Talk:The Lottery

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RodellPearson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Simpsons Quote in Opening
The "conformity gone mad" quote in the first paragraph is not from a literary critic, but was said by Kent Brockman in the Simpsons episode "Dog of Death." It seems odd to have critical evaluation by a cartoon news anchor in the first paragraph. Should be changed.


 * I can see your point, but the quote itself is then used as a serious basis for evaluation by a literary critic - as supported by the source. Ultimately seems okay to me.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, then the footnote should cite The Simpsons episode, rather than the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.179.38.164 (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup request
This article needs to be given a tighter structure. The rambling discussion of plot minutiae needs to be trimmed, and original interpretation should be removed and replaced with views from notable sources.

There also need to be sections on the writing of the story (composed in one evening, as I recall) and the outrage when it was first published (it was banned in about a dozen countries and the author was bombarded with hate mail).

I'm happy to work on this myself, but don't have the sources to hand at the moment. Would appreciate any help available. Perodicticus 16:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. The story was first published in the New Yorker in 1948, and reflects in many ways the atmosphere of the much less technologically advanced, more homogeneous, and less crowded society that could have been had before WWII in, say, New England or Pennsylvania.  I well remember those times myself, and immediately felt that the interpretation given here did not ring true. I remember the shocking effect the story had on me at the time (and still has today), but the scapegoating theme, to my mind, does not need the Marxist interpretation given here.  Jackson, in my mind, simply used her own societal background to draw her picture.  The interpretation given here is tantamount to a POV.


 * Of course, any interpretation would be a point of view. To expound on a work of fiction is to abandon the NPOV. In fact, I seriously doubt that a NPOV is ever possible in any but the most trivial situations; after all, being human, we all have prejudices, inseparable from our personalities, that we bring with us.  See .  Too Old 13:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything hard about having a NPOV here? We can't introduce new interpretations of the story because of the no original research rule, but introducing any sort of "So and so has interpreted this story in such and such way (reference link)" statement isn't a point of view - it's a fact. Chandon 20:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Forget cleanup of quality. Some of the statements are just factually wrong, but I'm not going to fix them right now. YechielMan 17:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Character symbolism
I'm going to be working on characterization for a stage version of this story, and I was wondering if anyone could help me out a bit? I was told that there is quite a bit of symbolism in the character's names and actions. The only example I was given was the black box, which, supposedly, represents a coffin. Any clues on what else there is? Thanks. Linktoreality 21:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Plot
How strange. A spoiler warning but no plot summary. Can someone expand? savidan(talk) (e@) 03:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed that, I am doing a summary of the story and there is no plot here.

totally new to wiki so I hope this shows up. In the summary it say "...Tessie Hutchinson, one of the most vocal and staunchest supporters of the continuance of the lottery, is the final choice.:"

I thought she was not a supporter but that she was against the lottery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.177.60 (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In the plot section: "On the morning of awing to choose one household within the family is skipped." I suppose "awing" is "the drawing" but someone made a very careless edit here. I do not know what this is supposed to say. Someone please fix. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric

Controversial?
This comes from Pages needing attention/Culture and Arts:


 * The Lottery The article seems to be cut off mid-sentance at the end. Additionally, I don't understand why it was controversial.  The only reason given seems to be that it is 'gloomy'. Dgies 16:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The page just needed to be reverted properly (it had been, but not to the correct version). I'm including this here because I agree that the reason(s) the book was controversial need to be more explicitly stated --Gareth Aus 22:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed! Pepso 23:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Influences
I removed the Influences section, because no evidence was presented that any of the works mentioned were directly influenced by Jackson's story. The fact that they share themes in common with The Lottery does not prove a direct connection, since sacrifice, scapegoating and mimetic violence have been common themes in the arts throughout human history. Besides, the section was in danger of turning into a pointless collection of pop-culture cruft (Weird Al?!?). Perodicticus 12:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking of cruft, I don't think it's appropriate to list every TV show, song, etc. that has ever made a passing reference to the story. It's a famous work of literature and bound to pop up in a lot of places; listing them all doesn't add anything to people's understanding. (I wouldn't even consider The Simpsons' reference to the story worthy of mention, let alone Squidbillies'.) Perodicticus 16:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems Perodicticus that you are making a editing decision based on personal taste and not objectively. If an episode of PBS Masterpiece Theater's "The Inspector Lynley Mysteries" quoted several lines of The Lottery verbatim as a plot point (say something like Brad Pitt's film "Seven") you would allow it to be mentioned, but the fact that this was done on a show called "Squidbillies" causes you to deny a reference seen by 690,000 viewers (according to the Neilson ratings company). Why you think a show directly quoting "The Lottery" and naming its author as Shirley Jackson on air, which was seen by over half a million people is unworthy of a sentence in this article but Marxist and old Pre-Post-Feminist interpretations of the work read by a handful gets paragraphs appears to be bias. NOTE - this is not a passing reference or an obscure influence, this is direct verbatim quotation of the work on a nationwide network on a show likely to be syndicated internationally (in line with William St. Productions marketing policy). One of Wikipedias strengths is its ability to immediately incorporate current information and to expand the Definition of Encyclopedia to the common people. Yes the people at Britannica would never make any reference to Squidbillies, but they would also never allow an entire article to be written about a short story even "The Lottery", it only gets a sentence in their all too short Shirley Jackson entry.--Wowaconia 02:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If an episode of PBS Masterpiece Theater's "The Inspector Lynley Mysteries" quoted several lines of The Lottery verbatim as a plot point (say something like Brad Pitt's film "Seven") you would allow it to be mentioned
 * Um, no, I wouldn't. (Or rather, I would not want it to be mentioned; only Jimbo Wales can decide what is allowed on Wikipedia.) Perodicticus 09:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And this is exactly the kind of attitude displayed by the villagers. 85.183.154.22 (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Breaking Benjamin's "So Cold" as unsourced. If you disagree, please find a source and let me know when you edit it back in. Thanks! ArrowmanCoder (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference to "Falls to Climb by R.E.M. There was no reference and any reference to a stoning does not imply that it was inspired by "The Lottery".  Additionally this whole section should be deleted because I'm sure "The Lottery" has inspired countless things as has all important literature.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.185.22 (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect?
Because of the massive amount of vandalism from anonymous IPs, I'm thinking this article is a good candidate for semi-protection. Anyone agree? Perodicticus 08:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good candidate for shut up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.144.239 (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Harvest?
The plot summary mentions that Tessie is sacrificed for the purposes of ensuring a good harvest, however in the short story the characters cannot seem to remember why they started in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.146.148.67 (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon." 75.63.18.205 (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Dramatization
Many students come to this story not by Jackson's short story, but by the one act play. The article mentions it, but doesn't say who adapted it. Could somebody find out and add the name? I would like to know. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wicker Man (1973 film)
I think the parallels between the short-story this article focuses on and the cult classic linked to above deserve at least a passing mention. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 08:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Without a cite they do not. Alastairward (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The size of Mrs Delacroix's stone
I am not a Jackson expert and I've only read this story standing up in a bookshop, although that was enough for it to stay with me forever. However, I think it was the London Review of Books review of the Library of America edition of Jackson's novels and stories that pointed out that the fact that Mrs. Delacroix picks up a stone so heavy she has to lift it with both hands is in fact evidence of her kindly nature, not of her hypocrisy; if Tessie gets hit by such a stone she will likely die instantly, whereas if she is only hit by many small stones her suffering will be unbearably prolonged. So Mrs. Delacroix is arguably shortening Tessie's suffering by using such a huge stone. Anyway, unless somebody checks the reference this particular tidbit is of little use, I admit. Lexo (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional Reference
The article for The Lottery does not mention that this story was also represented in film in this music video, as mentioned in its Wikipedia entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_That_You_Fear — Preceding unsigned comment added by StampyTheElephant (talk • contribs) 10:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

South Park
Unless we can produce claims from Trey Parker and Matt Stone, it is presumptuous to state that the "Britney's New Look" episode of South Park is based on "The Lottery".

For one, there is no actual lottery in the episode. Second, the sacrifice self-destructs, as opposed to being directly murdered by the townsfolk.

The notion that a sacrifice is necessary for a good harvest did NOT originate with "The Lottery", and that is the only common thread between the short story and the South Park episode.


