The Lottery

Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” is a terribly saddening story about a village that is so stuck in its traditions that it fails to evolve and change them, even if it would mean preserving justice and life. Every year, an innocent member of the society selects their fate at random, choosing a slip of paper from a tattered box to determine who will be stoned to death by the rest of the village. There are many things wrong with the story that cause the reader to question why the village would continue such an awful custom. Firstly, the village doesn’t seem to welcome logic, neither in terms of the practice itself nor in terms of the continuation of the practice. If the village believed in a god that needed human sacrifices, as cruel as it would be, at least this practice makes some sort of cohesive sense if it’s a genuine belief. But this lottery seems to have no purpose other than the fact that it’s tradition. At one point, the eldest member of the village makes a reference to having enough food because of the lottery. However, when a younger member explains that “some places [had] already quit lotteries” and that they were doing just fine, the comment is brushed of with disdain (Jackson 250). Obviously there was proof that the lottery was not necessary for their survival, and yet no one seemed interested in changing the custom. Apparently, nearly all humans hold fast to their beliefs and myths despite logical proof that they have erred. Tuan uses explorers searching for mythical locations such as paradise as an example. Even “repeated failure to locate [the mythical places] did not discourage explorers from making further efforts [to find them]” (Tuan 85). When it comes to myths and beliefs, more often than not logic is rejected in favor of maintaining the comfort that comes with believing one knows the infallible truth. Another thing that bothered me about the village was that their belief in maintaining tradition was very inconsistent. They no longer bother listening to the instructions, and “much of the [original] ritual had been forgotten or discard” (Jackson 248). There were very obviously many aspects of the tradition that had change. Why, then, were they so opposed to changing their tradition of murdering an innocent person? If they wanted to maintain culture, they could have held a symbolic lottery to demonstrate the customs of the past, but refrained from killing anyone to show how the culture has evolved. The hypocrisy is unbearable.

The village is also a perfect example of the human tendency to seek routine and maintain their beliefs. Year after year, the village participates in this horrendous tradition without giving their actions any thought. This is extremely common for those who find comfort in routine, especially with those traditions with which they’ve been raised since childhood. Tuan explains that “to be livable, nature and society must show order,” and to this society, order meant maintaining this yearly ritual (Tuan 88). He goes on to explain that “to discard the idea… would have threatened a whole way of looking at the world” (Tuan 86). This is certainly understandable and can be observed frequently in people’s lives. Imagine a child’s reaction when discovering that what they had believed for so long to be the Tooth Fairy was in actuality their parents coming in the middle of the night to replace their teeth with coins. Their world is shattered, and I imagine for many in this village, the realization that their beloved tradition held absolutely no purpose would have been devastating; many would refuse to believe that their annual heartless murder was for no reason at all.

Though it is rare, it is possible to let go of superstitions upon realization that they are flawed or illogical. Tuan brings in the case of the Puluwatans: “as a pragmatic people, [they] readily abandon rituals and taboos when these are shown to lack power” (Tuan 87). Many in history have let go of false beliefs, from the notion that the solar system revolves around the Earth, to the idea that tossing alleged witches into the river to drown was an appropriate response to suspicion. But in this village, the value of tradition and culture overrides that of fairness, mercy, logic, and the preservation of life.

Published in: on March 10, 2011 at 1:00 pm Comments (0)

To Room 19 , Final draft

In the short story “To Room Nineteen” by Doris Lessing, Susan Rawlings is a woman living what seems like the perfect life with the perfect marriage. However, it soon becomes clear that Susan isn’t as happy with her life as one might think upon first glance. Slowly but surely, Susan begins to drift away from her home life in attempts to find freedom through solitude. This reaction can be analyzed by taking a closer look at how Susan relates to the places in her life such as her beautiful home with her family and the small hotel room to which she escapes. Reading the fifth chapter of Yi-Fu Tuan’s Space and Place alongside “To Room Nineteen” helps us to understand the counterintuitive notions of space and freedom Lessing describes in her story. In this way, Tuan’s insight helps us recognize Susan’s fear of responsibility and desire for freedom as they relate to the places in her life.

