being altered in some way.

What would happen if a child's name was pulled? How could one kill an innocent child? It's easier to understand if the person was old and had lived his life but for a young child who hasn't had much of a chance to live his life, that would be just too cruel.

Also, it seems as if this whole lottery harks back to the old days when it was certain as if people would live. After all, in the old days before modern medicine, people would die and it was all left up to chance when the younger people died. But I'm just blathering here and all that.

Lee/Ravenclaw

Re: The Lottery

[angelofstrange.livejournal.com]

That's the point of it though. The point was that it was a "stupid tradiition" which is why it is discussed in the story that another town was thinking of stopping it, "They do say...that over in north village that they're talking about giving up the lottery." "Pack of crazy fools...Listening to the young folks, nothing's good enough for them. Next thing you know they'll be wanting to go back to living in the caves, nobody work any more, live that way for awhile." This one town was holding so tight on to the tradition that it seems anything that goes against is so perposterous that they compare it to going back in time.

We also find out that they're so suppersitious that they use the same box that had been used for years and years and years, and if it broke, they make one exactly like it. We find out that the lottery is to find out whom to sacrefice so that they'll have good crops, "Used to be a saying, 'Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon,'". They see the lottery as a way to keep their people fed and would even sacrifice a child if need be. It was one for the greater good. And if they don't do the lottery the town would suffer, "First thing you know, we'd all be eating stewed chickenweed and acorns. There's always been a lottery," so as you see this town is stuck with the tradition because of their supersitious ways. Like I said, they thought it was for the greater good of the village that someone died.

Jen//Hufflepuff

[magelet.livejournal.com]

Have the point totals been posted somewhere? *confused*

-- Clubs Co-Mod