Blog Post #5 Anthony Valle

The story would definitely be different if the narrator was a male. First the time period has to be taken into account and what womens roles in society were at the time. It seems like this story is taking place back in the days, so the father would probably tell his daughter that she needs to cook, clean, and to get married. His instruction would probably be the same throughout their entire society, based on the time it takes place. I really do not think the father would call his daughter a slut however.

Blog Post 5

On “A&P”

1. “A & P” is often described as a “coming of age” story, in which we watch a boy change significantly – perhaps not becoming a man, exactly, but making a decision that has implications beyond the literal and will mature him in various ways. This decision is influenced, possibly caused by his sense of masculinity and burgeoning sexuality. Explain how you see these things related: how does his gender identity/sexuality influence his decision? (Hint: consider his observations of other men). 

Sammy, a young man working as a clerk in a neighborhood grocery, becomes especially interested in three women who enter to store on a summer afternoon. He consider them, thinking to himself, "do you really think it's a mind in there or just a little buzz like a bee in a glass jar?" At the time this was written, women were supposed to fill roles society had set for them. Mother, wife, caregiver, come to mind. Modesty was almost certainly one of them. 

The manager, however, enforcing the rules of the store reminds the girls they can't come in dressed in bathing suits. 
 
Stokesie, also a young clerk, mutters, "oh daddy, I feel so faint." They are entranced by this woman's beauty. The old meat man couldn't get his eyes off them.

Sammy is absolutely entranced by these women, and attempts to do something on principle, quitting his job, because the way these girls were treated. Now he faces  realities of life, with no job, and no girl to comfort him.





 

Blog 5 by Carson

Question 2 from 'Girl'

When a mother speaks to her daughter in the tone used in the narrative “Girl”, it means the mother is mentoring and tutoring the girl into becoming a woman. The daughter is at the age where she is going to begin doing things on her own, have an interest in men, and have a sense of responsibilities. This is the right time for her mother to start teaching her how to behave like a woman.  The daughter’s mother has the urge to teach all she knows about being a woman, because, if she does not the daughter will learn on her own in the streets. The mother is putting pressure into all these rules and duties so that her daughter is accepted into society and it could be seen that the tone of the mother is strict but also worried, worried for her daughter to turn out right in the eyes of society. It is also the mother’s responsibility to teach her daughter how to act accordingly, if the mother fails at this society looks down on her too.  

Post #5 Girl J.C

The dialogue of "Girl" is that of a mother telling her daughter all the things she must be in order to be a successful woman. There is no love behind these words. The mother is not watching out for her or making a good woman, rather she is making her become an uncertain and questionable girl. Her mother is confusing her.  Since it is the mother who is telling her these things, we as the reader assume that she is speaking to her daughter from bad past experiences. Although the mother is giving her advice, the words she speaks are harsh and bitter; we can assume that she has experienced many bad things in her life since she speaks with such passion about not falling and becoming an exemplary woman in life.  Now, if the narrator had been the father, our way of viewing the story if it would be her dad to talk the same exact words and the same tone and put a man as the narrator then it would come across as extremely abusive and manipulative. For a mother to say that to a daughter it’s okay, but for a father it is unacceptable. If the father would call his daughter a "slut" it would be almost the same as him slapping her in the face. If a man calls any lady “whore” or “slut” then it is immediately abusive language and he is viewed as oppressive. Men have to be so much more careful with the choice of words when speaking, unlike woman.

Blog Post 5 Girl Question 2 Kendra

In Girl, Jamaica Kincaid uses heavily loaded language to tell the story of a (shocker) girl that is being instructed how to become a good woman. The fact that the girl's mother is the one spouting off the harsh words is particularly shocking, though I'm not sure it was meant to be so literal. I believe that Kincaid uses the repetitive quote of "...slut you are so bent on becoming" to illustrate the girl's frustration at her mother for inundating her with all the "rules" necessary to become a lady, I don't believe that it is supposed to be a direct quote from the mother. 

To speak to another human being with such disregard for their feelings is awful, I'm not saying it doesn't happen but to allude that a mother would speak that way to her daughter is either a very large cultural gap or a vast exaggeration. Usually this kind of exchange is reserved for two teenage girls who have some kind of problem with each other, not for a mother and a daughter.

~

As I mentioned in class, Kincaid has had an over note of bitterness to most of her essay's (stemming from what I believe is a general distaste of her upbringing in an English colony) so the acerbic words don't feel out of place at all in her writing. I usually try to keep my writing as neutral as possible, but in this case I feel put out. I suppose the essay "On Seeing England For The First Time" colored my view of her in a dark and rather unpleasant light. And I am sorry if anything I've said has insulted anyone.

2. Think about girl from a linguistic model: analyze the language used, keeping in mind that the narrator is a female, echoing her mother’s advice. What does it mean for a woman to speak to another woman in this tone, with these words?           
                                                                                                                                             
 The way the mother speaks makes me think that they are in the early 1900 or even 1800 when women were to act like ladies. The advise that she gives her daughter is the way she should act like to attract a man. If a woman were to speak like this to another woman now-a-days it would be considered or taken as an insult. Why would another woman care how another is to behave or do. Now-a-days women talk behind ones back in nasty maners. Probably using nasty language. Back in the day I think that a woman talking to another woman, the way the narrators mother speaks to her, would be considered advise. Good old advice to not seem like a "slut". She is guiding her daughter, teaching her. Her mother is only being blunt to help her get a good husband/man. At the end the mother questions her daughter that after all her advise is she still going to be a woman that a man wont let near his "bread." I think that bread here represents money, security. She shall not act or be a slut because at the end of the day man will only stay with a woman because she is a lady.   



