just read "the lottery" by shirley jackson for the first time, and I've never read a better story for thinking about the functioning of systemic violence in real life. Systemic violence as perpetrated by people who are friendly and occasionally fumbling, who are primarily occupied with their everyday concerns of home and family. Violence perpetrated by people who believe their actions are perhaps regrettable but ultimately necessary, even though the system could be reimagined at any point. People who comprehend that the violence would not happen without their compliance, but feel a squirming discomfort at the idea of change. Systemic violence stripped of its original symbolic meaning and logic, perpetrated through tradition and the vague sense that all this violence must be serving some purpose. Violence as evident in the predilections of unruly little boys who can't wait to pick up the stones, even against their own mothers. Violence perpetrated against the one who loses the luck of the draw, and therefore deserves what she gets, no matter how she protests that it isn't fair, it isn't fair.
YEAEAASSS oh man I am so happy to come across a post about my favorite of the Short Stories That Will Mess You Up In Twelve Minutes, because I reread it recently and I have so much to say
First of all, if anyone here hasn't read it yet, GO. I promise. Go now, trust me.
You can read it in like twelve minutes!
And it'll mess you up! :D
Fiction, from 1948: “The people had done it so many times that they only half listened to the directions; most of them were quiet, wetting t
Ok spoilers ahead baby here we go
So: of the many many incredible themes and messages here, what do we want to dig into first? Op mentioned systemic violence being perpetrated by well-meaning people against themselves, for reasons no one even remembers anymore. You're right; they believe this violence may be regrettable but it's ultimately necessary, even though they could stop doing it at any time. And some cities have stopped, a fact that makes our characters uncomfortable in ways they can't fully articulate.
YES.
And the really striking thing (pun intended because I'm terrible) is that it's direct and visceral violence. They're not just pushing a button or signing an executive order; they're not even just throwing the rocks from ten feet away. The haunting last line is "and then they were upon her." This violence is intimate.
But they still consider themselves good people. They consider their traditions a sacred link to their past and a safeguard for their future. These are normal average people who gossip with each other and tut-tut their children and bitch about taxes.
They are just like us.
And once a year, they commit an act that in any other setting they'd rightly consider an atrocity. And then they all look at each other, their faces covered in blood and dirt and brain matter from someone they've known all their lives (someone who, incidentally, was on board with all this right up until she was the one sacrificed), all of them equally complicit in cold-blooded murder.
And then they go home and have lunch, and the box is carelessly put back in storage until next July.
YESSS
But can we also talk about the gender divide in the story? How the proceedings are run by men - but when a woman is selected, it's the women who move in first? Did you notice that the last thing the victim did in her life was finish up the dishes? Wanna delve into the psychological implications of one woman picking up two small rocks, just enough to be seen participating but not enough to be lethal, while another woman weilds the biggest rock she can lift? Is that second woman succumbing to rage and bloodlust - or is she hoping to end the victim's suffering as quickly as possible?
Want to talk about class divide? Like how wealthy Mr Summers is the one who gets to handle the box and preside over the event, and he's the one who made the black spot and folded all the papers... so it would be incredibly easy for him to mark them in some subtle way that nobody else would notice? Which would explain why he's the only person who's chill and convivial the whole time, because he knows he's gamed the system?
What about the generational divide? How the oldest person in town, oblivious to his own survivor bias, is the most vocal supporter of this tradition with a catchy slogan that ryhmes and everything? How he's the first to loudly shame and scold anyone who might someday question this tradition, because he can't imagine not beating someone to death once a year? Because the only thing more painful than having to think about all the people he's helped slaughter would be if everyone else decided that all those deaths had been pointless? When those children grow up, how many of them will remember all this with disgust - and how many will advocate for bringing the lottery back?
You could even talk about the difference between city folk and country folk, because the larger your population is the better your odds are. How many people moved away from this particular town for that very reason?
Actually wait, I think I first want to talk about something that just recently occurred to me: this story was first published in 1948, just a few years after World War II.
I can't believe I never realized it before, but among all its other messages, "The Lottery" is also about the draft.
The US has always had a... complicated relationship with WWII, because it wasn't fought on our soil but it absolutely shaped our culture. For a lot of Americans, their experience of the war boiled down to various fundraisers, general frugality, and watching Donald Duck's fever dreams about being a Nazi. (For real!) It was something important but distant - something that happened, as the one song put it, Over There.
Oh except for almost every man aged 18-45, who was enrolled in the draft whether he liked it or not. And if your number comes up, well, off you go! Time to fight and kill and die for a good cause! Thank you for your service and/or sacrifice! We're all cool with this, for some reason!
When this story was first published in the New Yorker, it received severe backlash. People were super duper mad. As a teenager, I assumed it had offended so many because they thought there was some small town really doing this, in the same way that Jonathan Swift published "A Modest Proposal" and then immediately had to publish "What?? No, God no, I didn't mean we should ACTUALLY start eating Irish babies, Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you people".
But upon reread, I realized that everyone in 1948 would have immediately spotted the parallels to conscription, because everyone knew someone who'd been torn from his home with no apparent rhyme or reason and either came back broken or never came back at all. And people were told that this is all very good and normal - that your loved one was a hero who died making the whole planet safe for democracy, somehow, a line vague enough to still work today.
So these readers had offered up their sons and brothers and husbands while they held parades and waved banners and felt really good about themselves for being on the right side of history... and then Ms Jackson (I'm nasty) rolls up and says "Actually, what if it wasn't worth it? What if we just killed a bunch of people in horrible ways because that's just what we always do in war? Hey, hey you - yeah YOU, reading this right now. Set aside all the propaganda you've been taught, and ask yourself: how complicit are you in these deaths? How many rocks did you throw in the town square today? How many will you throw next time? How many next times will there be?
"Because the answer is never zero."