 * The quotation "Sacrifice in March, corn have plenty starch" from the South Park episode is a parody of a line from "The Lottery."--Baller McGee (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I say yank the claim until we have a reliable citation. 67.175.56.225 (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems there is a citation in the wiki page for the South Park episode. Perhaps it should be added here. 67.175.56.225 (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * actually, the sacrifice doesn't self-destruct, but is photographed/harassed to death in this case. 82.83.236.90 (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Critical interpretations
@ Islam in the Lottery: Ok so I have seen this can't simply go because it is a sourced claim, but - It is an extraordinary claim and the arguments presented are not obviously plausible. - It could be seen as making contentious claims about a recently deceased person. - There are no similar interpretations in the literature, actually the paper hardly references academic literature on Jackson and the paper has not been cited or very little.

So it needs backing up by an extremely reliable source, yet it seems more like an academic vanity press, - Note the immediate mention of publishing fees. - It claims to have peer review, yet the article does not thank the referees, nor does the acknowlegment make clear who actually reviewed what. - The subjects of the articles in CCS lack unity and generallly are about one culture, not crossing cultures. - The website says CCS appears 'biOmonthly'. - The other journals they publish have some very bad articles, see "An Introduction to The Generator of the Function Space." in their Progress in Applied Mathmatics, which does not contain a single proof or piece of new mathmatics or new presentation of old math, is borderline nonsensical and has numerous faults in the spelling and grammar of the English.

In short, extraordinary claim lightwheight sources means it should go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.124.213.99 (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It probably qualifies under wp:fringe as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Martin
There is reference here to the play version of the Lottery being adapted by Thomas Martin. I cannot find any reference on the internet to his adaptation; only a one-act version by someone called Brainerd Duffield. Is this a pseudonym? Can anyone verify the Thomas Martin claim? 195.10.22.126 (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ballet dramatizations
Is there any available information regarding the 1953 ballet beyond that it was, well, a 1953 ballet? I can only find information on a 2012 production by Ballet West in Salt Lake City, Utah, and a 2015 production by the same company at a theatre in New York City. Those productions are also not mentioned in the 'dramatizations' section - should they be added to the shortlist at the head of the section?

2012 production, via salt lake city tribune: http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/entertainment2/55199072-223/ballet-west-choreographer-lottery.html.csp

2015 production, via new york times: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/arts/dance/ballet-west-comes-to-the-joyce.html

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Lottery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080502180310/http://www.wiredforbooks.org/judyoppenheimer/index.htm to http://www.wiredforbooks.org/judyoppenheimer/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Our 5th grade teacher read this book to us aloud. When I won a New York City Low Income Lottery Housing Apartment, I thought to myself, "My number has come up." Their is a line from Pink Floyd, The Wall, "No dark sarcasm in the classroom". That may not be the right phrase for this. However, some of the things we read and heard were fairly harsh. Our 9th grading reading list was straight out of the Tennessee Williams play, "A Street Car Named Desire."

In retrospect, despite both negative and positive aspects of my own life, I found it troubling in published records or stories. Even when we know things to hear them vocalized or written they seem to amplify an event. I have not formulated a firm opinion on the introduction of such literature. I am still traumatized by Nathaniel Hawthorne's, The Scarlet Letter. I did not know about procreation. There were aspects of the book with which I was unfamiliar. What I took away from that book is that if one were to mistakenly have the wrong feelings for someone or feel in love with the wrong person that people can be unusually cruel. For me it introduced traits that can sometimes be found within the nature of some groups to which I may have never understood, recognized or formulated some mild, undeveloped generalizations within the world. However, it took a very long time before I could even recognize or correlate events throughout life to possibly have some tangible thought to which I could equate behavior. I used to say I loved the quote, "Ignorance is bliss." However, I no longer relish ignorance as a state in which I could continue to exist. And, I do recognize that it is not possible or even conceivable to me to know and understand everything. In this, I do recognize that I have to chose where and in what I should or could attempt to educate myself and where the best use of my strong attributes might possibly be most beneficial. I do not know what that is worth. I am glad I am not 13 years old reading that book, again.

Nonetheless, I have sought out other widely read literature and some which I would consider troubling to even attempt to read. In part, the attempt at this is because I know that others have read these books.