 

                                                                               

Blog #5

On “A&P”

1. “A & P” is often described as a “coming of age” story, in which we watch a boy change significantly – perhaps not becoming a man, exactly, but making a decision that has implications beyond the literal and will mature him in various ways. This decision is influenced, possibly caused by his sense of masculinity and burgeoning sexuality. Explain how you see these things related: how does his gender identity/sexuality influence his decision? (Hint: consider his observations of other men). 

Answer: In A & P, this 19 year old boy watches these three girls wearing only bikinis walk around the store he works at, he notices the other guys in the store looking at the women and checking them out as he is. The way he checks out the girl is probably how every guy would. After his manager embarrassed the three girls and told them not to come back in the store without being covered up, the boy decides to quit. He tries to say it loud enough for them to hear but they don't because they are rushing out the door. He wanted to show his masculinity by trying to be their "unsuspected hero". He wanted to show the girls that he is a man standing up for them, which makes him feel like he is a man for standing up to his manager sticking up for the girls. 

Blog Post # 5 Alisia

2. A lot of focus on the girls in the store: take on the veil of a feminist critic and analyze any of the models: the biological, cultural, and linguistic models of feminist criticism I introduced you to briefly in class.  This is just dipping a toe in – play with it and see what you come up with. Try to come up with a number of ideas given the three possibilities here.

Sammy focuses on the three girls in bathing suits the whole time they are in the store. He notices a lot of little details about the girls as they go around the store. He notices what kinds of suits they have on and what they look like. It is also brought up that normally people would put on some piece of clothing before going into a store. The other people in the store, like the woman he is ringing up, are also physically described. He also notices the way the “Queen” walks, like she doesn’t care what other people think of her. All the other women in the store are also described a little. The other women aren’t even called women, they are sheep or houseslaves. I think that it is pretty important that the girls are described in this way because it shows more about who Sammy is and who he wants to be.

This was written in a time where it wasn’t appropriate to wear such little clothing in a public place. You could tell how the other people in the store felt about the way they were dressed by the looks they were giving them. You could also tell because they were surprised and had to double check to make sure that they weren’t seeing things.  

#5

2. Think about girl from a linguistic model: analyze the language used, keeping in mind that the narrator is a female, echoing her mother’s advice. What does it mean for a woman to speak to another woman in this tone, with these words?

  The language used in Girl is a very demanding and informative tone. The mother is very straight forward and is telling her daughter how to behave and do things a woman should do them. The language the mother uses is very degrading it seems like when she reminds her daughter to not become this slut she has warned her about. The way she talks to her daughter is in a way that she already knows she is going to become a slut. The fact that this woman (the mother) is talking to her daughter like this can be seen as a lecture of advice for this young girl so she knows how to face daily chores and encounters, also the tone used could mean that sheis showing her how to act in the culture and time in order to not be seen as a weak woman. She wants her daughter to be strong and independent, but not one who is getting unwanted attention from men, "This is how to hem a dress when you see the hem coming down and so to prevent yourself from looking like the slut I know you are so bent on becoming." Women are very honest, and as a mother her language is very straight forward and instructive. Her repetetive words about her daighter being this slut is evident that this is the way she views her daughter and i think she is trying to give her as much instruction as possible because she has already lost some hope for her becuase she knows she will become this slut.

Blog #5 Kathryn Boyle

The dialogue of "Girl" is that of a mother telling her daughter all the things she must be in order to actually be a woman. Since it is the mother who is telling her these things, we as the reader assume that she is speaking to her daughter from experience and there is some love behind it. Even though the mother's words are seem rather harsh and laced with a kind of bitterness, we can assume she is telling her daughter these things because she has a certain image that she feels would benefit her daughters life. Now while we can brush off the mom as either bitter or worrisome, if the narrator had been the father, our perception would have changed drastically. If we were to talk the same exact words and the same tone and put a man as a narrator, it would come across as if he were being verbally abusive. Mothers and daughters can get away with saying things like this to each other, but for example if a father were to call his daughter a "slut" it would be almost the same as him slapping her in the face. When men give these comments to women it suddenly becomes sexist and oppressive, even if they are just the same words that came from a woman's mouth.

Mikael's Blog #5

On A&P, First Question:
In this story, we see Sammy making a clear and concise decision by the end of the story.  After seeing the way that Lengel reacts to the girls wearing swimsuits and his decision to kick them out, Sammy quits on the spot.  While it can be said that he was quitting for the injustice of the situation, his body language suggests that he has an ulterior motive.  He makes a point of attempting to quit while they can still see him, so that they can see their "unsuspected hero".  Throughout the story, it is the physical traits of the people, both men and women, that stand out to young Sammy.  He comments on the weight of one girl, the gait of the "queen", and even the mannerisms of Lengel,  the boss.  While he does quit by the end, the reader is shown the social expectations and norms that are evident in the time period.  When referring to Stokesie, he mentions that he's married and has two kids.  In the next sentence, the same Stokesie is referred to as "the responsible married man", pointing out that the two adjectives go hand-in-hand.  All three of the men's reactions to the girls are indicative of what was expected of them as males.  While he thought the queens actions were cute, Stokesie reacted uncomfortably and Lengel ended up kicking the girls out of the store.  In the end, all of their actions were decided by the responsibilities set forth by the society and the time period.  Once Sammy had quit, he came to the realization that his headstrong decision provided no positive outcome.  He was fairly easily replaced, and didn't receive so much as a thank you from the girls.

Blog #5 question 3 by Valeria Gallegos

I would definitely respond differently to Girl if it was her father instead of her mother telling her to do these things. It would sound much harsher if it was a man because he would not know how to be a woman and the things that they go through on an everyday basis. Due to this it would sound as if he doesn't want to understand her and how she really feels and just wants her to do all these things because he THINKS it is what she needs to do to become a better woman. Since it is the mother saying all of these things its more likely that the daughter will listen and obey because she knows that her mother has had firsthand experience in becoming a woman so the daughter would trust that what she was saying was crucial information that she needs to adhere to. Of course, whether it be her father or mother telling her to do these things I am still shocked that a parent, no matter the gender, would talk to their daughter in this way. I would be bothered by it a bit more if it was her father, however since they are typically seen as the protector of the household and talking to his daughter like this is not protecting her but hurting her and ultimately damaging her self-esteem. Yes, it is a mother giving her daughter advice and warning her about the dangers of the outside world but, there are a lot of parents who give advice and help their child in a more kinder and loving way which is what I would have liked to have seen in this story, however, that is not the case here and in many other families as well. One would think that the mother would at least be kinder to her daughter since they are both women but, during this time period all of these things were expected from every woman and those that did not do these things were seen in a negative light so I can somewhat see where the mother is coming from; she doesn't want her daughter to become a "slut'" but to become a responsible and respectable woman.

Blog Post #5: Sydney Thiessa

A&P, Question 2

Feminist cultural model:
Given the time period that A&P was written in, the early 1960s still had the traditional and conservative values from the 1950s, where it wasn't until later in the decade that social change would begin to occur. That being said, women had very specific and expected social roles, like the housewife. Women would do the chores and the shopping, but in "decent" clothing. They were expected to look decent everywhere they went, which is why the girls in A&P were forced to leave because of their indecent bathing suits. The age of the girls is particularly important. Teenagers during this time period wanted to break free from traditional values, hence the obsession with rock and roll music and drive-in theaters. The younger generation was the one to inspire and go about social change, a sort of rebellion against the older generation, which is why the manager of A&P, Lengel, tells the girls "they need to come in here with your shoulders covered". Lengel is a part of the older generation. Sammy doesn't object to the girls wearing their bathing suits because he is a part of the younger generation.

5$ footlong for michael hernandez

A&P question  2

2. A lot of focus on the girls in the store: take on the veil of a feminist critic and analyze any of the models: the biological, cultural, and linguistic models of feminist criticism I introduced you to briefly in class.  This is just dipping a toe in – play with it and see what you come up with. Try to come up with a number of ideas given the three possibilities here.

    In general, a feminist struggle can clearly be seen through character interactions regarding wearing bathing suits. In a society ruled by oppressive gender roles, the trio of girls stood up for the right to be accepted and be respected  after being  reprimanded by the bourgeois-like store manager who sees their garb as shameful and disrespectful. What i found intriguing was the contrast between Sam's actions and thoughts. through his thoughts: "You never know for sure how girls' minds work (do you really think it's a mind in there or just a little buzz like a bee in a glassjar?) ",  we see that he doesnt understand the females and assumes them to be unintelligent. throughout the story, Sam views the girls simply as sexual objects, finding it acceptable for them to wear bathing suits, while desiring older women with vericose veins and children to be decently dressed. 

Sam, though overall depicted as a stereotypical male, also displays a feminist viewpoint as certain points; at the very least, he respects their viewpoint. he notes that the "queen" walks straight and slowly without shame or concern with what others thought of them. here, Sam seems to respect the girls stand for independence and freedom. he admires how the girls walk through the store, which is filled with "house-slaves"-women who have submitted to the enslaving gender roles- with no concern about how they are viewed. the girls stand in stark contrast to the sheep who simply follow tradition. even when Lengel, a figurative slave-master, proceeds to reprimand them, Queenie argues that "we are decent". 

  
   it is at this point in the story that i believe Sam makes a feminist(?) stand. when Lengel tells the girls that covered shoulders are "our policy", Sam defines policy as "what the kings want", while what everyone else desires is juvenile delinquency; the delinquency is indeed juvenile when compared to old, long-standing tradition. Sam challenges this tradition after Lengel tells him that upsetting it would fair badly for him. i guess you could say that he rebels against his role by quitting, not so much for the girls and their cause, but for himself.

that's my idea anyway, im just stabbing in the dark.Sam could just be following the whole heterosexist idea that a woman always needs a man to rescue her. in which case, the fact that the girls leave and ignore him could be another feminist action on their part.

Post #5: Colton Quick

A&P: Question #2

In A&P Sammy, the narrator, is observing these girls who come into the store the he works in who are only wearing bathing suits. Throughout the story he is thoroughly examining every detail about them in a way most guys would do. The only thing about the scene he is describing is that it is unusual for these girls to be in bathing suits because it is in the middle of the city a ways from the beach in Boston, he states that “women generally put on a shirt or shorts or something before they get out of the car into the street.” So, this surprise, I think, makes Sammy analyze these girls all the more, just as any guy deprived girls in bathing suits would do. He definitely has a masculine gender identity and strong male sexuality. His male sexuality is seen in his analysis of the girls, and his masculinity is seen in how he tries to quit in front of the girls to show that he is standing up for them after his boss embarrassed them. Sammy just shows the stereotypical manly impulse to do anything we can to impress a girl even if it may turn out bad for us. In his case he ends up losing his job and the girls do not even stick around to talk to him after the act; I can identify with this as I have tried to impress girls and not gotten feedback from them. This is what I think this short story is trying to do. I think too that as society changes and man reach different ages men try and do different things to impress girls, for instance a lot of the time in high school I would try and impress girls with my athletic ability. I think in this story too that because Sammy is feeling that he is growing older now that he has just turned 19 that he must impress girls by being seen as a man rather than a boy. So he quits his job, symbolizing that jobs carry with them a meaning of maturity or coming of age.

