Do these stories teach anyone a lesson? If so, what is the lesson and who learns it (characters, readers, both)?
According to the following definition, do these stories achieve closure? Would you rather read a story with an ending that is comfortable and expected or unexpected and puzzling? Why?
Closure - the sense of completion or resolution at the end of a literary work or part of a work. In literary criticism, it is the reduction of a work’s meanings to a single and complete sense that excludes the claims of other interpretations.While focusing on "The Lottery" and "The Man Who Was Almost a Man," you may wish to make comparisons to Saki's "The Story-Teller."
This comment session will close at class time on Monday.
Regarding the first question, one lesson the story teaches the reader is that once traditions stop being about their original intentions and are supported blindly, they become tradition for the sake of tradition—always question! On page 786, Mr. Adams said that, "...over in the north village, they're talking of giving up the lottery" and that, "Some places have already quit lotteries." Old Man Warner said, "Pack of crazy fools...There's always been a lottery." This explanation for continuing the lottery is an accurate portrayal of the town's opinion based on their spoken attitude towards it. They've been doing since the town was created, why stop now? Their actions, however, tend to be more reserved, which shows that there is some reservation about the lottery. This becomes very apparent at the end when Mrs. Hutchinson, who has been supportive of the lottery, says that the lottery winner (her son) wasn't fairly chosen. After drawing again, she was chosen as the winner. Just before she was killed was the only time that she could clearly state her disapproval of the tradition. By succumbing to social pressures because of a false and collective sense of obligation and to keep the lottery alive, they have lost their ability to question.
ReplyDeleteDespite the unwanted ending of "The Lottery," what this short story does is propose closure to a cycle: something that not only happens every year, but in the exact execution as well (which might not be closure at all.) That's the closure proposed within the story, but as far as "the reduction of a work’s meanings to a single and complete sense," I'd like to challenge that by not establishing a clear setting, place or time (aside from the annual June 27th)we are being given the freedom to see this subjectively.
ReplyDeleteThere is a task (the lottery) which we, as the readers, remain strangers too even after the story has ended. We are being thrown into an already settled world, without much chance to question it-- perhaps, not until we've read the last line.
We are being introduced to characters without much background, and also being shown a conclusion without much evolution. (This, of course, is also in the nature of the short story.) But to make my point, I think we must relate this back to our own lives and in order to develop these characters, link them to what we know. This is to say that the meaning of the story might simply feed off that: we must link this back to our own developed world and realize that we all also live with some kind of "Lottery."
And perhaps, what "The Lottery" is doing is forcing us to question it.
I would like to look at the lesson learned by the characters of the story (if there is one). As readers we only experience the lottery in this town once; however it is understood that this occurs every single year. We have discussed how much we learn from and question after reading this story only once, but the townspeople carry on with this tradition year after year. We do see some short moments of unrest among the crowd, “They grinned at one another humorlessly and nervously.” (pg. 785) But on a whole, everyone participates in the lottery.
ReplyDeleteIt brings up some concern that after experiencing the lottery in this town just once I am slightly appalled, but the characters have been repeating this act for years, in Old Man Warner’s case for 77 years. It is strange to think that Mr. Hutchinson and his children will most likely be back in the square in a year drawing slips of paper out of that little black box even after losing a wife and mother. It seems almost unrealistic that these people would not learn more from the lottery as the reader of the story takes so much from it.
ps this is catherine keller
I would like to speak to, what I believe is, one lesson that the reader might take from this story which is, what the lottery itself represents. Because we see that over time the lottery has lost much of its ritual value, the process having been altered with the passing of time, this begs the question: what does the lottery actually represent?
ReplyDeleteTo me, it seems evident that the lottery is a source of security to the town and stands to represent a reliance on fate and superstition. The townspeople participate in this yearly tradition with seemingly unwavering commitment, seeing that it has been occurring since the foundation of the town. Living in the town obligates one to be a participant in this lottery. With each yearly drawing the town has to justify the stoning of one of their own. The way this is done is by accepting the belief that the lottery can, will, and must occur for the town to progress. It is even noted that the townspeople believe that this lottery dictates the prosperity of their crops. Over time, the lottery has essentially become the tangible response to a superstition that will go unquestioned because the town would rather rely on fate to survive than to challenge this longstanding tradition that would ultimately result in the townspeople having to take responsibility for both their survival and progression.
I believe the story is trying to make the reader learn a lesson. In order to do this the author has to have the characters not learn a lesson. What I mean to say is that the characters have to be unrealisitically desensitized to killing their friends and family in order to serve as a purpose to the story and the lesson taught to the reader. We look at it with outsiders eyes and obviously find it implausible that everyone goes along with this, yet if we think of our own society we can find similar examples of the lottery and how we go along with them as well. For example we all at some point may sit as a jury member judging whether a person should get the death penalty, or spend the rest of their life in a jail. Also people who join the army as a soldier in America at some point may take a human life. I think the author wants us to see similarities between the two, but she wants us to be the ones learning that we must be conscience of these things we do, and how it has come about over time that we participate in these things. Much of it seems like tradition as the lottery may be, but we should be conscience of our actions and not go along with the "mob mentality" of the villagers, who are unaware exactly why they do the things they do. Question tradition
ReplyDelete-Emily Schulert
As Emily says, it is somewhat interesting that the characters do not question their traditions, but rather accept it the way it is. In this case, while the lesson is very clear to us as readers, the characters don't seem to learn it at all. On the very last page, as Mrs. Hutchinson is about to be stoned, it states "someone gave little Davy Hutchinson a few pebbles". A few moments ago, Davy was on the verge of death himself, but is now ready to kill his own mother without a second thought. Anyone reading the story is shocked at a moment such as this, but I think it is the character's complete oblivion to how wrong they are that makes the message so clear to us: tradition for the sake of tradition is something to be thought about.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the other question, I think there is most certainly closure in this story. Nevertheless, I don't think that makes for an expected ending exactly. While there is foreshadowing throught and the story has a clear beginning, middle, and end, it is still a shock.
To consider the second question, I think that "The Lottery" does have a closure to its ending. To take a look at the definition of a closure, it says a closure is the sense of completion or resolution at the end of a literary work or part of a work.
ReplyDeleteTo take a look at the storyline of the Lottery,the thing that the readers are the most curious about and the biggest thing that has to be resolved is the result of the Lottery.
In the end, Mrs.H selects the slip of paper with a dot and the villagers throw stones at her.
The ending that Mrs.H is the person who "wins" the lottery and gets beaten by the villagers is the result of the lottery,the answer to what the readers were the most curious about and the resolution of the story. This resolution, which solved the curiosity that everyone(including the readers and the characters)was wondering about,is a closure of which brings the sense of completion and resolution at the end of this story.
I would rather choose to read the story with an unexpected and puzzling ending because it makes me feel anxious even after finishing the story,and it makes me to think about what actually lead to this ending. Just like the Lottery,which has a very puzzling ending which makes me to think about what lead people to follow this terrible tradition? And WHY would they do it for?
To answer the second question, I believe there is no closure. Yes, we discovered the result of the lottery, but yet, we are left with more questions than when we started. We are also not left with the satisfying sense of conclusion, but rather with the uneasy knowledge that another lottery will take place. To comment on YJLee's comment, yes, I think at first we were curious of the lottery's result, but in the end, we became more curious with the actual lottery, and our questions of the lottery were not answered in the end.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat I learn from “The Lottery” is how the crowd psychology is created and applied to manipulate the moral standards of people in the group. According to the moral sense of our (the readers’) society, the annual ritual of murdering our select neighbor is not allowed, as long as the neighbor has no reason to be killed. In this story, the “lottery,” which has become whole-town activity, has set the notion of villagers: anyone to be elected by the lottery is to be stoned and killed. Here, mass-psychology formed by this lottery makes people oblivious of their act and notion. Though one in the crowd might be able to realize the irrationality of the tradition, he will be scared to express the individual view as everyone else in the town is participating in. “Pack of crazy fools” by Old man Warner, shows how the lottery, for seventy-seven years, has created in his mind the idea that ceasing the act of murder is wrong.
ReplyDeleteAlso, different from the view that many people mentioned in class, I do not think that Mrs. Hutchinson, at the moment she is selected as the “winner,” realizes the irrationality of lottery. The reason she says “It isn’t fair, it isn’t right” is not because committing murder for no reason is not fair, but because she is afraid to lose her life, and wants other neighbor to be elected and killed. (She says, “I think we ought to start over,” ) Here, the idea of “fairness” that she has is ironic as it is coming out from her ego.
I think it is really interesting to look at the reactions of the townspeople when Mrs. Hutchinson is chosen to be stoned. Even her own children are so relieved its not them that they don't seem upset about killing their own mother. One has to ask themselves what makes these people do this annually when they know that they may lose a loved one. You would think that after losing someone in your family you would rebel against it but they don't. As Kristen said they believe that this dictates their crops and is based on superstition. We do see however some doubt about this superstition when Mr. Adams says "over in the north village they're talking of giving up the lottery", then later says "some places have already quit lotteries". I think the idea of stopping the lotteries is an idea that is just starting to seep in but it seems ridiculous to some people like Old Man Warner.
ReplyDeleteI think one lesson the story teaches the reader but also Mrs. Hutchinson is to look at things from all perspectives. I mean it is hardly fair to kill someone because they picked a slip of paper with a dot on it. But in the moment when you aren't picked one would most likely be so relieved it wasn't them it doesn't matter. But if everyone in the town would look at it from all perspectives (especially the one of the person who is picked) they would most likely realize that this is crazy. From the comments Mr.Adams makes we can see that other towns have begun to look at the overall picture and stop lotteries but why not this town?
In regards to closure I am not sure. To some extent their is because the lottery ends with the story and as Priscila said it is the marking of a new year for them. But on the other hard there is no clear explanation as to why this is needed if it is needed at all. We are also not shown how this impacts the townspeople's lives if at all.
