Question 1
As I read the
short story version of the “Lottery” I definitely noticed how different it was
from the film version. In the short story it is made very clear that the
setting is a rural farm community. The characteristics of a farm community come
out as the men were said to be, “speaking of planting and rain, tractors and
taxes”; also the dress described in the town makes it seem as though the town
is not modern. The rural farm setting gives the story a more simplistic feel,
making the act of the lottery more believable; it seems as if people who do not
live in modern times would be more likely to stone someone. Throughout the
story there are varying points of view, but the main one is that the act of the
lottery is tradition, this is used as a justification throughout the story as
to why they still conduct the lottery. There are minimal points of view
throughout the story that it isn’t fair, or that it should be abolished because
other towns are starting to break away from the tradition. The funny thing is that
multiple times throughout the story it is mentioned that the lottery is not
conducted as it ones when it first began, so how can it really be tradition?
The characterization of the characters in the story are minimal. There is the
old veteran character of the lottery, who holds fast to the tradition and
ritual. Then there is the younger people who are more likely to be against it,
especially if they are the ones picked to be killed. This is seen when Mrs.
Hutchinson gets picked and claims that it wasn’t fair, even though everybody
had the same chance. The whole plot creates a feeling that the people feel they
should continue the lottery, while at the same time another view is given that
maybe the tradition should be ended. It makes the reader think about whether or
not the tradition will end.
Question 6
I think that “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” and The Lottery both take the same position
on the relationship between the individual and society. I feel, though, that
Omelas has a more obvious stance on this subject; I think this because people
in this story take action in the formm of leaving, in response to the neglected
child. The action of the people leaving in this story shows that they do not
feel that everlasting prosperity is worth the intentional neglect of a human
being; it is better to struggle together than suffer alone. The short story The Lottery is less obvious because most
of the story talks about the tradition and how they feel it brings them
prosperity. There is a potential for ending the lottery seen as people comment
on other places that have stopped doing it, but nobody takes action in this
story to end it. It is left up to the reader in this story to decide whether or
not sacrificing one person is worth prosperity. In both stories, though, the
people do not come together to end either horrible act, and without
collaboration the acts only continue. On the other hand, though, all revolts
start with somebody, it is the persistence over time that really inflicts
social change. I think this is one of the points being made.
I agree with your point that the rural farm setting makes the lottery seem more believable. In the short story, the town didn't seem modern at all, unlike the film, where there was cars and other modern technology. A sacrificial ritual does seem more believable to help the town prosper, when in the film version, it seems less realistic.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your opinion about the lottery being more believable because it is in an old rural town rather than a modern one. If it was in a modern time it would mean that it could happen in our time and generation which is something that we dare not think about.
ReplyDeleteFor question 6, I agree and think it's really up to the individual person if they want to leave or stay. In the Lottery, I feel like its so much of a family tradition that it would be more unlikely for individuals to leave. In the Omelas story, there is more of a mental battle they have to all face and make the decision themself.
ReplyDeleteThe film of the Lottery is clearly centered around tradition; however, this is a common theme in history. If we evaluate almost any ancient society thousands of people have been "sacrificed" for religious, farming, or other purposes. This idea is not so farfetched in reality. Nevertheless in modern day America we consider these ideas barbaric and uncivil. My question then becomes how did those being sacrificed throughout history react? Was it honorable? Did they attempt to run? Was it a value to their family?
ReplyDeleteI think the point you brought up about the tradition changing so much that it doesn't really feel like a tradition anymore plus the fact that so many other towns they talked about in the short story were stopping the lottery goes a long way in showing how the practice is slowly dying off, very very slowly. Because every year it seems that it changes a little bit, letting another thing slip away. It could also be the towns way of revolting, they all speak of "tradition" but they're letting it die one piece at a time.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Mrs. Hutchinson's reaction lays bare the true thoughts of the townsfolk. When the men are making small talk before the actual lottery, they're using it as an excuse to think about anything but the chance that their family may be picked. Humans are, with very few exceptions, selfish by nature. The idea of lottery may be fine to anyone participating, provided that it's not them that is picked. Their casual reaction to the idea of the lottery is a testament to the Marxist idea of social conditioning. Since these people were raised from a young age to accept and participate in the lottery, it has become a psychological norm for them. The practice is only called into question by the person picked; they've achieved an individual status and are no longer a part of the mob.
ReplyDelete