Blog Post #5

Question #3 on Girl

Reading "Girl" would be much different if it were from a man's perspective. I think when contemplating what it would be like from that perspective, it is important to look at the time this was written, 1978. The things this woman is advising or telling her daughter, are things that were assumed to be a woman's job. Most of them still are considered this way. A father would not necessarily know these type of things to advise a young woman on. A mother knows how to become a woman because she has been there, she has grown up from a young woman into an adult woman and she is just giving her daughter what she feels is important advice on how to become a proper woman. If her father had been advising her of these things, he would come off very controlling and almost abusive towards women because he would be demanding things such as having an abortion or cleaning and cooking correctly, or deeming her a slut. These would seem very judgmental coming from her father, whereas coming from her mother they are strictly words of advice and trying to help her avoid certain situations as she grows up. This is why the gender of the narrator is almost crucial to this piece of literature and something that must be considered while reading it.

Blanca's Blog # 5

Girl Question # 3:
        If I were to read the version of "Girl" in which a father were giving his daughter advice on how to be a well respected young-woman, I definitely would've been a bit disappointed  giving the fact that this father has not been in the shoes of a woman and does not know what a woman's does or how she behave. Asking a man to act like a woman might give more of a stereotypical outcome of what a woman's role is. The man might start acting a little bit more delicately and feminine, trying his hardest not to get his hands dirty. He'd believe that being a woman meant staying at home, cooking, and taking care of the kids and the home, but when you look at what being a woman really is through a woman's eyes, you can see the hard work that must be put into making sure that her family is in good hands. It makes me think of how people stereotype gays and lesbians too. All in all, it wouldn't seem right to have a father giving advice to a daughter given that he himself does not know what being a woman consist of.

Blog #5

"A&P" Question #1

As a male the narrator felt as though he must stand up for the girls in order to be their "unsuspected hero." In society and throughout history males have usually been the providers of their families. They are there in movies to save the day and make woman believe as though they need a man in their life. The narrator wanted to be the man to stand up for the girls. He wanted to show them that he was a "macho" man and could be there for them. He tried to prove that he was not just some kid, but that he was worthy enough to stand up for a girl. In the 1960s when this piece was written it was a society that saw the man of the house as the dominant figure in ones family, as we see today, but not as prominent as in the 1960s. Men were supposed to be the ones that girls looked to for affection and to stand up for them. For example, in movies the "damsels in distress" are those woman who need to be rescued and the hero is the one that comes in and sweeps her off her feet. In this story the narrator sees a moment where he could be a hero to them by quitting his job to prove to them that he thinks his manager was in the wrong. Society and pop culture shape who we are, and as we see in "A&P" it shapes who the narrator becomes. He believes as though to show his masculinity he must quit his job to be a man and hero to the girls.

Blog #5 "Girl" Andrea Morrison

3. Would you respond to “Girl” differently if we reversed sex and you imagine the narrator is male, a father advising a young woman on how to become the proper kind? Ultimately, what’s at stake in a woman, a mother, advising a young girl in this manner versus a man, a father, doing so? What are the implications?

If "Girl" had a male narrator the dynamics of the story would drastically change. "Girl" is the teachings, of a mother to her child, on how to become a woman. It is a play by play on how to cook, clean, act in public, and of course how to "throw away a child". The narrator repeatedly refers to her daughter as the "slut she is so bent on becoming". This hostilely greatly shapes the nature of both these characters. The mother is obviously trying to teach her daughter the rules of the world but her harsh life experiences have left her scared as she now views the world, and her daughter, in a negative light. However, if the narrator was her father instead of her mother he would come across as rude, arrogant, protective, and almost sinister. We would question her mother’s existence since her father would be teaching his daughter more traditional feminine roles. Nevertheless, the term "slut" and talk about a self induced abortion would almost make the father seem abusive, in one way or another. He would come across as power hungry and dramatically change the relationship present between these two characters. The time that this book was written almost seems to work against the role of the father. In the late 1940's and early 1950's women we still chained to their household name. They had little authority within the home as the man was deemed "master" of the house. In the original story tension is present between the mother and her daughter but we almost sympathize with these characters as we know the mother is trying to teach her daughter the harsh realities associated with women and society. If we switch roles and read this same story from the perspective of the father an overpowering sense of belittlement dictates the role of the "girl".

Blog #4 Anthony Valle

I know this is kind of late, but at least i still responded to the the question.

Group 1: Question 1
The Lottery is written in the third person point of view, which allows the reader to hear all the dialogue from all the characters. This gives us a sense of what every character is saying throughout the entire story, which also helps understand the plots. The setting of the story doesn't really change throughout it is mainly in the town square, i thought the setting was rather boring. The plot is very simple it is mainly about the drawing and  the dialogue that makes up most of the story.

Group 2: Question 1
The short story The Lottery have generally the same plot but rather different setttings. The plots are similar because they both are rather happy towns. However, both of these towns seem to isolate a person from the town and leaver them or stone them to death. Though people know this is wrong they do not seem to object it because it is part of their own society.