I believe that this story (The Lottery) does, in a sense, achieve closure. The whole story is based on a yearly ritual. Traditions are full-circle events. Even though the result is predictable, there is still a rush for it to be done ("Well, everyone," Mr. Summers said, "that was done pretty fast, and now we've got to be hurrying a little more to get done in time"). It is implied that the completion of this event is time-sensitive, and there is an overwhelming sense of wanting to get the deed done. For the townspeople, once they individually realize that they are not the unfortunate soul who will be stoned, I believe that is where their individual closure for the year lies. The community's closure as a whole occurs once Mrs. Hutchinson has been stoned. The members of this community have observed and participated in this ritual since they were little children and have been brainwashed into believing that what they are doing is justifiable. The most shocking moment in the story was when Mrs. Hutchinson's youngest son, who was too young to draw a slip without aid began to laugh as he drew a slip, obviously unaware of the "power" that that slipped contained. The entire process was acceptable to the community as a whole because it has been a part of their lives for so long. This ritual/tradition will inevitably continue to come to a close each year with the same result, as long as no one can voice the objection and question the fairness and morality just as Mrs. Hutchinson did moments before she won (lost?) the lottery far before they find themselves in similar situations. I think the lesson to be learned in this story is to voice your objections and opinions before it is too late, or before you are presented with an irreparable situation.
ReplyDeleteTo comment on the rationality of the lottery itself, I would say that the almost sacred nature of the selection process, and the consistency of the ritual provide a sense that no matter how things turn out, at least some things still stay the same. The fact that they are killing someone is less important than the act of coming together as a community and taking part in something.
ReplyDeleteAnother angle that one could look at the "lottery" practice is that it is tied into religion. This tradition has taken on an almost religious importance in the community, and seems to resemble some practices in ancient religions. The one who "wins" the lottery is sacrificed, and therefore the crops should grow, and there should be a good harvest. Sacrifice, after all, was practiced in Judaism and countless other religions. Although the emphasis of the lottery wasn't placed on trying to achieve anything besides choosing a person to kill, Old Man Warner did say, "Used to be a saying about 'Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon."' This implies that there used to be a more mystical, or, perhaps, religious association with the lottery that, by the time the story takes place, no longer applies. Again, maybe Jackson was trying to say that people tend to lose sight of the original intentions of an action, and yet mindlessly continue go through the process of carrying out those actions.
-Sam Waring
I certainly agree with Chris’ idea that the story is trying to say something about tradition that lost its original purpose and intention. The author mentions “losing rituals” over and over again through the story in order to emphasize it.
ReplyDeleteIt can be inferred from the story that the people in this village had forgotten the ritual and lost the original intention of the ceremony. The story gives us too little information about the origin of the tradition so that it even makes me question: why would these people even have this kind of tradition which is not good for anyone? Stoning people does not resolve any of townspeople’s problems but only causes one person’s death. And this death is not even a glorious death or sacrifice for the town anymore, which should have been the original intention of the tradition. When Mrs. Hutchinson was finally selected to be stoned, she herself refused to admit the consequence even though she is the one who participated in. She said, “It isn’t fair, it isn’t right.”
As what Emily said above, in order to direct the lesson to the readers, the author infers that the characters cannot realize the brutality of this yearly tradition. For example, there are some stories such as “The Fox and the Grapes (Aesop’s Fables)” that make readers understand the lesson of the stories by rather showing “lesson-against-characters.”
I remember when I was a child my friends and I would always get into little fights with one another, and even at the tender age of 10 we had all mastered the first steps of manipulation trying to get people to join our sides. I always felt on top of the world when I had succeeded in getting my friends against someone I didn’t like and I never thought twice about how the victim was feeling. It wasn’t until my two best friends, George and Julian, had invited everyone in the class but me to a pizza party that I had ever thought about how unethical I was being. This leads me to a scary question; did I have to experience being the loser of the group in order to realize that I was being unjust? This question leads me to an ever scarier thought; If I wasn’t born gay and if I hadn’t gone through all the suffering that I did in high school, would I be just as homophobic as everyone else was in my old school? Do we only ever have sympathy for people merely because we can relate to their pain? Isn’t that selfish? Is there a world of injustice that I choose not to see merely because I have not gone through a similar suffering?
ReplyDeleteThere are many different views on the subject of closure at the end of "The Lottery" and I would have to agree with the people arguing that there is closure at the end of the story. Like Mr. Stumpf said in class when we were looking at "The Story Teller", closure is not like a light switch, it is not always right in front of us. This is very true in this story because The story does not leave us hanging, for instance it does not end by saying, they then paused to see who had it. This is an example of something without closure, and yet there would be different interpretations to the moral of the story. Having said that the interpretations would not be that far from each other, there is a general census from the reader.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this story does not go further into the future of the lottery system it still shows us an end to a specific story. We know what happens to Tessie, there is no cliff hanger. Therefore this story does complete some closure yet it is not an apparent closure that is pointed out in front of us.
Addressing the second question, I believe that there is no closure. The other day in class during a discussion Mr. Stumpf informed my group that in order to know if there is closure or not, the lesson should be unanimous and agreed upon everyone in the group. For this reason, I would have to say that this story has no closure. There are definitely several lessons to be learned as some people have demonstrated already, but there is not one that everyone would agree upon unanimously.
ReplyDeleteI believe that one lesson or thought that the reader could take away from the story is the idea that Mrs. Hutchinson didn't say anything about disliking the lottery until it was her who was stuck with the slip of paper with the black dot on it while 299 people walk towards her with stones. If she hadn't gotten that specific piece of paper would she have been able to say she disagreed with the lottery? It's similar to people and situations today, they don't speak up for what they believe because they are afraid that everyone else who disagrees with them will kill them off or just completely shun them; and I think it brings up a good point. If you are a minority and are trying to inform others but whenever you do so they just ignore you or worse try to kill you, would you ever have the courage to speak up against the majority? Most wouldn't, most would wait until that moment, like Mrs. Hutchinson, when there are rocks coming straight for you. It brings up a good point and something that our society today could relate to easily. I'm not really sure if it counts as a lesson, but I believe it is definitely something that we can all take and turn into something more.
I agree that the original traditions of the lottery have been lost, but what I find interesting is what remains. At one point we are told that "although the villagers had forgotten the ritual and lost the original black box, they still remembered to use stones." It seems that the stones (the killing) is what has remained over the years, not the ideals of sacrifice or the box from which they chose names(the actual "lottery" part). What the villagers inevitably value is the weapon, the stone, the mode of murder and what it does.
ReplyDeleteSo what is our lesson? Put the stone down slowly and show me your hands! Just kidding.But really, I can see similarities in how this village deals with their tradition and how we deal with ours. An easy example of this is war. As terrible as it is, there was a sort of civility back in the day, and now war has become a thing of total terror and destruction; we have kept the weapons and killing, but left the traditions behind.
I don't know if there is a lesson here. More of an "aha" moment, where we can recognize something that seems to be inherent to human nature, and aim to fix it.
I agree with what everyone is saying about speaking out against groups, and not realizing something until it happens to you. If we think about it, it is something very prominent in history and in the present. For example, wars throughout history have always been ongoing, but also the kind of event that one cannot truly understand until it happens to you. Many people who are not affected by a war do not quite understand the horror, and though they know something is wrong, they will not speak out or try to change anything until it actually affects them personally. When a loved one goes off to war or one's hometown or even government is affected, then it is all of a sudden time for change. It is interesting how we as people are- never understand things until they happen to us...
ReplyDeleteHaving read the last few posts, I find it interesting that much of the interpretation of "The Lottery" focuses on the tradition that has been left behind throughout the years since its institution, when the town was founded. Which brings me to the question of closure. I suppose that in its most contained sense, this year's lottery has achieved closure when Tessie Hutchinson is stoned, completing another cycle. However, there are various references to the traditions that have been lost over time. These traditions are never specifically identified and the origin of the lottery, along with the purpose it was instituted to serve, is never clearly stated. Because of the ambiguity surrounding the origin of the lottery, I feel that closure can never be fully attained by this story because the reader is never quite sure what exactly is being completed or resolved.
ReplyDeleteHi!
ReplyDeleteI appreciated Vangie's point on the boiling down of the traditions in war and in the Lottery. The armies are not lining up in neat columns with bayonets on either side, but instead no one can distinguish between the enemy and the "good guys."
There is not a lesson there, but an "aha" moment. I had a different "aha" moment. The tradition of killing someone is still there, but the ornamentation around it is not. Then the kids who are the next generation laugh at the end, showing their lack of connection to the Lottery. A little psychology here, so bear with me, but is Shirley Jackson suggesting that humans are developing to ignore their ego and superego tendencies of bettering a wrong and that the future is going to be solely people acting on id? That humans will not act with compassion, but only impulses?
While hopefully answering the questions, I do believe that "The Story-Teller" and "The Lottery" are very similar and both have the broad themes of perspective and opposition; there are two ways to see things.
ReplyDeleteIn more of a literal sense, "The Lottery":
The relationships these people have outside of lottery and the lack of relationships they have when it is time to play the lottery; these people are family, friends, and neighbors, I imagine the difference of how they interact when they aren't playing the lottery and when they are. Like someone had already pointd out, a mother and her son; how can Mrs. Hutchinson's son laugh at the face of his mother's death?
Also, one "wins" the lottery but is it really a win or a loss? I find it quite paradox-like that to win is to die.
Like Rosie said, for Mrs. Hutchinson, it was too late for her to realize the injustice. There is the outside perspective of following "tradition", hoping you are not the winner, and not knowing the feeling of being a winner, but if you are (the inside persepctive), you realize the wrong but is it then okay to speak out? For Mrs. Hutchinson it lead to death; this is because of the stronger outside perspective.