From the outside, it seems as though Susan lives the ideal life with a big house and a beautiful garden for her children and loving husband. However, as the story progresses, we see that Susan becomes more and more “reluctant to enter her big beautiful home” (Lessing 530). This same attractive, picture-perfect house begins to push Susan away, for in it are the many responsibilities that come with adult-life and motherhood. The more these responsibilities weighed down on Susan, the more it felt “as if something was waiting for her there she did not wish to confront” (530). This seems strange because, typically, “spaciousness is closely associated with [freedom]” as Tuan explains in Space and Place (52). By this logic, one would think that Susan would feel plenty free in her big home with the spacious, lush garden to wander through. However, although “freedom implies space,” space does not always imply freedom (52). What Susan truly needed was space from her family, and freedom from her responsibilities.

This becomes evident when Susan takes her vacation to the mountains in Wales. Physically, she had all the space in the world, from huge mountains to tall skies and deep valleys. But with her family calling her multiple times a day, Susan felt like “the telephone wire [was] holding her to her duty like a leash” (Lessing 538). Tuan explains this phenomenon by stating that “solitude is broken not so much by the number of organisms in nature as by the sense of busy-ness—including busy-ness of the mind” (61). This is exactly what Susan felt, for although she was alone physically, her family weighed down on her mind constantly, ruining her sense of solitude. Though they tried to be helpful and supportive, Susan’s family couldn’t understand this critical concept. Had they been able to go a few days without calling her or without Mrs. Parkes nagging her with household business, perhaps Susan’s vacation would have appeased her craving for solitude. Alas, the opportunity was spoiled and Susan returned to her home feeling more exhausted than when she had left.

For all of these reasons, Susan felt it necessary to seek out Room 19 in Fred’s Hotel. This was Susan’s escape, not because it was a vast, open land like the mountains were, but because no one knew she was there. It didn’t even matter that “the room was hideous” because “she was free” (Lessing 541). The room she was shown was small and dingy, with only one small window and cheap looking sheets on the sole bed that was there. All Susan needed was to be “alone and with no one knowing where [she was]” (Lessing 537). In this way Susan’s relationship with the dreary motel room allows us to understand the counterintuitive notion of freedom as relating to space. This was the only place she could get away from herself and be free. Here, “she was no longer Susan Rawlings… she had no past, no future” and it had nothing to do at all with physical space (542). Instead, it was the cramped little motel room that gave Susan her freedom, giving us insight as to why she searched out Room 19.

We also saw something interesting in the scene where Susan meets Mrs. Townsend. The presence of just one other person ruined Susan’s entire attempt at solitude. Here, we can compare Susan to the pianist Tuan discusses on page fifty-nine of his book. He explains that for a shy pianist practicing alone in a room, the presence of just one person shatters his world and forces him to stop his work immediately. Like the pianist, Susan’s solitude was obviously tarnished by the presence of others. Tuan touches on this idea as well when he says that “the company of human beings—even [one] other person—has the effect of curtailing space” (59). He explains that when we are alone, we can allow our thoughts to “wander freely over space,” but that “in the presence of others, [our thoughts] are pulled back by an awareness of other personalities who project their own world onto the same area” (59).

Another crucial aspect of Susan’s solitude wasn’t just that no one was around, but that no one knew where she was. Tuan explains why Susan’s solitude is tarnished even with someone’s mere knowledge of her location, saying that “crowding is an awareness that one is observed” (60). Once Susan felt that her husband was keeping a close eye on her, the feeling she got from the room “was not the same, [for] her husband had searched her out” (544). Her husband’s suspicions were completely understandable, but at the same time, had he respected Susan’s need to be away, perhaps her hunger for solitude would have remained sated by the little motel room she had found.

It also becomes clear throughout the story that Susan desperately needed to escape her household responsibilities in addition to her family. Between hiring a fulltime au pair girl and running off to London for the hotel, it is clear that Susan had no interest in being with her family at home. Even when she was home for supper, all she could think about was how desperate she was to be alone again. The association she made between her responsibilities and her house drove her away to be in Room 19 where she was completely alone and hidden from the outside world. There, she could let go of her life completely for the duration of the day and go back to pretending to love her home life at night.

By understanding Susan’s relationships to her spaces, we can understand her need to escape the life she built for herself. Her detachment to her beautiful home signifies the way she let go of the perfect life she created with her family while her need for Room 19 highlights how much she wished to be completely alone. Once her husband found her out, the solitude that Susan had searched for so desperately was tarnished. After this, Susan felt cornered into escaping life altogether. No amount of space could satisfy her, because now it seemed that her family would find her even in the smallest and most hidden of places. The only way Susan could leave her life behind completely was by taking it herself, and she finds this permanent escape in Room 19, the only place that allowed her to be completely free.

Published in: on at 12:59 pm Comments (0)

Spam prevention powered by Akismet

Skip to toolbar