Blog 4 A. Leader

Group 1

Question 1: The short story version of “The Lottery” is written in third person. This let’s the reader to see all that is happening through the dialogue and everyone’s actions, and there aren’t any revealed thoughts from any of the characters. I believe this story was written in third person so the reader can decide what they think of the situation without any or little bias. When I read the story, I noticed that Tesse Hutchinson (whom arrived late) had a careless attitude about this lottery as if the odds are in her favor; however, when her family is chosen, she seems to be in denial and making up excuses when she says that her husband did not have a fair chance to choose the slip that he wanted. She also tries to say that she has many other children they can take. I was really surprised by her reactions because usually a mother would want her children to live and they would be willing to sacrifice their lives for their children, but this town does not seem to have the correct psychological mind set as someone “normal”. After her family is chosen, soon after it is revealed that Tesse is chosen to sacrifice her life for her town. When this is revealed, Tesse is trying every way to get herself out of this situation by saying it was not fair and it is not right. At the last moment of her life, she finally thinks it’s not right for them to hold this lottery but I really don’t think she believes that it is not right since she didn’t fight this reasoning before. She was just saying it wasn’t fair or right since she was the one being sacrificed.

Group 2

Question 5: The short story “The One’s Who Walk Away From Omelas” starts off with describing this dream place of a town that seems to be the best place that has ever existed. It talks about how everyone is always overjoyed and there isn’t any crime or troubles in this town; however, there is this one child that is starved and isolated in a dark room who is suffering that they show to the people of the town. Most of the people feel bad but go on their way through their daily lives but the few people who know this isn’t right leave the town without a fight and just walk away with no real direction in mind. The people who do walk away is very few and cannot really do anything about this. Their reasoning of keeping this child in a room is to show the harsh suffering possibilities so the other people of the town won’t take their lives for granted while in The Lottery has a similar mind set where they sacrifice a person per year to show suffering to the townspeople so they won’t take their lives or town for granted. And Felice continues to assure Jason that her town is better than his because they do not have any crime or troubles with anyone who lives there. Everyone gets along.

Four for Zach

1.  One of the first things I noticed while reading the short story version of "The Lottery" you mentioned in the question itself; it reads like a fairy tale.  This randomly brings to mind the novel "Slaughterhouse 5" by Kurt Vonnegut,  and as I recall, the original version was called "Slaughterhouse 5:  A Fairy Tale, but unlike the fairy tales we read, there is no moral at the end of the story, no real lesson being learned.  Instead, it is told by an objective third person who, in my mind, told the story with a matter-of-factness about it, and rather than going in depth to describe the town, people, or reason for actually conducting the lottery, Shirley Jackson chooses focuses on the event itself.  We have no idea where the setting actually is, but I find it interesting that they talk about neighboring towns conducting, or not conducting the lottery, unlike the film version where their own town is a special case.  It is clearly a patriarchal society in which the men are the ones doing the drawing and when one of the husbands is absent, they say to the perfectly capable woman that it's a shame she doesn't have a full grown man to draw for her, as if she somehow isn't capable of simply removing a slip of paper from an old box.  It's hard to tell at the end of the story, but it seems as if Mrs. Dunbar seems opposed to the stoning, choosing to stay behind the wild mob.  It seems as if women of the town aren't really favor of the lottery at all, complaining that time seems to go too fast and that it feels like the previous lottery wasn't long ago, where the men are in total favor, saying the towns who abandoned it were total fools, and saying that it would bring them more corn in their harvest.

6.  In the movie version of "The Lottery," self interest vs greater good is more self evident and realized because the main character is at an almost constant battle with the town of New Hope, and even his simple interest of placing his father's ashes next to his mother's grave is against the greater good for the townspeople.  The text version does a better job at analyzing the relationship between self interest and greater good though.  While Mrs. Hutchinson at the beginning of the story may not have been completely in agreement with the lottery, she, at the time, certainly wasn't opposed to it, and you can bet if another name had been chosen she could have been the one with the giant stone requiring two hands to hold.  As soon as her family was chosen, however, self interest kicked in, and she continually said it wasn't fair until the time she was stoned to death.  In the movie version, it was shameful to not meet the death with honor, and I think it would be interesting to be able to see a second lottery in the text to see if all whose names are chosen suddenly place their self over interest for the greater good of the society.

Blog numero 4!!

Group 1
Question 4 

"Behind every great fortune there is a crime" -Honore de Balzac. This man made a good point. Whether we are aware of it or not. In the town of Omelas everyone was aware of it though. Did they consider it a crime? Probably not. Marxism revolves around the concept of greater good versus individual self. It's about the "WE" not about the "I". In the "Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" there is this widespread ideology that is basically dictating that one single child must be sacrificed in order to have this wonderful peaceful town. Omelas's successful society depends on this single child's horrible misfortunes. The narrator stresses that this child's sufferings and the prosperity of Omelas and its people is clear and understood by everyone in the town. Everyone understands the correlation between the two but never does the narrator actually give a rational connection as to why. All we know is that the sacrifice of the child yields to happiness and prosperity. It is obvious that no one in the town can fathom the idea of giving up the towns happiness to help this single child "to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of one..." again, there is the ideology of the "greater good". In my opinion every citizen of Omelas plays the role of the bourgeoisie, but then again they all play the role of the proletariat. They all have to submit to this sick ideology of allowing the child to live in these inhumane conditions. They can't really do anything about it because they know that if they did that happy life they have enjoyed for so long will be shattered. Of course there are those that simply leave Omelas, they can perhaps be seen as the ones who are "revolting" against their ideology. But simply walking away seems just as bad as living in the town. They walk away, they are not a part of it, yet it continues. So are they really revolting against it? Perhaps if those who do not agree with it were to come together as a whole and DO something other than walk away, maybe.