Considering closure, like Priscila said, there is closure from the sense of a closing cycle, and like Rosie said, of the individual knowing there are okay untill the following year, but the other perspective is lack of closure from the unsettlement of the reader and Mrs. Hutchinson. It isn't okay to kill especially picking from a lottery and the fact that her friends and family tortured her and killed her with that being the end of it without sympathy or remorse for doing so, left the story with an uneasy feeling and a lack of closure..I personally think that both work.
In "The Story-Teller":
There are two very different stories concerning one similar subject; the good girl. There is the good girl has good things come to her and the good girl is too good and gets herself in trouble; Two different ways of how to look at something.
So the relationship is that there is more than one way to look at something/a situation..in this case with these stories which way is correct?
Many people seem to have come to the conclusion that the story does, in fact, reach some sort of closure, and for the most part I find this true because, yes, we see Tessie's singular story come to a close, but I'd like to argue that there is one line of inquire that remains once the story is finished. EunMee mentioned that at the end of the story, as Tessie fights to escape her death sentence, she's not actually attempting to convince the onlookers of the injustice that is "the lottery" (which I assumed to be the case), but rather that she's arguing the "unfairness" of the matter. She's under the impressing that her husband didn't have enough time to choose his slip and was therefore hurried into choosing the "winning/ losing" ticket. It's not that she sees the killing as a crime, but rather the fact that she's the one who lost.
ReplyDeleteUp until realizing that this was the case, I was convinced that we'd reached some sort of closure in regards to the morality of the issue. It was reassuring to know that at least someone in this twisted alternate reality was able to reach a similar conclusion about "the lottery" as we did. This being said, I suppose it's fair to add that Tessie's final words are, "'It isn't fair, it isn't right." which suggests that in her final seconds of life she realizes the injustice of it all. But it's just interesting to see how, initially, she was more upset about losing than she was about dying; though I guess this just comments on how turning something as morally twisted and corrupt as stoning someone to death based on a slip of paper can be turned into something ordinary and sound just by calling it a game.
In attempt to answer Antonio's questions, I believe that the only reason Mrs. Hutchinson was opposed to the lottery was because she was selected to be stoned. She had to wait, alongside her family and other townspeople, to discover who would be the next victim/winner of the lottery. After being singled out, she was forced to be the center of attention and have stones thrown at her. I highly doubt if she hadn't been selected, she wouldn't have been against the lottery and would have continued to attend, as an obligation, and quite possibly throw stones at the other victims. She would never have understood the suffering and hardship of being selected through the lottery to be killed because she only was aware of the tradition and never of the harm it was causing to those chosen. All the townspeople that are throwing stones ARE selfish and are taking their lives for granted. Just because they were not hand-picked to be publicly murdered doesn't mean that they have to go and assist in the crime. Once Mrs. Hutchinson realized the crucial flaw in the lottery, it was much too late and her complaints about fairness were ignored since she was the one who had the horrible fate to face. What would have happened if she had spoken out before her family had been selected, and then her? Would she even have had the courage to go against the mold and say that the lottery is wrong? Did she even know that it was wrong, or was it all just annual entertainment for the town?
ReplyDeleteI would like to add a little to Emilie's response on perhaps what the 'closure' that is genuinely not entirely present allows. Because Tessie is evidently not responding to the horrific killing of the lottery but rather to the unfairness of it, one would like assume that she thereby still, despite being killed supports it (although as Emilie did justly point out the final words uttered "It isn't fair, it isn't right," perhaps reflect a new dawning). This would thus lead us to think that while she may indeed be against her own death, which is to be expected, she would NOT be against the death of another. Therefore, the death is necessary. The village needs the death. It is an otherwise insatiable desire that lingers within the village. Perhaps individuals, like Tessie, will indeed fight out, but as a general whole, the readers are led to believe, the village will be fed. Nature will correct itself and continue the food chain. For example, Bill Hutchinson corrects the possible anomaly of Tessie by simply saying "Shut up."
ReplyDeleteNow we are moved to the question of "WHY is it necessary?" We have easily deduced the who, what, when, where and even how. But why? One solution, that I would like to see debated against, is the possiblity that this in fact improves the community so that the village is a 'better' place than it would be with out it. I think the fact that this is a long standing tradition suggests the fact that it is supported by not only tradition, 'ritual' (in some link - obviously not entirely) and instinct but rather also by intelligence and benefit.
Humans are very intelligent. They also work to benefit themselves. Obviously the person dying is not benefited. Yet if one could convince themselves that they would never die, then would not the lottery benefit them? How you say? Simple. a) It gives them a sense of community. b) It forces a decision to be made. c) It relieves stress. Option C is in my opinion the single most important benefit. In the world we will all die. Stress simply expedites and exponentially increase that death rate. If Bob were to stress out Nancy by pulling her hair she might then feel inclined to smoke. Smoking kills. If Joe was to stress out John, John might go drink. Then drive. Drunk driving kills. Now imagine the night before this happens Bob and Joe throw rocks ferociously, animalistic-ally, and cruelly at Mary. They no longer are stressed. Now only Mary dies, rather than Nancy and John.
What think you?
(P.S. thats an invitation to play devil's advocate - particularly if you are on this blog late and everyone else has already said what you think.....;))
-Eric
I think what Eric is suggesting is that by ostracizing Mrs. Hutchinson, the village effectively "cleansed" itself. It was a way of channeling human feeling through violence into one human being, and getting rid of it. I would go as far as to call the lottery a kind of exorcism. Many cultures in the world go through rituals where they expel demons and whatnot.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting that the village attacked itself inwardly (attacked one of their own) in order to come together, rather than banding together against some outer force (another village, duck hunting, etc.). This would make more sense, right? Countries unite to fight against other countries. Assigning blame to OTHERS is a very logical way to unite a group of people. But the lottery is NOT decided by blame. It is conducted completely randomly.
Why? I do not believe that the lottery operates solely on religious belief or superstition. Old Man Warner says that there USED to be the saying, "Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon." I get the sense that, because the tradition has kind of deteriorated, that people don't really believe it anymore. Mr. Summers seems to have lost respect for the tradition; he's trying to hurry it up, saying, "get this over with, so's we can go back to work." So I don't think superstition plays too large of a role here. It still does, but I don't believe it's enough. Really, only Old Man Warner believes in it.
So if this "exorcism" is not actually an act of superstition, it must come from some basic human desire. I think peopel are right when they saw that the villages derive some kind of perverse pleasure from the lottery. There is a danger that may be appealing in a small village where nothing happens but a stoning once a year. A rush comes with the excitement of survival. This violence, as Eric said, is also an outlet for many emotions that are suppressed in a society like this. So the lottery is not only a way of uniting people, but a way of subduing the community.
So the community certainly doesn't learn a lesson. Each on of them is fueled by either ignorance or selfishness. Mrs. Delacroix, on the last page, "selected a stone so large she had to pick it up with both hands". How sick is that?
Neither does Mrs. Hutchinson. I don't believe that she realizes she was wrong. I think, in fact, that all of the villagers know that this practice is sick and wrong, but do it anyway. It's kind of fun. Mrs. Hutchinson thinks it is, too, until she's picked. She's selfish allt he way through. She tries to drag her daughter into the lottery. Seriously now.
There are some people, like Mr. Summers, who may be uncomfortable with this tradition. I think this is as "good" as the villagers get. None of them speak out against it, because they would likely be ostracized as well. The most they can do is participate half-heartedly. And it says something about these people that they do it every single year. The village woudln't be still doing it if it didn't help the village. The people enjoy it, somehow.
So I'm not sure readers learn a lesson, either. I think we experience a realization, as Vangie and Todd have said. We realize something about ourselves and about the villagers that I think we already knew, deep down. We all know the truth about ourselves, but are afraid to accept it. The lottery is just a physical expression of what all of us feel, on some level or other.
I agree with madeleine and think it is very interesting to see specifically, how the family members react. As we talked about before Mr. Hutchinson was nothing but rude to his wife ever since there family was chosen. He acted like he cared more about the crops being well harvested than the death of one of his family members. Instead of saying something like I love you and I hope its me chosen not you, he says, "Shut up, Tessie" when she tries to defend herself. This demonstrates that the people in this town are very self-focused and do not have that family "bond". Some people say they would die for there family but in this case its the opposite.That selfishness is appart of our society today and in a way this story portrays the selfishness in our society. This story has that "your on your own" mentality. Does the lottery act as a warning for us? This lottery is a sick and messed up thing but don't we do things that are just as bad?
ReplyDeleteAn interesting fact I found was that Old Man Warner considers the towns that stopped the tradition of the lottery as barbaric, and he mentions (pg. 786) "...they'll be wanted to go back to living in caves..." Isn't this concept of sacrifice and exorcism for the sake of crops primitive? This perverse pleasure that the villagers get from killing one of their own seems animal-like and primitive.
ReplyDeleteAs I said in class, I'd like to offer my applause to the comments so far! You're working with "The Lottery" in significant and interesting ways and you're working together well to build on points and develop lines of inquiry. I am hopeful that adding "The Man Who Was Almost a Man" into the mix will help us venture into new territory. Of course, I look forward to hearing from more students!
ReplyDelete-- Mr. Stumpf
I also think that the lottery has lost its traditional meaning, it has become more about the killing then the reasons behind the sacrifice. As many people have mentioned before, there are places within the story that hint at this loss in tradition, such as the black box not being original, the use of paper instead of would, and the fact people just want to get it over with. When I think about this loss of the backbone of the meaning of the lottery it makes me curious to what exactly was the true meaning behind it? This leads me to closure. Yes the story ends and in Mrs. Hutchinson and the lottery I feel as though we get closure. Mrs. Hutchinson is killed and the lottery has ended for that year. But What about the tradition it still leaves me wondering about the means for doing such a thing and questioning the town’s people morals. Another thing I noticed was after the Hutchinson family is drawn and the children go to draw their slips of paper. When the girl and boy draw their slips and look at them they are over joyful and start laughing that they "didn't win". I find it interesting that they don’t seem to care that it means their mom or dad is going to be killed. Wouldn’t they be sad and start crying cause they are going to have to watch one of their loved ones be killed?
