5 ms·

I remember reading this as a naive 14 yr old, because it was one of “the” classics of American literature apparently. It scarred me for months later. I hated it

I remember reading this as a naive 14 yr old, because it was one of “the” classics of American literature apparently. It scarred me for months later. I hated it. Now looking back, I don’t think this story would scar me as much anymore. But I still don’t see the point it. Is it an allegory for something deeper than what it is. I still don’t like it much anymore!

irishloop 5mo ago
I think there are a few things that make it "worthy" of literary consideration: 1. Read a straight horror story, it's quite a surprising twist at the end 2. A critique on the senselessness of following tradition just for the sake of it -- the way a society can just go along with something without really understanding why 3. The banality of evil, and how it can often look like something totally ordinary, rather than some nefarious demon I loved it when I first read it -- it truly shocked it in middle school and I still have a visceral feeling when thinking about it many years later
wwweston 5mo ago
The point is that you can see this lottery as a cruel horror. You immediately hate it. It's obvious to us as the readers because it's outside our experience. Of course we wouldn't regularly just draw lots to stone someone to death, that's crazy and good people wouldn't put up with it, right? What are the lotteries you don't see, because you're used to them, and they're just part of how the world works, like this one is to the people in the story? If you're looking, you can find them. But it's also as uncomfortable to find them in real life as it is to read the story. So, most of us are happy to keep some other ideas between us and these lotteries. Those people just didn't do the right things. They should have been more careful, more prepared, more like the people who didn't get stoned. They should have done it the right way. They should have known their place. And if it's their time, well, what are you gonna do, mondays amirite? And if that's true, then you can be safe because you will do the right things. And nobody has to go to the bother of persuading a society with any changes at the margins on which it sacrifices random people.
- WalterBright 5mo ago
  If you try too hard to prevent deaths, you wind up causing deaths.
  - Retric 5mo ago
    Only if you’re ineffective. One of the best ways to prevent people dying is promoting long term economic growth.
  - coldtea 5mo ago
    If you try too hard to be anti-regulation you cause even more deaths and misery.
    - WalterBright 5mo ago
      Regulation of drugs has caused deaths due to high cost of compliance with FDA regulations meaning far fewer drugs get developed that may save lives. https://www.amazon.com/Regulation-Pharmaceutical-Innovation-Amendments-Evaluative/dp/0844731285/ https://www.amazon.com/Regulation-Pharmaceutical-Innovation-... https://www.amazon.com/Overdose-Government-Regulation-Pharmaceutical-Innovation/dp/0300116640/ https://www.amazon.com/Overdose-Government-Regulation-Pharma... Aviation engines still use leaded gas for general aviation due to regulations that make it impractical to redesign the engines. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-was-phased-out-25-years-ago-why-are-n1264970 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa... For more information, google "why do cessna engines still use leaded gas?"
      - Retric 5mo ago
        Net deaths is what matters here. Obviously they aren’t perfect, but no human system is. The market for effective drugs is global. FDA regulations have a significant but not that burdensome influence on drug discovery. At the other end, the opioid epidemic is a demonstration of just how many deaths can result from insufficient regulation of just a single drug family. Which is why FDA regulations vs zero regulation have saved vastly more lives than they cost. Conservative estimates put it somewhere in the 2 orders of magnitude range.
jldugger 5mo ago
> Is it an allegory for something deeper than what it is. I've always taken it to be a critique of the draft, aka "the lottery."
- z_open 5mo ago
  This is the typical interpretation. I remember a question in English class asking what I think this could be about given the context that it was right after the war.
- boisterousness 5mo ago
  No draft in 1948.
  - jldugger 5mo ago
    And worse, everyone had their memory of it wiped in 1946.
aaron695 5mo ago
[dead]
2muchtime 5mo ago
I’m curious if you’re a native English speaker. Usually quotes are used to question something another person or other people say so I would think you’d quote “classics” or “classics of American literature” to question this story actually being a classic as many other people might say. Putting quotes on the word “the” in this context seems to be for emphasis and I’ve seen this numerous times with non-native speakers. If you are a native speaker I don’t mean to be rude, I’m just curious.
- coldtea 5mo ago
  Quotes are also used to quote something verbatim, which is their more traditional role than "questioning". They're also used to refer to a term in a meta way - like I did with the term questioning just now. In this case, he uses them for emphasis, like one would write "it's considered one of THE classics".
- sashank_1509 5mo ago
  I’m a native English speaker, my quote was trying to question whether it is really one the classics of American literature or not. Might not be appropriate use though. “The classics of American literature” might have been more appropriate.
coldtea 5mo ago
>* But I still don’t see the point it.* The point is any society and micro-society works like that in many cases. Doesn't have to be the specific form in the story (don't want to spoilt it for others).