Group 2
Question 7

While I watched "The Lottery" I automatically thought about "The Hunger Games. In "The Lottery" however, everyone gets to participate in the drawing to see who gets stoned. Men and women, young and old. In "The Hunger Games" only children from the ages of 12 to 18 are allowed to participate. Although in "The Lottery" the reasons for why they hold this annual tradition is so they can have good fortune and peace I think it is also to maintain some sense of control and submission. Which is exactly what happens in "The Hunger Games". The reason for why they have these deadly games is to keep the districts under control to avoid an uprising from the districts (like district 13). The bourgeoisie (the gamemakers,Snow, people from The Capitol) want to keep the districts and the residents (proletariat) under control.   

Blog 4 ~ Kendra Fitzpatrick

Group 1 ~

Question 1: In the short story version of "The Lottery"the plot is simple, the lottery is happening and someone is going to get picked for the stoning and in the end the tradition is going to continue ; the characterization is more in depth, you see Tessie and she's joking around, she knows whats going to happen but she doesn't care until it's happening to her, then she kicks up a fuss and complains to everyone that it wasn't fair, and trying to up the numbers so she is less likely to be picked by offering her older children up to be in the drawing as well, even though they've already been cleared for the year. Tessie, feels normal heading into the drawing and is all for it, but as soon as the tables turn she hates it and feels its unfair, she's hypocritical.

Group 2 ~

Question 5: "Omelas" and "The Lottery" are both Dystopian/Utopian in nature (they can swing both ways depending on which way you look at them), they are Utopian because both civilizations are prosperous, nothing bad really happens in either town, everyone is perfectly chipper and happy, but they both ride on the destruction of another human being, thats the Dystopian element and also where they differ slightly. In "The Lottery" the "tithe" is paid directly, the town gathers and kills one of their own every year for the prosperity of the town, the good of the many. However, in "Omelas" the "tithe" is paid in a more indirect way, no one physically hurts the child by way of violence they simply neglect the child into destruction; which I suppose it could be argued that neglect is a form of violence, albeit a passive form. It's a simple question of what are you willing to do for the good of the many, meaning the good of you more often than not, versus the good of the few, or the one in these cases. The answer of most is to sit idly by and allow it to happen because you think it cannot be stopped, the other path is to fight it (which in the case of "Omelas" means to walk away from everything into the unknown because anything is better than that) the latter path is the more lonely one without a doubt.

Blog Post #4 Kathryn Boyle

Group 1:

1. The plot, characterization, point of view, and setting are very simple in the short story "The Lottery". The stories plot is composed of only the current lottery. There is brief mentioning of previous lotteries, but there is no in depth anecdote just simply an explanation of how it was conducted in previous years. The story begins with the gathering of the towns people, with a brief explanation of a few of the families, to the killing of the town's sacrifice. There is little characterization in this story. There is no real individual protagonist or antagonist, more is known about some families but that is simply to show this town is made of real people. The omniscient point of view is what gives us the information about what several people are thinking or doing during the lottery event. It also is what allows us to know how the lottery has changed over the years. Finally with the simple setting of being in the town square limits us as the reader to this single event. The simplicity of the story allows for a non-emotional evaluation of the story, because we do not have any attachments to the characters and their personal lives.

Group 2:

7. When viewing the film of "The Lottery" I kept thinking of how similar it was to The Hunger Games.  Both have the plot of a sacrifice for the greater good of the community and both are conducted by chance and result in violence, however there are some large differences. In "The Lottery" the towns people have the attitude that this is just something that must be done and prefer to get it over with as quickly as possible ,but in The Hunger Games the actual sacrifice - or the games - are conducted almost for entertainment and prolonged for some time. In The Hunger Games there is a definite presence of a bourgeoisie (upper class) in the game makers and residents of the capital, and a proletariate (lower class) in all the other districts. We see the unfairness in not only the fact that children from the capital do not have to participate in the games but also in the way that they have a much higher standard of living.

Blog #4

Group #1:
1.) In the short version of "The Lottery" it seems as if the plot was way more straight forward. For instance, the plot was all based on the actual event of the lottery. There was only one setting the entire time which  was the courtyard where the lottery took place. As far as the plot goes, it starts off having people slowly moving into the courtyard and briefly introducing a few characters but never any characters in great detail. Then as soon as everyone arrives, they cut right to the chase and start the lottery. Everyone goes along with the ceremony and as soon as the people open their slips of paper to reveal their fate, until Bill Hutcherson is the chosen one with the black mark on his slip, suddenly his wife starts to exclaim that its not fair. Tessie's character was on board with the tradition until she realized it was her family at stake. As far as Tessie's character goes, she seems just like every other person living in that town but as soon as she realizes that she might have to be stoned, all of a sudden she goes in to a sort of panic. She even starts giving up her children so that there is more of a chance that she will not be picked. Which is an unusual thing (in our society) for a mother to do. But for her now, it is survival of the fittest. The whole story takes place in the 3rd person.

Group #2:
7.) In both the "Hunger Games" and "The Lottery" there are many similarities. For instance in both, they have a sort of government or higher power that dictates that they have a sacrifice in order to keep order in their town/district. Also, each sacrifice is done at random and they are both drawn from a slip of paper. As far as the  bourgeoisie vs. proletariat goes, in the "Hunger Games" the upper class seems to have better things and sees the games as a good thing and a way of justice where as the lower class sees it as a punishment and a horrible way of life. While in "The Lottery" there isn't necessarily a upper and lower class but the higher powers like the sheriffs they initially have more power and a say as to how things are run. 