ReplyDelete~ Anna
I would like to begin talking about The Man Who Was Almost A Man in regards to the question about learning lessons. Dave did not pick up on the lessons of responsibility or the childhood lesson of do what your mother tells you which are embeded in the story. As far as responsibility he does not take responsibility at for shooting the mule and when he finally does he thinks that paying Mr. Hawkins for the mule is stupid and would require him to give up his gun which is the last thing on Dave's mind. The lesson we all know and love do what your mother tells you, in Dave's mind, does not apply to him. If he had brought the gun back to his mother like he asked him to do the mule would not have been shot and he would not have to pay Mr. Hawkins fifty dollars. Throughout this story Dave thinks of himself as a man but in becoming a grown up doesn't someone have to master these lessons?
ReplyDelete-Catherine V.
In my point of view, Jackson, as an absolute objective narrator, conveys her message consistently throughout the whole story; She speaks to readers of the cruelty and selfishness lied behind human beings under a form of a long- established custom, the lottery.
ReplyDeleteOnce the one is finally chosen to be sacrificed to the many for the profit of the community after all waiting of a year, everything is revealed: ignorance, inhumanity, and ego that have been concealed inside the rest of the “winners” from the very beginning of the ritual. In fact, rather than reminding themselves the initial goal to make through the ritual itself, the only thing the villagers remember is to celebrate being the “winners”; they are ready to stone the one who lost as if it was a festive reward. “Let’s finish quickly”, says Mr. Summers, now conducting the ritual out of utter necessity, relieved at the moment chosen as one of the winners.
I was amazed by Jackson’s skills to portray and deliver the significant message to readers in this few pages using such symbolism in each scene, yet not giving particular settings. Her choice of the story to be developed as in third person point of view without certain place or time not only opened more possibilities for readers to approach in many different angles but also emphasized the stern reality of conflicts that the present world faces even more.
So I realize I am really late in blogging about "The Lottery"....woops. ANYWAYS, I agree with Kristen, I believe as well that the lottery is somewhat of a safe haven for the townspeople to take part in. It's a ritual that happens once every year and when it happens, it doesn't faze anyone, because they are so used to partaking in this horrible event. I agree with what Kevin had to say about how the village attacked itself "inwardly" it does make one wonder.
ReplyDeleteAs to a closure, this story seems to have a closure, although it isn't the kind of ending you would expect to have happened. Although the last words Mrs. Hutchinson cried before they stoned her to death were "This isn't fair, it isn't fair". You really see the unjust behavior in all of these people, one minute you could be talking to a friend you've known for years, and the next minute they could be your murderer. It's all very twisty and messed up.
I think Dave, from the Richard Wright story, is a coward, and he doesn't learn much. His problem is that he has such convoluted ideas about what respect is and where to find it. One: he thinks that being a "man" earns you respect (which it does in a sense, but not when it is put against moral values). Two, and most important to the story: he thinks that owning a gun, thus having a certain power over people, will get him respect - "And if he were holding his gun in hand nobody could run over him; they would have to respect him." (p. 1699) This isn't true respect. It's bullying and fear. And what people would fear is not Dave, but his gun; people respect the gun. If there is any lesson to be learned in this story it is one for the reader. Respect does not depend on age, or strength, or the gun you have, but the choices you make. If he had only given his mother the gun. If he had told the truth about shooting Jenny. If he had only stepped up to the plate and paid for his mistake.
ReplyDeleteThere is a moment in the story when he realizes everything that he has done wrong and thinks about the ifs - "He had a queer feeling that if he only did something, this would not be; Jenny would not be there bleeding to death." But he doesn't follow through. We see at the end of the story that he still believes in the power of his gun - "Ahd taka shot at tha house. Ahd like t scare ol man Hawkins jusa little....Jusa enough t let im know Dave Sanders is a man."
I feel like I have lost my train of thought, so I'll just come back later =)
In my opinion in no way does Dave learn any type of lesson in the story "The Man Who Was Almost a Man". From the very beginning all he wants is to be seen as a man. To him the easiest way of achieving this is owning a gun. He is so power hungry that he is blind to his actions and as Evangeline previously stated, he is blind to the true meaning of respect. He never takes any responsiblity for his actions and even after he continuously fires his gun he still does not feel like a man. He blames these feelings of incompetence on where he is and chooses to run away, "...stretching away, away to somewhere, somewhere where he could be a man....". He will not admit that he himself is what is holding him back from becoming a man. It seems that his insatiable hunger for respect and recognition prevent him from responsibility and in turn prevent him from learning any type of lesson.
ReplyDeleteAmelia
I would also like to add that in "The Lottery" the whole community is desensitized to the strange and sick tradition of the lottery, whereas in "The Man Who Was Almost A Man" Dave is the only one in his community who seemed to be desensitized of the chracteristics that truely defines a man.
ReplyDelete-Catherine V.
I agree with what has been said so far as to the lessons learned by the reader in “The man who was almost a man” but I also wanted to add in something about the fact that he just ran away on the train without looking back. I think the instances of “what-ifs” that Vangie pointed out are interesting during the story and show a lot about Dave’s character but in the end he is only looking to the future, “ahead the long rails were glinting in the moonlight, stretching away” which shows that he has chosen to put his past behind him. I’m not sure how I feel about this personally because when I finished reading this I was almost mad at Dave for not staying and taking responsibility for his actions because all he wanted was to be an adult but jumping onto a train is a very childish thing to do.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I thought was interesting was the way that the dialect used to show Dave’s words and thoughts turned almost a man into “almos a man”. As though he really isn’t going to reach that point because the word “almost” is only almost completed. Kind of random…I just thought it was interesting.
-Catherine Keller
I agree that Dave Sanders doesn't learn a lesson in this story. Throughout the story he believes that being a man is being in power, and being in control, and in order to achieve this control he buys a gun. Not the best way to prove you're a man, in the reader's eyes. The reader sees Dave as childish; his behavior throughout the story is ignorant and whining. "Aw, Ma," he says. "Please, Ma."
ReplyDeleteBut what makes Dave a more complex character is the way his surroundings have shaped him. I think the main reason why Dave has developed such a primitive idea of manhood is because he has no control over his environment. The other boys don't respect him. He is completely dependent on his mother, and she sees him as a boy, not a man. The phrase "You ain't nothing but a boy" recurs several times in the story. He is afraid of his father. And even when he gets the gun, he can't control it. He has to try to escape his surroundings, first of all, in order to even wield it. And when he does, he kills the mule, which has a pretty big consequence. Two years of work to pay the money back.
In a society such as this--full of oppression, both socially and in his own family--there is no surprise that Dave needs an immediate and powerful outlet like a gun. It's no surprise that he is unsuccessful at wielding it, and it's surprising--but inevitable--that he's gotta leave at the end, "to somewhere, somewhere where he [can] be a man." Readers who scorned Dave for his stupidity should also pity him for the circumstances that he has to face.
As in "The Lottery," the outlet for the human being is violence. There's something to be said here about a person's selfishness, ignorance and desire for immediate satisfaction and social elevation.
Because we all seem to find that there are several different lessons taught in The Lottery, I believe the presence of lessons in the story shows that closure is also present in the story.
ReplyDeleteThe lesson taught in The Lottery is more of a warning with this familiar quote: “Be careful of what you wish for- you may get it” (Lauga). The fact that every single person from the town attends the lottery conveys how people are influenced by the popular decision in order to feel like they are a part of the community. However, by entering the lottery, each individual has the chance to fulfill their "wish” to fit in and join the majority but they also have the same chance of being chosen in the lottery to be sacrificed to the community. Either way, the people join the lottery in order to gratify the community. This shows how far people will go for popularity and to feel accepted by people that they will even risk their own life. When Tessie Hutchinson is chosen, Tessie realizes how she joined the lottery to fit in with the rest of the community but is shocked to discover that she is the one chosen out of the other three hundred people when she was only thinking about the chances that she wouldn’t get picked. The fact that Tessie is chosen reveals that the characters learn the lesson because from Tessie’s discovery, it is obvious that she has realized the realistic probability of being the one out of three hundred chosen from the lottery as she begins to fear the dangers of the outcome of the lottery. Tessie being chosen as the victim also teaches the readers the lesson because Tessie provides a more personal experience for the readers to connect with that the circumstances seem more realistic when the reader can relate to a voice that is more agreeable (the realistic perspective), and therefore conveys to the audience about the realistic chances of “getting what you wished for” and raising the question: “Is this really what you wished for?”
The fact that the lesson of the story is a reality check for the readers and the characters proves that The Lottery achieves closure: By coming to an unfair and unconvincing yet very realistic resolution of the killing of the chosen Mrs. Hutchinson, the Lottery completes the sense of a realistic aspect of the possibility of being the chosen one in a million. The story achieves closure but concludes with an unexpected and puzzling ending when Tessie Hutchinson is stoned to death, which I believe is a much more interesting ending than a comfortable and expected ending, for example Tessie's life being saved. An unexpected ending is completely unpredictable throughout the story and makes the reader curious and drives the reader to read up to the very last page as it is impossible for the reader to predict what could happen until they reach the very end of the story. A story with an unexpected and puzzling ending also makes a great impact on the reader as it causes them to question the story and go back and re-read the story in search for more even days after putting it down.
Regarding "The Lottery,"
ReplyDeleteKnowing beforehand that the story is fictional,
The horror engulfing the reader
is not just due to the fact that a human
being is being killed; It is a result of a human scenario, case, perspective.
The stone represents the mutation from schema to unconsciousness. The tradition of the lottery, a schema, has lost its value; the function of the stone is not to uphold the value (which is not cleary explained to the reader) but to simply stone the "winner" out of existance from society.
