Meaning in Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery”
Melissa Trezza
Ottawa University
LAS 40123 Integrative Seminar in Criticism
Abstract
Theme and meaning in Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” is explored. Despite the story’s apparent lack of substance, such as little character or plot development, further investigation reveals themes like the validity of customs and selfishness.
Meaning in Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery”
Shirley Jackson’s, “The Lottery”, is a simple story on the surface that many may find uninteresting, as critics Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren point out in their 1959 criticism of the story. There is no battle to be fought, nor is there a character to either love or hate. As Brooks and Warren ascertain, Jackson does not provide an in-depth plot or thorough characterization. The reader is drawn into this simple New England village and its’ lottery, only to be horrified in the end by the yearly ritual. However, what Jackson does provide her readers is a plethora of theme and meaning to be unraveled.
One idea touched upon in Brooks’ and Warren’s criticism is that of tradition, “The cruel act is kept from seeming the cruel thing it is by the fact that it has been sanctioned by custom and long tradition” (Votteler, 1991, p. 251). In the story, Mrs. Adams mentions to Old Man Warner that some towns have stopped doing lotteries, to which Warner replies:
Pack of crazy fools. Listening to the young folks, nothing’s good enough for them. Next thing you know, they’ll be wanting to go back to living in caves, nobody work any more, live that way for a while. Used to be a saying about ‘Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon.’ First thing you know, we’d all be eating stewed chickweed and acorns. There’s always been a lottery. (Jackson, 1948, pp. 377-378, in Charters & Charters, 2001. All future quotes from selected stories come from Charters & Charters, 2001)
They perform this ritual killing simply because it is what they have always done. (Additionally, Warner indicates that there may be some superstition surrounding the growing of the crops and this sacrificial killing.) On a much lesser scale, a modern-day example of an arguably grotesque custom is that of circumcision of male newborns in the United States, as well as other countries. A newborn baby boy has part of his genitalia sliced off without benefit of anesthetic and hardly a word of contention is uttered. While there is sometimes a religious component to this practice, as well as some hygienic purpose behind it, it is often done just because it is what we do, and for no other reason. While tradition is surely an important aspect of any society, sometimes traditions must be examined for validity.
Another point analyzed in this critique is that “human beings find it difficult to become exercised over ills not their own” (Votteler, 1991, p. 251). In “The Lottery”, those who have chosen their slip of paper and been lucky enough not to receive the one with the dreaded black-dot-of-death, are lackadaisical thereafter. Even Mrs. Hutchinson’s own children, who know that someone in their family will be the “winner”, are jubilant, “Nancy and Bill, Jr., opened theirs at the same time, and both beamed and laughed, turning to the crowd and holding their slips of paper above their heads” (Votteler, 1991, p. 251). Mrs. Hutchinson herself, does not protest the fairness of the event until she realizes she is the “chosen one.” Earlier in the story, she says to Mrs. Delacroix, “Clean forgot what day it was” (Votteler, 1991, 251). Afterwards, the two “laughed softly” (Jackson, 2001, p. 276). Once she receives her “winning ticket”, Mrs. Hutchinson repeatedly declares that the lottery was not fair. Here, Jackson seems to be pointing to the human trait of self-centeredness. As long as we are okay, then why concern ourselves with the trials and tribulations of those around us? No matter how morally and ethically people attempt to live their lives, everyone falls into the trap of selfishness at some point. It is very easy to get wrapped up in our own lives and to forget those around us. However, most of us will never be in a life-or-death situation, as is the case in Ms. Jackson’s story. It is hard to imagine what we would do in the throws of battle, where life-and-death situations can arise on a minute-by-minute basis. In March 2008, Michael A. Monsoor, Navy SEAL, received the Medal of Honor posthumously. While stationed in Iraq, Monsoor was hit in the chest with a grenade. He had a choice to make within a few short seconds: try to outrun the pending blast and pull his fellow soldiers along with him, hoping that they all made it out alive, or throw himself upon the grenade, shielding everyone but himself, ensuring the others’ safety. Monsoor chose the latter. What would you do? What would the characters in Jackson’s fictional village do? Any one of them could have come forward and sacrificed themselves for Mrs. Hutchinson, but they were concerned with their own lives – not hers. They were just happy that someone else was taking the fatal blow, instead of them.
As Brooks and Warren wisely indicate, there are practically too many observations to be made in “The Lottery”; there is simply not enough room to analyze all of them in such a short composition (Votteler, 1991, 251). For what initially appears to be a boring and simplistic piece of fiction, there are certainly many layers of interpretation to be explicated. Jackson masterfully, and horrifyingly, shows us the extremes to which our worst characteristics can take us.
References
Brooks, C., & Warren, R.P. (1959). “An Interpretation of ‘The Lottery’” [sic]. Understanding Fiction, pp. 72-76. (Reprinted in Short story criticism, Vol. 9, pp. 250-252, by T. Voteller Ed., 1991, Detroit: Gale).
Charters, A., & Charters, S. (2001). Literature and its writers: An introduction to fiction, poetry, and drama (2nd ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