Sydney Witt

blog #4 Andrew Snyder

1) In "The Lottery," by Shirely Jackson, the main focus of the story is the plot itself and how everything unfolds within it.  The point of view is third person objective, because the story is told as it is seen and setting takes place in a small town that the lottery is praticed in.  There are not alot of characters that really have a chance to develop except for Tessie Hutchinson, who as we all know gets stoned at until the very end of the story.  At first we feel empathetic towards her as a regular housewife and mom, but once she is chosen, her true colors shine out and leave the reader feeling not as empathetic when she gets stoned.  I have read "The Lottery" mulitple times in many different classes, but I will always remember the first time I read it and the shock value it gives the reader at the very end.  That is why the plot is the most important literary device in the story because we have no idea what the lottery actually is until Ms. Hutchinson's demise in the end.  When you first read it, you have no idea where "The Lottery" is heading with it's plot, but it all comes together at the end when the true nature of the lottery is revealed.  It really does give the reader quite a shock, but also opens the door for alot of questions for the reader to start thinking about in relation to the plot and why it works so well.

7) There definatly is a relationship that can be seen between "The Lottery" and "The Hunger Games."  In both stories, there is a large society that follows a once a year sacrifice for the greater good of everybody.  In "The Lottery," a small town conducts a lottery once a year and whoever wins, gets the honors of being killed in order to perserve harvest for the town.  We see similarities in "The Hunger Games," where in this story's world, there are twelve colonies that conduct a drawing to decide who will be put up to participate in the Hunger Game, where kids fight each other to the death.  Both 'lotteries' that occur in each story, are used to strike fear throughtout each society to stay under control of the upper class.  Especially in the Hunger Games, where the bourgeoisie controls everything and use the Hunger Games to cast fear over the world's civilizations, and keep the ideas of the upper class sustained.  We can see this occur on a small scale in "The Lottery," with everybody having a silent fear of winning the town's annual lottery.  But despite this fear, the town's ritual keeps everything in check and hold the ideaology in place that has reigned this town for hundreds of years.

Blog #4

 4. Analyze either of the texts through a Marxist perspective.

It’s the child’s individual self-interest, in Omelas Vs. Greater good (society). There was a deal (an ideology) to keep the child locked up which holds people passive. Most of society believe the greater good is more important than individual interest. People were born into dystopia and told don’t worry about it. Unable to do anything, only a few leave.

6. Consider how “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” and The Lottery deal with the relationship between individual and society. What does each story seem to argue about this relationship?

In Omelas, those that walk away are in conflict with the society, the few that decide to walk away who aren’t enough to revolt. Also, the boy is an individual vs society (greater good) with his suffering. The story argues only a few people leave, but they should revolt. “But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas”

 In Lottery, it is not in anyone’s self-interest to be stoned, so that would put the individual in conflict with society. The film argues again one sole conspirator alone likely will not lead to revolution.

Blog Post #4

Group 1:
#2
I chose to read the article "The Stoning of Mistress Hutchinson: Meaning and Context in 'The Lottery'. This article was very interesting to read because it raised a point of view of "The Lottery" that I had never considered before. Fritz Ochlschlaeger mainly discusses a feminist point of view, suggesting that Jackson is pinpointing "The Lottery" as "a patriarchal society's way of controlling female sexuality". Ochlschlaeger points out that the only people who seem to resist the lottery or question it, are women. He also points out that it is all men that run the village and it is a man who runs the lottery and is ultimately exempt from it, Mr Summers. When reading this article, I was shocked at the depth with which Ochlschlaeger went into from this perspective. He touched on things that would have never even crossed my mind. While I do agree that this society seems to favor men, I would not have taken it to the extreme that men simply want to "contain the potentially disruptive force of an awakened female sexuality". The lottery appears to be fair all throughout the short story and the film. As Ochlschlaeger points out, "if the lottery is unfair, it is reasonable to assume that its lack of fairness would be evident only to the victim". This statement proves why this ritual could not work in most societies. People are selfish in nature; the world operates ultimately as "every man for himself" and "survival of the fittest". Tessie proves this in her complete lack of nurturing when offering her own child up before herself. This was stunning, to be honest. It is a sickening thought that a women who bore her own children would suggest they be murdered before she. I believe that this town truly participates in the lottery as a ritual and recognizes it as absurd to cease from doing so. As Old Man Warner suggests when Mrs. Adams talks about other towns giving it up, "Nothing but trouble in that." These people have known nothing but the lottery every single year. It is a normal aspect of life to them and they have accepted it. Ochschlaeger states that the main belief behind the lottery is that "people can be brought to work together wholeheartedly and without mercy if they believe that their protection depends on it". This is a powerful statement because it depicts the motivation behind the reason the townspeople have accepted the lottery as a part of their lives.

Group 2:
#6
When reading both "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" and "The Lottery", I noticed many similarities between the two societies. Both stories seem to argue that the greater good is to be valued over self interest. They argue that one sacrifice for the purpose of the greater good is necessary and not to be questioned. There are some people in both societies that feel a certain guilt and doubt towards the system, but none great enough to stand up to the way the society runs. In Omelas, many people go to see the child and want to help it, but not nearly bad enough to do anything about it. In "The Lottery", Mrs. Adams brings up how some towns have stopped doing the lottery, depicting her certain doubt towards the ritual. This is almost certainly derived from fear of being chosen. The town of Omelas operates off of this statement: "To exchange all the goodness and grace of every life in Omelas for that single, small improvement: to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of happiness of one: that would be to let guilt within the walls indeed." "The Lottery" seems to run the exact same way, that the death of one person each year is what makes their society prosper; that to let that one person live would not be worth what their death signifies for the town as a whole. There are two main differences that I see between these two stories. The first is that the people in Omelas seems to feel a large amount of guilt about the child, despite the fact that they do nothing to help it. Whereas in "The Lottery", the majority of the people feel no guilt, as clearly shown by their eagerness to stone the victim and move along with their day. The second difference I noticed was that some of the people in Omelas feel so much guilt that they walk away from the town and never look back. They feel the need to leave because they cannot change the life of the child and cannot accept that. In "The Lottery", no one leaves, despite that there is no indication that they cannot leave. The people walking away from Omelas is almost a way of attesting to the way things are. No one seems to do this in "The Lottery".