This sentence at the top of the last page is a powerful recapitulation the story's theme:
"Although the villagers had forgotten the ritual and lost the original black box, they still remembered to use stones." A schema over 77 years old that has been held without human conscience has turned into something without meaning, purpose, but most ironically, without significance for the society's individual. They just don't care.
Tesse Hutchinson, who, in the last moments of her life represents a birth of consciousness, is stoned, never to inflict a spark a stimulus for change in her society. Who knows, she probably doesn't care about the overall human perception level of her neighbors anyway; she does not even care for the immediate lives of her family.
What if, when her name was chosen, Tesse Hutchinson successfully ran away from the town? How would that affect the schema of the townspeople, which would later propose a rise in consciousness?
As far as this community is concerned, however, the rise of this possibility is stoned, and the cycle cycles again and again.
Kevin's blog itself was an art work to read; he really described the gravity of the situation; he really clarified why thinking about this story is psychologically painful for me.
I also think that JeeHae's comment uplifts a good question. The setting, characters, and "tradition" holds no individual character or aspect; the beginning descriptions of the scenery of the town seems rather ideal, the cahracters are all pursuing only their self-interest, and the "lottery in June, corn be heavy soon"-quote does not completely clarify the tradition for the reader. Yet, even with this sense of vagueness, the author manages to communicate to the reader given a story that is so literal--how else can one interpret the act of stoning someone than "sick?"
I truly think that "The Lottery" is open ended, even though there is so much structure and analytical detail; it opens doors to thinking that is beyond interpreting the usual-short stories.
In regards to "The Man Who Was Almost a Man" I agree with everything that has already been said. I believe that Dave does not learn his lesson at all, but as a reader we learn from all of his mistakes. Throughout the story Dave is trying to convince himself and the ones around him that he is a man but every time he finds a way to prove he is not. For example he is late for dinner because he went to the store, but he lies and tells his mom he was out with friends. Once he gets the money to buy the gun, once again he lies and doesn't give his mom the gun right after purchasing it. In addition, he takes the gun to work and once he shoots Jenny he lies about shooting her and makes up a highly unprobable story. Throughout the story Dave just makes one mistake after the other covering himself in lies that eventually show how unmanly he really is. At first before he had said he was seventeen years old, I had thought Dave was a twelve year old. Just the way he speaks and all of his actions suggest that he is a lot younger then he actually is. I am not sure if I was the only one who felt this way about Dave, but I thought it was interesting. As a reader, we can learn from Dave's mistakes like many have already said.
ReplyDeleteI think that in "The Man Who Was Almost a Man" he comes so close to learning his lesson but in the end runs away from it. It is interesting how Dave wants so badly to be a man but when the opportunity for him to really take responsibility for himself and prove that he is mature enough to do this he runs away. I think working to pay off his debt to Mr. Hawkins would have showed more manliness than him owning a gun. So there is a strange comparison here because Dave "wants" to be a man or be viewed as a man but he does not want the responsibility and work that comes along with being a man.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Ashleigh about how Dave appears to have boyish manners within the first paragraph by not only how he talks but also his thought process about the entire situation. He seems very jump very quickly into the idea of wanting a gun and the means of how to obtain it. In the very first paragraph he says "Shucks, Ah ain scareda them even ef they are biggern me! Aw, Ah know whut Ahma do. . . Ahm going by ol Joe's sto n git that Sear Roebuck catlog n look at them guns. . . " And I think that this is interesting because, like everyone else was saying, he wants to be a man and feel mature but his actual ideas and actions do not clearly reflect on his want. Another part is also in the first paragraph and he says "Them niggers can't understand nothing." But what is interesting here, is that he talks about how everyone else around him lacks intelligence but then as the story progresses, Dave is actually the one doesn't really understand or comprehend his actions.
ReplyDeleteOne more thing is the title: "The Man who was Almost a Man". Because you would think that either a person is man or he is a boy. So to say a that a man isn't fully a man was the first thing to catch my eye. Does anyone have thoughts about this?
Lauren makes a great point about the title. Being almost what you want to be is a big part of being human, right? Almost being a man may actually define Dave as a man. Trying to be a man is part of manhood. Paradox!
ReplyDeleteI don't think that "The Lottery" achieves complete closure, because the reader knows that a similar story is going to take place the following year. Also, the story does not elaborate on how the Hutchinson family continued to live afterwards. I personally like stories that are relatively inconclusive. They are more closely related to the way that real life plays out. And they also give the impression that these stories have a life of their own, a beating heart, and that the reader can only see part of what's going on in this other world as opposed to a "world" that was created, elaborated, and terminated all within the span of a few pages.
ReplyDeleteI agree with those who said that Dave didn't learn from his lesson. He doesn't realize the true qualities that a man posses (dignity, honor, etc) and how these qualities are what define someone. He is looked down upon by society and this has formed his idea of manhood, which revolves around how you are perceived by others, rather than the qualities you posses. If he had a gun, people would respect him. If they didn't respect him, then he could kill them, black or white. It's all about how other people perceive him. As the story played out he didn't fit his own definition of a man. At the end of the day he still isn't respected and finally he runs away from it all in order to find someplace where he could be a man. Since his idea of being a man is so convoluted (as Evangeline said), I wonder if he will ever be able to become a man, especially considering his social circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI think both of these stories comment on human nature, and how facing reality is harder than blaming others. In the first short story, it is easier to kill someone in hopes of a good crop, rather than to put in the time and effort in the fields. In second short story, Dave puts the blame on everyone around him for treating him as a child. But if he doesn't want to act like a man, nobody will treat him as one.
Hmm... in regards to the title, I agree with Kevin in the sense that it is a paradox. To me, one cannot be a man just because one day they sit down and decide to be. All little kids say that and consider themselves more grown up than they actually are. Dave is surrounded by adults, (in fact we never even hear about other kids). The adults in his life are pretty harsh and tough. The first time we meet his mother, she is very strict and rough with him (same goes for his dad). If we consider the environment he his growing up with, it is clear why he would want to be considered just as mature and tough as all of them.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, however, we see him try desperately and fail miserably. It is almost like he took two steps backwards instead of foreword. Dave had an opportunity to perhaps actually become a man of responsibility, but he took the route that sets him apart as a child instead.
It was quite interesting to discover a little sense of closure from “The Lottery” not after I read it but after I finished “The Man Who Was Almost a Man.” When I first read “The Lottery,” it came through me as a totally inconclusive story that left me as numbers of questions that could not be answered and satisfied completely. “This is it for Mrs. Hutchinson and all these people? Is she really going to die?” But after I read “The Man Who Was Almost a Man”, which has the similar line of ending until the “very” ending of the stories, I thought that “The Lottery” could be conclusive in some sense.
ReplyDeleteFirst I found out that both of these stories have a similar public attitude toward a single character. People in “The Lottery” choose one person to be stoned per year and isolate the one from themselves. People in “The Man Who Was Almost a Man”, too, isolated Dave and even made fun of him when they found out that he was the one who killed Jenny.
However, the attitudes of the person who is isolated (in this case, Mrs. Hutchinson and Dave) varied. Until the page of 1703 of “The Man Who Was Almost a Man”, when Dave was thinking of the consequences he would get, I thought it would have the same ending as “The Lottery.” But Dave chose to be different. In “The Lottery,” Mrs. Hutchinson was not able to go against the public and had to accept her fate even though she did not want to. But Dave, at the end, suddenly changed his mind and digged out the gun from the ground to see if he could fire it. After he fired all the bullets he had, his thought even went against the people who were isolating him. Dave thought, “ef Ah had jus one mo bullet Ahd taka shot at tha house. Ahd like t scare ol man Hawkins jusa little…Jusa enough t let im know Dave Sanders is a man.” His attitude is very different from that of Mrs. Hutchinson. And the last sentence of the story suggests inconclusive but yet, a very interesting ending. It says, “Ahead the long rails were glinting in the moonlight, stretching away, away to somewhere, somewhere where he could be a man,”
Now the readers cannot know what Dave is going to do. But still, it is very sure that he is going to do something else than shooting a mule because the readers know that he wants to show other people that he is a man. In some bad cases, he might shoot something or someone else than a mule in order to fulfill his purpose. Compare to that, the ending of Mrs. Hutchinson, who ended up with being stoned, is quite conclusive. It is sure that she is going to be stoned just as everyone who won the lottery in the past was. And according to the children’s attitudes toward the lottery, it is also clear that the lottery is going to be continued. Therefore, even though “The Lottery” did not directly mention it, it has some kind of conclusion that could be expected while “The Man Who Was Almost a Man” doesn’t.
I don't feel that "The Man Who Was Almost A Man" achieved closure whatsoever. Even though the story terminates with a statement that Dave would hope to find a location where he could be a man, many aspects are left unsettled. After shooting the remaining four rounds, Dave hopped on a train to an unknown location. As readers, we know what his intentions are but I believe he is more capable of thinking he's a man rather than actually being one. At the end of "The Man Who Was Almost A Man," it is the middle of the night and Dave has pushed the notions of what could happen in the morning out of his mind. His mother and father will wake up and realize that he is no longer home and most likely panic. Jim Hawkins has lost a mule due to irresponsibility and naiveness, but was unaware that the culprit would sprint away from his punishment.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the feelings Dave embraced during the night after Jenny's death is how all of the townspeople in "The Lottery" should feel each June 27th; guilty and ashamed. It almost appeared that Dave had learned his lesson when he was confessing to killing the mule, but then he dug up the gun and decided he was a man after successfully shooting it. He felt no regret at the end, which is comparable to the lack of regret within the townspeople while stoning Tessie Hutchinson. I believe that Dave and the town will grow up when they realize that their actions are morally wrong and stick to that idea.