irishloop 5mo ago

I think there are a few things that make it "worthy" of literary consideration: 1. Read a straight horror story, it's quite a surprising twist at the end 2. A critique on the senselessness of following tradition just for the sake of it -- the way a society can just go along with something without really understanding why 3. The banality of evil, and how it can often look like something totally ordinary, rather than some nefarious demon I loved it when I first read it -- it truly shocked it in middle school and I still have a visceral feeling when thinking about it many years later

wwweston 5mo ago

The point is that you can see this lottery as a cruel horror. You immediately hate it. It's obvious to us as the readers because it's outside our experience. Of course we wouldn't regularly just draw lots to stone someone to death, that's crazy and good people wouldn't put up with it, right? What are the lotteries you don't see, because you're used to them, and they're just part of how the world works, like this one is to the people in the story? If you're looking, you can find them. But it's also as uncomfortable to find them in real life as it is to read the story. So, most of us are happy to keep some other ideas between us and these lotteries. Those people just didn't do the right things. They should have been more careful, more prepared, more like the people who didn't get stoned. They should have done it the right way. They should have known their place. And if it's their time, well, what are you gonna do, mondays amirite? And if that's true, then you can be safe because you will do the right things. And nobody has to go to the bother of persuading a society with any changes at the margins on which it sacrifices random people.

WalterBright 5mo ago
If you try too hard to prevent deaths, you wind up causing deaths.
- Retric 5mo ago
  Only if you’re ineffective. One of the best ways to prevent people dying is promoting long term economic growth.
- coldtea 5mo ago
  If you try too hard to be anti-regulation you cause even more deaths and misery.
  - WalterBright 5mo ago
    Regulation of drugs has caused deaths due to high cost of compliance with FDA regulations meaning far fewer drugs get developed that may save lives. https://www.amazon.com/Regulation-Pharmaceutical-Innovation-Amendments-Evaluative/dp/0844731285/ https://www.amazon.com/Regulation-Pharmaceutical-Innovation-... https://www.amazon.com/Overdose-Government-Regulation-Pharmaceutical-Innovation/dp/0300116640/ https://www.amazon.com/Overdose-Government-Regulation-Pharma... Aviation engines still use leaded gas for general aviation due to regulations that make it impractical to redesign the engines. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-was-phased-out-25-years-ago-why-are-n1264970 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa... For more information, google "why do cessna engines still use leaded gas?"
    - Retric 5mo ago
      Net deaths is what matters here. Obviously they aren’t perfect, but no human system is. The market for effective drugs is global. FDA regulations have a significant but not that burdensome influence on drug discovery. At the other end, the opioid epidemic is a demonstration of just how many deaths can result from insufficient regulation of just a single drug family. Which is why FDA regulations vs zero regulation have saved vastly more lives than they cost. Conservative estimates put it somewhere in the 2 orders of magnitude range.

jldugger 5mo ago

> Is it an allegory for something deeper than what it is. I've always taken it to be a critique of the draft, aka "the lottery."

z_open 5mo ago
This is the typical interpretation. I remember a question in English class asking what I think this could be about given the context that it was right after the war.
boisterousness 5mo ago
No draft in 1948.
- jldugger 5mo ago
  And worse, everyone had their memory of it wiped in 1946.

aaron695 5mo ago

[dead]

2muchtime 5mo ago

I’m curious if you’re a native English speaker. Usually quotes are used to question something another person or other people say so I would think you’d quote “classics” or “classics of American literature” to question this story actually being a classic as many other people might say. Putting quotes on the word “the” in this context seems to be for emphasis and I’ve seen this numerous times with non-native speakers. If you are a native speaker I don’t mean to be rude, I’m just curious.

coldtea 5mo ago
Quotes are also used to quote something verbatim, which is their more traditional role than "questioning". They're also used to refer to a term in a meta way - like I did with the term questioning just now. In this case, he uses them for emphasis, like one would write "it's considered one of THE classics".
sashank_1509 5mo ago
I’m a native English speaker, my quote was trying to question whether it is really one the classics of American literature or not. Might not be appropriate use though. “The classics of American literature” might have been more appropriate.

coldtea 5mo ago

>* But I still don’t see the point it.* The point is any society and micro-society works like that in many cases. Doesn't have to be the specific form in the story (don't want to spoilt it for others).