4

1. The Lottery takes place on June 27th in a small village of open farm land. It is told in third person. There isnt a whole lot of specific characterization, but it is easy to see by what is told about the characters that the men are the leaders of the village. Mr. Summers and Mr. Graves were in charge of the name callings. This 'sacrificial' event is part of their life, and just something that has to be done, because it has always been done in the village. The people don't treat it like a huge ordeal. Not until the end do you realize what the purpose of the whole event is for. By using third person, it is not very personal and no specific thoughts in their heads are revealed, so the reader is left to imagine how this must be for the families.


6. Both stories deal with the relationship between society and the individual. In The Lottery it is more of family and village tradition, so it has become normal for them to do this sacrificing. There are the few that put up some type of argument in the event, but they are over ruled by the people in power.
In Omelas, the people are exposed to the abused child who is responsible for the city's happiness and order. Many cry and are angry, but since they are taught and forced to understand that this child bring the town order, they rationalize it and decide the well being of the entire city is more important then this one childs. I think this story has more to do with morality and the ones who leave the city are the ones who do not want to support whats happening to the poor child who is tortured.

Blog Post #4

Group 1:

1. Read the short story version of “The Lottery”. The original story is a much pared down version of the film – there’s no Jason, Felice, love story, male rivalry, etc. It’s also told very simply, much like the fairy tales we studied earlier on. What do you notice in terms of plot, characterization, point of view, and setting? Do an intrinsic reading in which you use only these literary elements to discuss the story.

Answer: In the short story version of "The Lottery", I noticed that the setting was very different, this story feels like it is in a calm place, almost peaceful, where as the film version started off with a nightmare and the town is shown as this sketchy cult. This short story version has an objective point of view, we don't really know anything about the characters except for they are all there ready for The Lottery. The plot is pretty straight forward, we know that there is this "drawing" and it comes down to someone getting the paper with the dot and being stoned. 

Group 2:

7. Seen or read The Hunger Games? If so, you likely will see the parallels between the blockbuster and “The Lottery” (elements of which appear in Games and which were partial inspiration for the trilogy).  What are these parallels? How do both texts treat the issues of bourgeoisie vs. proletariat and the ideology the bourgeoisie spreads and sustains?

Answer: As soon as we watched The Lottery my first thought was how it reminded me  of the Hunger Games. In the Hunger Games, the bourgeoisie controls the proletariat just like it does in The Lottery. And the proletariat is controlled by the fear from the bourgeoisie. Both stories sacrifice one person from their"village" or "district", and they are both chosen through a drawing. Both texts show that the bourgeoisie keep their people "in check" through their sacrificing systems. And in both stories there is the one that does not agree with the system and that wants to stand up and make a change. But it shows that you have to have more than one person to stand up and make a change or the "systems" will continue.

le blog post no.4 michael hernandez

part 1, question numero 3:

Well, it seems theres only one Omelas article to read, so i guess ill have to choose it.
The articles author points out that Le Guin's " is about a society's use of a scapegoat, a pharmakos, to keep the rest of the society happy". Basically, this story is a parallel of America and other first world countries who live in prosperity, while the rest of the world gets trampled underfoot. Those fortunate enough to live in privileged countries know that the "child"- the poor and dejected countries-exist, and somehow accept their status as necessary and acceptable to maintain a status quot. 

An intriguing point in the article brought out that  "failing to enable the reader "to perceive the terrible justice of reality," suggests a similar failure of Western capitalist theodicy" . indeed, we are never given a true reason for the citizen's acceptance of the child's condition. This mirrors American's mindset when considering the third world.Omela's citizens reasoned, change from the child's current state would not help it because its long-standing conditions are too familiar to it, and it would fail to gain true happiness. We as well somehow see the status quot as familiar and acceptable simply because that's the way its always been.




part 2, question numero 6:

Both the communities in  "The Lottery" and "Omelas" clearly exhibit a marxist mentality that each citizen has seemingly embraced. The resulting dystopian societies are full of people who seemingly value their community's welfare above that of their family members or even themselves. I say seemingly because, as in any dystopia, the "human" element causes problems and dissent that is more or less suppressed/hidden. 
Because of fear or unwillingness to give up their system, the citizens have pushed human emotion away and force themselves to accept the sacrifices made for the good of the majority. 

Fear and a despising of the sacrifices can clearly be seen in some of the characters in The Lottery( more so in the movie); While love and a desire for self preservation arise near the end of  life for oneself or a family member, the calloused conditioning of a Marxist mindset allows them to proceed with the stoning. The child in Omelas is allowed to suffer, and the blissful community above lives on despite the anger and sadness that most undergo upon seeing the child. These slight interferences of  thought/emotion do little to change society, but it can be seen that relations in both stories are not those of a true Marxist utopia. greater good is the idea presented and generally carried out, but not entirely embraced in either story.