Referring to "The Lottery", one could say that the lesson being taught is to never ask for anything, unless you know what the consequences are. Personally, I believe that the ritual that the town had was completely selfish. Yeah, sure it was almost like an everyday type of thing for them, so it seemed normal...but just because it's normal doesn't mean that it's right. To answer the second part of that, just like a few people have said, there is no closure. Killing someone off your population doesn't bring things to an end. Long after the death of Mrs.Hutchinson people will always remember that she was the one to get stoned. There isn't any closure because will always think about what happened that day.
ReplyDeleteNow in regards to "The man who was almost a man", I believe that the lesson of this story is that an object doesn't make you more powerful than you think you are. Dave thought that he was going to become a man by buying a gun. Once he got the gun, he didn't do much with it but fire it a few times. Now, how does this make him a man? His reasoning of buying the gun was so that his friends wouldn't treat him like a "boy" any more. However, when he revealed that he killed a mule with the gun by accident, they saw it as no more than a joke. If I were Dave, i would have been completely humiliated because not only would I look like an idiot, but none of my friends would have seen me as i would have liked them to. Personally, i think the real part of him becoming a man was leaving and boarding the train. This way, he's taken his real first step to becoming independent.
- Ashante'
In my opinion, I feel that "The Lottery" teaches us the various powers behind manipulation (some better, some worse than others). Even though in this story, "The Lottery" is meant to be a annual event where the whole town comes together, I get this feeling that the concept of a 'lottery' has more control over the participants than the participants have over the game.
ReplyDeleteFrom my understanding, "The Lottery" has been going on for a while in this nameless town. I also understand that this is a so called tradition, and it has potentially been a tradition for other towns in the past. After all this time and after hearing other towns refusing to take part in the lottery, the question that comes to my mind is: why continue?
Look, if a child is able to stone his own mother who do you blame? "The Lottery?" Or the citizens' lack of self-control or even stable mentality? To be honest, I do not sympathize with Mrs. Hutchinson, because she too was part of this manipulation - or this so called 'cult.' Of course, when she is chosen to be stoned, that's when she starts complaining! For something like "The Lottery" to cease, a person who is not a follower and is quite brave will have to address the issue.
Since the beginning of the story we are given the impression that this is so a happy town and nothing could ever go wrong. The only person who finds this process insane is the one being attacked - no shock there.
For my own sake, I do enjoy this story because the ending is so unexpected. If a character had enough guts to end the process before Mrs. Hutchinson got stoned, it definitely would not be as interesting; so, I really appreciate that the author did not go down use the 'happily ever after' option.
I do think in some ways this story has closure. As a reader I can acknowledge closure because I have a clearer understanding of the town and what is potentially going to occur next. But the story lacks closure because "The Lottery" seems to be this cycle. There is no actual ending. But that is why I like it. Once the story ends there is instant suspense, and I feel that all stories need an ending like this one.
- Dahvin
I agree with many of the posts about Wright's story in regards to Dave not learning any lessons and proving with each opportunity he gets that he is anything but a man. Vangie makes a very good point when mentioning, "respect depends o nteh choices you make." I would add that being a man goes hand in hand with repsect and that there is a pattern with all the choices Dave makes.
ReplyDeleteI think the pattern presetn which I foudn interesting is about choices and opportunities. There are at least three examples where Dave has the perfect opportunity to act like a man and prove himself, yet each time he fails miserably. When his mother lets him go and get the gun with strict instructions upon return, he has the opportunity to bring it back like she says and prove to ehr that he can be responsible. Instead he fails and ends up killing the mule. This is another opportunity to tell the truth after they find out but he tries to lie at first, saying she started to act crazy and fell. After what I believe to be the climax (when Jenny is killed), he is given his final opportunity to be a man by accepting the consequences and paying for what he's done with 2 years wages. By hopping the train he throws away his last opportunity to become a man, leaving everyone on the plantation thinking he is a cowardly child.
There wre some very interesting ideas about the title, I believe that "Almost A Man" could serve as a description of this pattern of opportunities Dave is given. He could "almost" be a man if he had just dealt with each of these situations differently. But because he did not it will always be "almost".
Very briefly I think this could point to the story indeed having closure, closure in the idea that Dave will never fully become a man. This being proven by the title, and how many times he proves he cannot do the mature and right thing (it doesn't even cross his mind).
whoops,in case there's another Emily that post was from Emily Schulert
ReplyDelete-thanks
I agree with what most people have said about "The Man Who Was Almost a Man." It is very interesting to see how Dave thinks that he will become a man once he owns a gun. "Ahm almos a man nw." Ah wants a gun." (1698) and he believes his metamorphosis is complete once he owns one and has been able to shoot it. "Jusa enough t let im know Dave Sanders is a man." (1704) He doesn't refer of himself as "almost a man" anymore and he runs away from all of his responsibilities and the consequences of his acts, which raises the question: would a true man commit such an action? I agree with what Kevin said about Dave's actions being a result of the harsh environment around him, but I believe that his dire need of a gun was the consequence of a search for feeling superior: "Whuts the usa talkin wid em niggers in the field? (1694), "Could killa man wida gun like this. Kill anybody, black er white." (1698) The first quotation shows that Dave felt superior to his race before he owned a gun, and the second one shows that after owning the gun he feels that nobody, "black er white" can defeat him and this gives him great confidence.
ReplyDeleteI would like to respond to Emily's piece.
ReplyDeleteI found that firstly I do think that if anything the greatest sense of closure possible was indeed included in the piece. By having Dave run away I think that closure on that setting and his 'life back home' was completed. The only other sense of closure would have been to take it to the other extreme in having him die. (I actually thought that this would be the path that Wright would've taken).
I think one thing also that is particularly important to address is the concept of what is 'a man'. Perhaps indeed Wright is using the stereotypicalized idea that a man is some of responsibility (as Emily suggests) but also I think it is interesting to see the flip side of the equation where 'a man' might represent someone who takes action, acts out irrationally, and lives for the moment.
Wright's story "The Man Who Was Almost a Man" is a 'be careful what you wish for' type of story, but with a twist. The lead character, Dave is infatuated with the idea of being independent, grown up and of course - having the privilege of shooting a gun. Once he has this power in his hands - literally the weapon - he lies to his own mother and keeps the gun away from his mother even though he originally said he was buying it for his mother. When Dave is alone with the gun and shoots it for the first time, when he should be working, he accidentally shoots his boss' mule, Jenny. I feel that at moment Dave realizes that he is not ready to become a man, or to be given that privilege.
ReplyDeleteI acknowledged the twist of the story after the burial of Jenny; Dave escapes his house, retrieves the gun - shoots it a couple more times - and hops on a train to 'somewhere.' Usually stories with this structure end with the character realizing their mistakes and owning up to it. But this ending was unexpected - which I loved! Dave instead escapes from the reality he was seeking for in order to discover his own independence. As a reader I loathe and appreciate Dave at the same time. I loathe him because he is so conceited and ignores his responsibilities. But I appreciate him because he never really changes. He craves for something and doesn't let anything get in his way.
I feel like this story lacks closure because, like "The Lottery," it never really ends. I can predict more adventures of Dave, and I can also predict other stories of "The Lottery." "The Man Who Was Almost a Man" also has little closure because the character remains the same.
- Dahvin
going off what Jorge said,
ReplyDeleteIn both "The Lottery" and "The Man Who Was Almost A Man" death is a huge part of growing up and becoming a member of the community. Dave believes he is a man when he finally gets a gun, to show his masculinity, and the children in the lottery are "growing up" by drawing their own pieces of paper like the adults do. It is interesting how both stories have environments that are unhealthy and violent for children to grow up in, and how hard it is to break out of tradition when it is all you have ever known. How are the children supposed to stop doing something that they have seen as "normal" since the day they learned how to walk? How is Dave supposed to know that having a gun doesn't show masculinity, when it is all he has ever been told? Both the children and Dave want so desperately to be a part of the community that doing something unjust is unimportant if they know the outcome will be acceptance.
In response to Lauren's inquiry about the nature of the title, "The Man Who Was Almost a Man," I agree with her that it is both "eye catching" and a little bit puzzling. It would make more sense, perhaps, if it were "The Boy Who Was Almost A Man," but instead we're left with a title -and ultimately a story- that provokes us to think about what qualifies someone as a "Man." For Dave, at least, there's something about this gun that he's convinced will cause him to complete this transformation; he's in search for power, and strength, and the ability to be above someone else (he's certainly the lowest on the food-chain from our point of view). Once he gets the gun, however, and therefore achieves this twisted sense of power and dominance, he runs from what certainly does label one as a "man": responsibility. I suppose the lesson of this story revolves around the old concept of "don't judge a book by it cover," the book of course representing manhood, and the cover being Dave's misconception of what a "man" really is.
ReplyDeleteUltimately this brings me back to my original comment; it's possible that by saying he's a "man" in the beginning of the title Wright's commenting on the fact that Dave successfully obtains the "cover" of a being man; he's got a gun, and "power", and even an opportunity to prove himself by acting in a responsible manner, but he's just "almost a man" in the sense that he "almost" fulfilled his duty, but in the end did not.
It's interesting that the story ends with Dave thinking about "somewhere where he could be a man..." when he actually just passed up the opportunity to do exactly that...
In the short story of "The Man Who was Almost a Man", it tells about a character : David who lacks self strength and relations with economic and social issues, decides to own a gun and believe that he is a real man after getting it. However Jenny dies. Becuase David relied heavily on his weapon called pistol, he was vulnurable with himself. The lesson that the story is telling is that self control is very important thus individuals should learn to win without relying on anything (getting help would be fine). Similar things happen everywhere. For example, if hungry polar bears in north pole relys too much on human left over foods, it is more likely that they would not survive themselves.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the an other short story called "Lottery" tells about the lesson that rules or rituals or the way people believe could effect the population. In the story, people follow the ritual of doing a lottery and winner gets to die. People accept it and die and the killer kills winners without knowing any reason. By looking at this scred up society, I started thinking about many of existing rituals that humans have; voodoo, exorcisom and ext. These mis-beliefe of nothing could create unreasonable secrifice.
