Posted by goose~gander on Flickr
Why does it always seem that horror
movies begin with a pleasant scene that lulls the observer into thinking that
the movie will not be so scary? Take a minute to think about how it feels when
the movie does suddenly turn violent. Does the observer not feel somehow
violated or tricked? This is a technique that not only directors of cinema use,
but also writers of short stories. It is widely accepted that most readers try
to “predict the coming events of the plot based on prior events”, so when the
plot suddenly goes in a direction that the reader was not expecting, the effect
will be more profound, and the point of the story will become clear (Bogert 46).
Such a story is “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson, in which a seemingly harmless
story about a pastoral town concludes violently. Edna Bogert reviews “The
Lottery” in her article “Censorship and ‘The Lottery’”, in which she discusses
the effectiveness of tricking the readers in this way, the purpose of the
violent end, and how this story has impacted the present world.
When the reader finally comes to the
end and realizes their mistake in assuming what the end would be, he or she
cannot interpret the beginning of the story in quite the same way he or she did
before. “The Lottery” is one of those stories in which it never has the same
effect unless the reader is unaware of the ending. Due to the reader’s inherent
urge to “use narrativity when they read fiction”, the reader predicts what they
believe will occur according to the pastoral setting and the “‘clear and
sunny’” scene that enfolds in the first paragraph of the story (Bogert 46). As
the story progresses, readers begin to become confused by the way characters
act, events that are taking place, and shift in the story’s tone. This leads to
a questioning of the prediction their mind had already made about the
conclusion of the story. Readers begin to ask themselves what is really going
on in the story, and they start to reformulate their predictions, but more
suspiciously and hesitantly. “The Lottery” really uses the technique of
tricking the reader as discussed in Bogert’s review, but it’s the way that
Shirley Jackson concludes the story that Bogert really focuses on in the
article.
In her review, Edna Bogert considers
possible options concerning why the story ends in such a violent way, and for
what reason the villagers feel they must conduct the lottery. Perhaps due to
the fact that the town has a “population of 300 and ‘likely to keep on
growing’”, the citizens wish to use the lottery as some sort of population
control, but as Bogert reasons, this makes no sense due to its ineffectiveness
(Bogert 46). Instead, maybe the town does it for entertainment, but again,
evidence does not support this claim either. The townspeople do not seem to be
enjoying themselves, and the setting does not seem to be so primitive, that the
citizens would enjoy such brutality. Finally, Bogert reveals the true purpose
behind the lottery for the citizens: tradition. The citizens go along with the
lottery simply because that’s the way it has been done for generations. Clearly
this town is based on tradition, since Jackson makes it a point to highlight
the traditional male-female roles, and it is the male that draws the slip of
paper from the lottery box. As Bogert points out, the village also associates
this tradition with the harvest in a semi-ritualistic way, as if the harvest
will be poor if the lottery is not performed. In this way, Shirley Jackson
prompts the reader to consider traditions and whether they should be blindly
followed. What would our world be like if no one was willing to think for
themself?
Though this short story has not
technically been censored out of reading material for high school and college
students in the United States, “The Lottery” is among the 48 works that are
frequently challenged as to whether it should be in the curriculum (Bogert 45).
The reason being how this story relates to the past and even more so, the
present. Mrs. Hutchinson, the woman in the story who is murdered, can be termed
the innocent of the story, the one that gains the reader’s sympathy. Similarly,
two decades ago what the citizens of Germany did “was to go along with a leader
who’s expressed goal was the extermination of a group of people”, and those
people seem to be the innocents in the story of history over time (Bogert 47).
Shirley Jackson was making a parallel between the horrifying traditions of a
pastoral town and some of the traditions that are currently upheld all over the
world that need to be reconsidered. Jackson points out that she feels proud
when a country bans her short story because she feels like at least they
understand it. They understand how dangerous it could be for their citizens to
start questioning traditions. The United States is currently undergoing pressures
from conservatives to keep traditions intact, but as Bogert points out, maybe
our fear of this short story should prompt citizens to reconsider. Why is it
proponents of tradition fear this short story in the first place?
In Edna Bogert’s review of “The
Lottery” by Shirley Jackson, Edna discusses the reader’s initial dismay at the
twisting plot of the story, the meaning of the ritual portrayed, and the effect
the story has on the reader and the world. Both the story and Bogert’s
interpretation challenge the reader to consider a world in which traditions
governed all. If no one person had ever thought for themselves, then people
today would still be sacrificing to the gods and killing the first born son.
Thanks to people who fought against ideals they believed were wrong; society
has progressed from children stoning their mothers, as in the story. But it
cannot stop there; the world remains imperfect and in some places, as cruel as
the practices in “The Lottery”, so it’s up to individuals to conclude for
themselves what their idea of right and wrong will be.
Work Cited
Bogert,
Edna. “Censorship and ‘The Lottery’.” The
English Journal, Vol. 74, No. 1 (Jan.,
1985): 45-47. Web. 17 Sept. 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment