Tradition In Shirley Jackson's Lottery

Shirley Jackson’s “Lottery” satirically creates a society that puts the importance of tradition above even the life of the members of the community, as indicated by Old Man Warner’s response to Mr. Adams stating, “‘[O]ver in the north village they’re talking of giving up the lottery.’ Old Man Warner snorted. ‘Pack of crazy fools … Listening to the young folks, nothing’s good enough for them … There’s always been a lottery,’ he added petulantly” (413). Here Old Man Warner defends the tradition of their society, though notably without justifying the tradition. Rather, he focuses on the people of other villages and the tradition as self-evident, both logical fallacies. The first argument he makes in favor of continuing to have a lottery is an ad

hominem fallacy. He critcizes the dissenters without actually justifying his belief, calling them a pack of crazy fools for no longer having a lottery, and gives the reason that the lottery was discontinued as originating in the younger generation, without explaining why their thoughts should be discounted, only that they all believe nothing is good enough. His second fallacy is an appeal to antiquity, where he defends the lottery by it’s own existence. In both cases it is telling that the Old Man of the group wishes to conserve what is the standard, without any rationale other than the fact it has always been, and is quick to attack any who believe difference.

However, the community as a whole has not abandoned the lottery, so while Mr. Adams and likely others may be considering it, in general the population supports it.

This seeming universal support is ultimately shown to be a claim, rather than a true belief. For when Tessie Hutchinson is chosen in the lottery, she quickly inverts her values of tradition over self, and acts in self-preservation. She is targeted, “and she held her hands out desperately as the villagers moved in on her. ‘It isn’t fair,’ she said. Old Man Warner was saying, ‘Come on, come on, everyone.’ … ‘It isn’t fair, it isn’t right,’ Mrs. Hutchinson screamed” (415). Here the true colors of the community are shown, and the fallacy in Old Man Warner’s logic of the value of tradition being self-evident is clear. While Mrs. Hutchinson supported the lottery by agreeing to take part in it, once she is chosen, she begins her protest, and attacks the tradition itself. She holds her hands out and claims that the fact she was chosen is not fair. This directly contrasts with

the other villagers, who willingly take part in the ritual, just as she would have had she not been chosen. This hints at the true values of the villagers if they were forced to confront the fact that each lottery is agreeing to die. Fursther emphasizing this disconnect in values is how she states that what was happening to her was not right. Such values and the risk of being chosen would be a reason to give the villagers pause, but Old Man Warner pushes them forward. The contrast between the chosen member of the villager and Old Man Warner is used by Jackson to show the precarious state of following such a tradition, and how the village could have followed it for so long. Old Man Warner is the conservative older man who does not want anything to change, and uses fallacies to convince people that tradition should not be abandoned. Yet, when one of the village is chosen, all the traditional values are abandoned as the general threat of possible death is turned into an immediate and personal one. She also shows that when someone in the villages criticizes tradition, whether in passing or when chosen, it is the job of the conservative Old Man to rebuke them or push ahead regardless. This is how Jackson demonstrates that while death is indeed inevitable, choosing to ignore it until the last minute or favor tradition over all will only result in a life ended by a choice one has made irreversible. In her society, if the people had abandoned the lottery as others had, each death would not be by being chosen to die early, but later on without a stressful lottery each year.
Margaret Atwood creates a multiple choice story, with beginnings of A, B, and C, and F for two people, John and Mary. Their stories begin with “John and Mary fall in love and get married … Mary falls in love with John but John doesn’t fall in love with Mary … John, who is an older man, falls in love with Mary, and Mary, who is only twenty-two, feels sorry for him because he’s worried about his hair falling out … If you think this is all too bourgeois, make John a revolutionary and Mary a counter-espionage agent and see how far that gets you” (289-291). These stories describe many possibilities for two lovers. The first is the classic love story, where two people fall in love and follow tradition in getting married. The second offers an alternative without marriage. It tells a story of Mary falling in love with a man named John, who does not love her back, yet she still is in love with him. The reverse is presented in the next beginning, where John loves Mary, and Mary does not love him, but stays with him only because she feels sorry for an older man who does not want to confront his age. All of these are standard possibilities, of either mutual love and tradition, or of one-sided love of either sex. So, a final offer is to give the exciting personality trait of a revolutionary to John, and Mary a counter-espionage agent. There is no difference other than more abnormal and exciting traits of each person in the story, and the previous possibilities are still possible, but the stories will be about exciting, rather than average people.
This huge range of possibilities and the demonstration of how it does not matter what the characteristics of those in the story are get addressed through the endings. “[T]he endings are all the same however you slice it … The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die. So much for endings. Beginnings are always more fun. True connoisseurs .. favor the stretch in between, since it’s the hardest to do anything with” (291). The speaker here forces the reader to not think about how interesting a beginning can be, and instead how the ending will happen regardless. Whether there is any love at all, or mutual love and tradition, at the end of their life people die. The only authentic ending is to realize this, and also to realize that beginnings are fun, because there are more possibilities. If you truly want to analyze life, you look at the choices made in someones life, and appreciate them. As all endings are the same, each choice only brings one closer to the end, no matter how different the situations or choices made. Very little can be done with what is in between a beginning and end of a life. At the beginning, one can imagine all the possibilities. However, as one continues towards death, there are less and less possibilities of how to get to the ultimate inevitability of death. Atwood’s conclusion of life is exactly this. No matter how varied or interesting the beginning, one has to realize there can only be one ending to each and every life. She admits that it is indeed interesting to savor the choices made in one’s life, especially as she claims there is so little choice when you will die anyway. She has come to realize that, as death is the universal ending to all beginnings in life, the choices and circumstances of every life can only be admired, as they are the most difficult to deal with in order for one to feel like they have made anything of one’s life, since the choices will ultimately not matter.
Death is inevitable, and to some degree choices made in life do not matter is one will die in the end. While this is not debated by the authors, the degree to which choices can matter is. An Irish Airman Foresees His Death puts only a little weight on the choices made in life. Yeats concludes that the Irish airman’s choices in life did not matter, and that there is no point for him to plan for the future. However, by relying on war and the draft to create a ending for life outside of the airman’s control, he admits that it is possible the airman could have had some tiny about of control regarding his death. He also gives the airman a return for his fight, by saying that Ireland will not lose anything by any likely outcome, so admitting a total victory by the enemy could bring loss, and thus the airman’s contribution may indeed be worth some tiny amount. The Ballad of Birmingham concurs with the idea life’s choices can have some consequence, even if they are ultimately meaningless. It also warns of accepting the norm and it’s apparent safety. The mother’s worries and conclusion of the story create an ending that demonstrates the mother’s daughter was going to die or get hurt no matter the mother’s choice, but criticizes the mother’s choice to accept the apparent safety of the normal activities, rather than encourage her daughter to help make the world safer for black people by marching. “The Lottery” disagrees with the conclusions of Yeats and Randall, as Jackson instead gives a great deal of meaning to choice in life, as it can correct what is wrong with a society. She gives no indication that life’s choices will stop death or matter to a person, but she gives examples of other villagers and dissenters of the current harmful tradition, and shows how the villagers change once they are chosen to die. She also uses Old Man Warner as an example of why harmful traditions will continue much longer than they should. If everyone had thought about the cost of being chosen, they likely would not have taken part in the lottery, but as Mrs. Hutchinson shows, they only consider that when they are chosen and half to die. “Happy Endings” gives the least credit to choice of any story. It concedes that life can have interesting beginnings and be interesting to observe, but firmly states that the only authentic ending to any story of any part of life, is death. Unlike Yeats, Randall, and Jackson, she focuses specifically on the story of people, not concerning herself with society. She then demonstrates that all of life’s beginnings and twists and turns will end everyone back at the point of death, having ultimately done very little with their life.
This issue of whether any choice mean anything if there is a definitive end has been historically very divisive. The concept of fate and predestination caused many to struggle with whether they should do anything, or should not do anything good, sinful, or at all. If there was no way to change one’s fate or destiny, then the path could sway any way one chose. Besides creating an issue of faith, a societal issue was created, as society cannot function without people cooperating, even when they may not wish to. I think that society relies, to some degree, on the ability to ignore death, rather than get swept up in depression. However, I also known that our reluctance to think of the fact we are going to die is a major problem, as end of life care testifies. America favors a quantity of life, over quality, choosing anything we can to keep our life going, regardless of happiness or pain, and when we do die, we have no plans for end of life care, and entire industries, such as embalmers and funeral homes, profit off of the uncertainty of what we would have wanted in death, and we force family to make stressful decisions, despite the damage it does, and the fact family have been proven to be little better than complete strangers at making end of life decisions. I believe that our choices may have some impact on the world, but ultimately are meaningless, and, in the long term, inconsequential. I also believe the only important thing is that we are comfortable with the fact that our life on Earth with end, regardless of the promise of life afterwards, and that we plan for this without being consumed by the possibility that nothing matters.