-BP ark
I think the lesson goes to the readers from characters in these stories. They both went with lesson responsibilities. In "The Lottery" Mrs.Hutchinson was stoning to people but later she was selected and beaten from people by stoning. She was in the community and had a responsibility for the unpredictable future. She does not know what to do when it happened to her. I think the lesson for her is that having great fun with their peer or community can bring them a bad result.
ReplyDeleteIn "The Man Who Was Almost a Man" Dave had a responsible of his action. He could become a man but he could not take care of his responsibility. He thinks that gun can help to get more power and controls other. But the accident he made, Jenny's death limits his goal. The lesson would be that people should know themselves by taking care of their responsibilities not relying on something.
Regarding to the last paragraph of “The Man Who Was Almost a Man”, Dave’s firm conviction that the things perceived through senses, tangible, and concrete as opposed to the mind are the only ones to represent manliness, has not changed at all. To him, the gun, the big physical object, is the one to show what he calls “power”.
ReplyDelete“C mon, yuh slow poke! C mon! He had his hand on his gun; something quivered in his stomach.” (Page 1704), says Dave. As he was proud of himself, in fact, smiling, after shooting the last four cartridges up in the air on the top of a ridge, he was reassured when he physically felt the gun with his fingers. Then he “gripped the gun tightly” before the moment he decides to get on the train, and automatically reaches for his pocket again. “He felt his pocket; the gun was still there.” His desire to escape from his family and the community would not have been determined without having the gun with him.
The very last sentence, “Ahead the long rails were glinting in the moonlight, stretching away, away to somewhere, somewhere where he could be a man. . . .” , shows Dave’s loss of an opportunity to experience new conceptions of “power” by being responsible for what he’s done wrong before, and implies another long journey he may encounter in the future.
With regard to what Jorge posted earlier about "The Lottery," I disagree strongly with the fact that the story has no closure. He mentions how the reader does not know what happens to the Hutchinson family after Mrs. Hutchinson is stoned to death. This, in my opinion, has no effect on the story. The story is about the routine of the lottery, not about individual families. The story does have closure because we know who got chosen that time, and also that the lottery will indeed happen again next year. In the beginning, Jackson gives the reader a detailed description of the routine and things such as the black box. This allows the reader to believe that the lottery is indeed a routine. We know that it has been happening ever since Old Man Warner has been around and even before that. When the story ends, the reader gets the impression that the same thing will happen next year with someone new. To me, this is closure.
ReplyDeleteI know that Mr. Stumpf provided a definition of closure, but I took it upon myself to look to Dictionary.com for another viewpoint. One of the words used in their definition was "conclusion." We are familiar with this term from writing papers, it is the paragraph that neatly sums up our thesis and maybe provides a little bit more to think about. Becca suggests that "The Lottery" has closure because the ending suggests that the pattern will continue, one could also argue that this ambiguity is in the end of "The Man Who Was Almost a Man" that the "somewhere" the character goes to at the end suggests that the pattern will not be repealed. With the pattern not changing means that the characters have not learned any lessons from their actions. It is as if the stories end with no conclusion; that they stop in the body of the story, in the climax or the falling action. With no conclusion there cannot be closure.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Dave felt remorse for having killed the mule. In effect, he learned a lesson. But at the same time, he went out that night and shot the gun again. For me, this story was a commentary more on the difficulties that society as a whole faces regarding relations between people and how we treat growing older. Dave longs to feel older, so he buys a gun. He does not have the training necessary to work the gun and instead ends up killing an innocent animal. But at the same time, this isn't the underlying issue. While a crowd of people surrounds him, the issue of race is an issue of great importance. He sees two colors of faces as he cries. As Dave leaves, I believe that he is trying to teach his family and the rest of his town a lesson. People were making fun of him, and he wanted to prove himself to be a man by leaving and going off on his own. He is trying to teach his mother a lesson the entire story. I think his family learns a lesson from all of this. I'm not entirely sure what that lesson is as of yet, but there is a great deal to learn from this story.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kevin's statements in regards to "The Man Who Was Almost a Man". Dave's ideas of manhood are totally misconceived, and I think the lesson that the reader can learn from this story is that the sort of environment in which Dave was raised largely caused his irresponsible actions. He was repressed by everyone, and he even says, "They treat me lika mule". Everyone laughed at him, and his father beat him. Maybe if he had been taught to take responsibility for his actions, or if he was treated with more respect back home, he would not have run away to seek a better life. This story shows the reader exactly how not to become a man.
ReplyDeleteI have been waiting until now to post a comment because I have wanted to see everything and if anyone would bring up an idea, which seems to end up being not too prominent in this discussion wall.
ReplyDeleteI would like to bring up the idea of everyone having opposing thoughts when it comes to the Main Event in "The Lottery". Yes, it is true that they all do throw stones and kill Tessie Hutchinson at the end. They don't shy away from it. In fact, they do quite the opposite, they spring upon her quickly, they are ancious and quick about the whole procedure. There is no enjoyment. Enjoyment would consist of the taking of time to hurl stones at her and bash her over the head with them. "All right, folks, Let's finish quickly." says Mr. Summers. Even the man who is "in charge" of this Event. The Gold Key President of the Gold Key Event. Of course, not really Gold Key Stoning, because I highly doubt Ms. Cassel would let us even think about such an Event. The point is that he wants to get it over with! People spend their entire year waiting for this Event and when it comes around, no one wants to be chosen and no one wants to enjoy it whether you're chosen or not. A tribal sacrifice is usually them all chanting around their sacrifice, singing about how this will help their crops by thanking the Gods or something of the sort. This here in "The Lottery" is not that type of occurence at all, even though they're going for the same thing as a sacrificing tribe would be. Same idea, but differnt ways of going about it. So what am I saying? I am saying that no one is really enjoying this, therefore their minds can not be in states of no questions. They all are having second thoughts or even more. "Let's finish quickly" suggests that the leader wants it over and done. There is no point in taking in every moment of this! Let's just get it done, it has to be done, it needs to be or we'll have no crops.
The sense of closure in my opinion is thus lacking because of the second thoughts in their minds, the villagers minds. Eventually, they'll all have more and more thoughts about it and some will have to share before they're next!
I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing that the sense of closure is not fully there, just a thought about how many more times this can go on before something is done.
I believe that Dave from "The Man Who Was Almost a Man," had the opportunity to learn a great lesson, but he was too young and immature to do so. Like Todd said in his post, the story repeats. Dave makes the same "mistake" of firing the gun more than once. The first time, there was a consequence (the killing of the mule and humiliation), where as the second time there was not. From this, Dave will learn that shooting the gun is o.k. Even though he had a bad experience the first time, when he did it again, he got away with it. The title of this story "The Man Who Was Almost a Man" has great significance to the moral or lesson of the story. If Dave had not shot the gun for the second time and brought it directly to his mother, he would have learned the lesson and become more mature in doing so. Since he did not do this, and seemed to just disappear, he did just the opposite of becoming a man and became no one.
ReplyDeleteIn “The Man Who Was Almost a Man” I feel that there was no closure. Through out the story Dave is doing things in order to make himself more of a man, but it seems as though each of them back fire (or show how truly un man like he is). He wants a gun to make him a man yet, as many people have pointed out; he is unable to take credit for his actions, as a true man should. And in the end it says, “somewhere where he could be a man…”. This to me has no closure. It leaves me wondering if her will ever be able to stand on his own and take credit for his actions. I feel as though the story just circles and highlights on Dave’s inability to become of anything higher than of that he is and how incapable he is to learn from his mistakes. I also agree with Ashleigh that when reading this story I imagined Dave being much younger than he is supposed to be.
ReplyDeleteI definitely believe “The Lottery” achieves closure; there is an ending, and a “sense of completion”. Although some readers may classify its ending as unusual or as an anomaly, it still achieves closure. To begin, the story overall is very ironic and the characters such as “Mr. Summers” misguide the tone of the real situation and consequences from winning the lottery- the unfortunate ending. In other words, it is not until the end of the story when it is discovered that “Tessie” is about to be stoned; therefore “winning the lottery” is not really the same as winning an accolade; instead, there is a negative consequence that comes from winning the lottery; the individual who wins is the one who gets stoned. Throughout the story, anticipation is built, making the story and the readers feel like the outcome of the lottery will be positive when in reality it’s really not. The closure of this story is when Tessie is stoned, which is the final outcome. In my opinion, the story was fascinating because first, the characters and the description of the village were very pleasant and joyful, but near the end, such a placid story turned sour. Perhaps the author is trying to portray not just the idea that people become blinded by real intention of traditions, but also presenting a focus on human nature and the evil hidden within.
ReplyDeleteIn The Man Who Was Almost a Man, the story itself teaches the readers the lesson of maturity, honesty, and altruism through the embarrassment and failure of Dave’s attempt at becoming a man when he accidentally kills the mule with the gun. The lesson in the story is to always be honest; every time you lie, the cost of the consequences will only rise higher. By being taunted, scolded, and punished with consequences subsequent to his failure, Dave’s embarrassment, fury, and rebellious actions of running away helped the story teach the lesson to the readers as the aftermath of the failure scared the readers and influenced them to avoid lying and to make mature choices in fear of being put in the same position as Dave. Although the reader may learn the lesson taught by the story, it is evident that Dave does not learn the story from the aftermath of the story when he escapes the story instead of learning the lesson because he was too immature, like Becca previously stated. However, I believe it was necessary for Dave to not learn the story in order for the story to get the lesson across to the reader; that it would be impossible with the accident of the mule alone. The fact that the reader makes David seem immature and stubborn for running away and not ending up learning the lesson affects the reader in that they want to avoid ending up like Dave who does not learn the lesson.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Dave does not learn the lesson in the end, I believe it achieves closure because like previously stated in this blog entry, it was necessary for Dave to remain stubborn and selfish in the end in order for the lesson of the story to be taught to the reader effectively. The fact that Dave runs away in the end is unexpected and puzzling in terms of the lesson taught in the story but it is very effective in that it allows the reader to wonder not only what Dave will do from now on but if he will ever end up learning the lesson.
In regards to the story the lottery I believe that one of the lessons the reader learns from this story is how much people are willing to sacrifice in order to conform to the social norms of their given society. In the story as a result of the lottery people have become totally desensitized to the idea of death, they see it almost as a game or a ritual, it comes once every year much the same as Christmas or new years. At the begin of the story we are given the impression that this lottery is some sort of happy and joyous celebration with children running around and playing , while the adults exchange polite conversation. In retrospect there was one instance of this total desensitization that really caught my eye. One of the women, Mrs. Hutchinson arrived late to the lottery and when she got there she explained her tardiness with the sarcastic remark; “ Wouldn’t have me leave m’dishes in the sink, now, would you, Joe?”. In my opinion this really shows the lengths in which the effects of this lottery, she is unafraid of death and the consequences of the lottery. This is as a result of some sort of grown up version of peer pressure in which everyone is forced to conform to something that they may not totally agree with but it is easier to conform to rather then fight against.
ReplyDeleteIn some respects I believe that this story does have some closure however in many ways it does the opposite; it exposes all of this information and leaves the story open ended. I realize that the lottery has been won/lost but that only gives us the answer to this year. This has been from what I can assume I long standing tradition for many years and as of right now will continue to go forward as it has done for the many years it has done in the past. As well as this the story also leaves us with many un answered questions what will happen next year when the lottery happens again will, Mrs. Hutchinson’s last plea have had an effect or will someone else stand up for what they believe in and break away from the majority?.
In reference to the last question whether or not I would prefer to read a story with a comfortable and expected ending or an unexpected puzzling ending, I would more then likely prefer the later. The reason for this is that a story that is comfortable and expected its boring , however and unexpected ending that may leave you a little confused is more interesting because it stays with you after you have read it. It allows you to draw your own conclusions and take from it what you want rather then putting it right in your face , which in many cases can be much more provocative then if something is put right in front of you.
I believe the story "The Lottery" is trying teach us how easily a tradition can change people's common sence and how much it affects to the society. For us, we think killing a person by throwing stones every year is definitely wrong thing to do even if it is a tradition, but people in the village have been following the tradition for at least 77 years. It is because people have been participating in the lottery with other adalts since they are as little as Davy who didn't have any fear of loosing his mom which makes people think seeing a parson go die due to the rain of stones is normal.
ReplyDeleteIt seems this even is taking place without the original purpose which is to wish a rich harvest by killing a person with stone and sacrificing him or her(I guess), and people do it now is because it's "tradition" so that they think they have to keep it and it's exciting for them. Even little kids are so excited that they collect stones before the lottery starts, and only the person who has bad luck (which I guess it used to be thought as "good luck") thinks "it's not fair." It suggests that the tradition without purpose has no meaning of following it.
Stories can end by making the reader wonder about (or wander in) the meaning and message the author communicates. (Both of these stories have created powerful meanings, both in violent ways...) Both stories we have read appear to be "cases" or "instances" of a human experience, each to a different degree:
ReplyDeleteComparing the two stories, Dave from Wright's story represents a human aspect that is more relevant to the everyday reader: Covet for recognition. Dave wishes to be at the top of his society, yet ironically he seems inferior to the gun; the gun which to him is power controls his everyday thinking and state of being. More so he is "marveled" by it, not even knowing how to shoot the thing. We also have some historical context or background of Dave's life, which includes racism, poverty, and wage labor, which allows the reader to relate to or "take part in" the story.
To add another aspect, there is obscurity in the title:
"The [Boy] Who Was Almost a Man"
vs.
the actual title, "The Man..."
That is to say, did Dave lose his "Man-ship" because he did not recognize that working hard all summer for his family and enduring hardships through patience was the key to being the "man?" In other words, is this story is about the human tendency to be self-misguided in identifying human values? Perhaps the title is a paradox, trying to convey a message directly to the reader.
In my opinion i agree with Rosie in the sense that all Dave wanted to do was become a man. He had built this sense that without a gun, one couldn't be a man and when he finally had gotten his hands he didn't know what he was doing and ended up killing a mule and hurting himself in the process. As a lesson he was also ridiculed by those to whom he thought he was superior, the black race. In the end however i feel that it was his teenage mind set, the one prone to rash and quick decisions, that won. His "escape" only proved, in my opinion, that the experience had simply taught him nothing and that it was better to run away than face his issues, even if all he had was a gun with no bullets.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these stories do achieve closure in the reader’s empathy. “The Lottery” is a story of playing the game of survival and probably, for the sake of conformity while “The Man Who Was Almost a Man” was about Dave mooning about holding a gun to be a “man.” In “The Lottery,” Tessie realizes the game is not fair because she finally know how it feels to be the loser with no one to save her. Although some readers may criticize that the story is confusing of what will happen after, I believe that this is up to the reader because this story has many parallels to our society today. I believe I get a sense of what Shirley Jackson said about the moral of the story was “to conform into the game.” This story could relate to a situation of certain company where the boss decides to fire a few workers based on their work progress. If one objects, then that worker will be fired as well. For the others who kept quiet, they were able to maintain their jobs. Like the lottery as the ritual, the company could be called a ritual as well because business existed in history long enough.
ReplyDeleteAs for “The Man Who Was Almost a Man,” Dave’s escape at night was also a fair ending. Dave contemplated himself as a misunderstood person who had to work his life. Now that is tough for a seventeen year old! His escape can be sympathized because he accidentally shot Jenny. Dave could have been the “man” he dreamt to be if he had been patien
The more I think about it, the more I realize that "The Lottery," can't quite be about closure. There's something in evolution that is yes, progress, but really, it's all quite about an aggregated next step. We discussed on Thursday that perhaps that's all "The Lottery" is about. It would seem counterintuitive to construct such a thesis, especially with the last line being "This isn't fair. This isn't right." But death naturally demands evolution in action. Therefore, I am tempted to say that "The Lottery" is keeping in mind this community's entire existence: their entire development is guided by the lottery. In other words, I'm challenging that we won't really know what will happen to any of them, or what the lottery is good for until they cease to be.
ReplyDeleteAs Ashante said,"The man who was almost a man" does not reach to a closure, while "The lottery" reaches a very clear closure.
ReplyDeleteThe story goes on about Dave who tries to own a gun(tries to be a man). His mother resolutely did not let him own a gun, but she lets Dave o and get the two dollar worth gun from Mr.Joe under the deal that the gun will be father's property. Although mother asks Dave to bring the gun straight off to her, Dave manages to sneek out with the gun and accidently shoots and kills Jenny the mule.
According to the storyline so far, if the story was to have a closure, Dave would regret his wrongdoings or would have learned a lesson. However, Dave goes on and try to shoot the gun successfully and when he succeeded, he feels like a REAL man now and goes off to somewhere with just his gun. The story expands out and reaches an ending that makes the readers to think and wonder about what would happen after Dave leaves the town.
I think that there is a similarity between the story that the Bachelor tells the kids in "The Story-Teller", and "The Lottery". In the bachelor's story, the point of being good (even horribly good) is being discussed, while in "The Lottery", the main question in the village is about following tradition, which might be considered a form of "goodness" in a society. After all tradition and ritual brings us together which is supposedly a good thing. Both stories however, take these examples to the extreme; the girl was so good she had medals for her goodness, and the village was so blindly stuck to their tradition that they would stone someone to death every year without a clear, explained reason. It's arguable that the only people that did learn a lesson in these two stories, are Mrs. Hutchinson and the little girl, who both die at the end. They are both the "perfect" examples of the societies they live in (even though Mrs. Hutchinson is against the lottery she is stoned for her town), and yet as "payment" they both get killed. Maybe this suggests to the reader that we should really think about what we are doing and what we are following, because if we aren't willing to "die" for something or we don't truly believe in it we should question it.
ReplyDeleteIn Regards to “The Man Who Was Almost A Man” I believe that both the reader and Dave learn similar lessons. We see that sometimes older does mean wiser and that maybe we should trust people with more experience and knowledge then us rather then thinking we know everything. But at the same time making mistakes is all part of the process of growing up and “becoming a Man”. Also never in the story are we given a definite age for Dave we understand that he is not a man but not a boy , but that means he could be any where from 12 to 16. In my opinion depending on the age the whole story can have a totally different meaning.
ReplyDeleteAlso I believe that this story does have some sense of closure although this story does not come to a definite conclusion. At the end of this story Dave stands up for what he believes in and takes his life into his own hands. Rather then taking the hard road to get there he takes the cop out way and decides that he believes that he is now a man and he is going to go where he can make this reality.
Touching again on the title of the story, "The Man Who Was Almost a Man" it seems as if the title is separating man hood into two separate entities. There is acknowledgement in the title to the fact that Dave is a man, "The Man..." and afterall he is seventeen and owns a gun. What makes him fall short or limits him in being just 'almost a man' is his avoidance of responsibility. He seems to have the shell or cover of a man but cannot provide the filler.
ReplyDeleteAmelia
Kind of discussing the line "This isn't fair. This isn'tright" like Priscila brought up,it makes me wonder what she was describing when she said it was not fair. Was it the idea of the lottery in general, or the fact that Mr. Hutchinson didn't have enough time to pick out of the black box? I wonder if it there isn't closure due to the blindness of Mrs. Hutchinson by not realizing what was actually unfair about the lottery. It wasn't the lack of time he had to pick but the fact that there is this type of lottery. Is the community so numb from this tradition that they only see it as a game; winning and losing, being fair and unfair. Although we thought she might of realized the wrong in playing in the lottery after she was chosen, what if she didn't and that in reality all she wanted was more time for her husband to pick a lottery ticket so that the game was fair? Any comments?
ReplyDelete