At one college, Jungian Archetypes were introduced. While in University, I did not have time to watch the most popular television series. I have not read all of the same books. Although, I do not ever expect myself to be totally in sync with any specific groups. I do feel that not having some of these common references could result in my lack of a point of reference.

History buffs love, "If you do not know history, then you are bound to repeat it." ... source unknown.

However, while one is attempting to study all aspects of history, when does one attempt to exercise that knowledge, particularly simply the knowledge of what other people did?

Although, I am not scuffing history as a topic or of interest, I am not enthralled by the pursuit of every little aspect of the past, while the past passes be by. I have way too much to do and many things that are still unfinished.

I will insert links when I can as I periodically state at some point in the future, if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E949:6900:488A:A172:55DA:5DB5 (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Rewrote the lead...
... and removed the 'too short' banner. All the Best! Shir-El too  14:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Themes
Hello fellow Wikipedians!

I conducted research on this short story and found another theme that could be included: the death penalty. I read an article that discusses how the death penalty coincides with "The Lottery" and how in both, the people do not want to abolish something that has been going on for so long (which would go along with the theme of people blindly following traditions). For anyone who would want to read it, it is called "Arbitrary Condemnation and Sanctioned Violence in Shirley Jackson's 'The Lottery'" by Patrick J. Shields.

There is also the theme/connection to WWII. I read two articles that discuss relations between WWII and "The Lottery".

I was thinking about adding these concepts in but I wanted the opinion of others before I proceed! Kjez1 (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello @Kjez1! I think the death penalty theme should be included under the Critical interpretations section... though I doubt if that's what Jackson had in mind at the time. Good work. Cheers! Shir-El too  17:18, 4 December 2019 (

“Contemporary”?
My apologies if I have written this before, I remember asking about this, but I didn’t see it when I revised this talk page. (I’m new to Wikipedia, I’m still learning some things!) I’ll get to the point: This article mentions “The Lottery” being set in contemporary times, yet, reading over the tale, it would seem the story rather takes place in the future, as America has not adapted the lottery tradition the narrative it about. I know I could easily edit this out, but I would like to know if there is any dissent. Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome to WP! The story was contmporary to the time in which it was published (post WWII United States): it was not set in the past or the future, but in the "now." Also check out Lottery - they've been around for at least 2,000 years. Cheers! Shir-El too  08:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, this makes sense now.Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the "contemporary United States" statement should be removed as well. I do see that Jackson mentioned the village in the story being inspired by her own hometown in VT, but that seems to me different from confirming that the story is literally intended to take place there. There's nothing internal to the story specifying a time period (or even confirming that it's the U.S., although the character names and place descriptions may suggest that). GranChi (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Box storage location
The box is not actually locked up in Mr. Summer's office during the year, only the night before the lottery. PurpleBanana12345 (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Opera
The one source cited claiming that "The Lottery" has been adapted as an opera has no details. That may be a mistake. I suspect it may be confused with Henry Fielding and Seedo's ballad opera, The Lottery.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The lead
This article's lead describes the story's surprise ending. The purpose of an article's lead is to provide an efficient introduction to the subject, and the story's ending is not central to this. I edited that a long while back but my edit was instantly reverted citing the fact that Wikipedia doesn't avoid spoilers. This I accept, but the description still seems out-of-place in the lead. As far as my personal experience reading Wikipedia goes, I can say that almost no article about a famous work of fiction here describes the surprise ending in such a bland and unnecessary way, and the fact that attempts to minimally alter it are reverted amuses me. P. T. Tabayi (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Anything can be spoiler. If an article mentions that Clark Kent is Superman's secret identity, is that a spoiler?  I mean, it's a secret, after all.  No matter what you say, someone will complain about it.  This article tends to be heavily edited by schoolchildren, though, so it occasionally needs a bit of work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Themes citations
I'm not wildly familiar with Wikipedia, but I don't typically see in-text parenthetical citations on Wikipedia articles as are shown in the Themes section. 2601:681:5A80:98A0:A5D4:A1DE:9F8:4AD0 (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Dispute over meaning
I quote the following text:

'She repeats, in the final line of the text, "It isn't fair, it isn't right" (79). Even after being chosen for stoning, Tessie remains loyal to the practice of the lottery, blind to its cruelty even to her death.'

I disagree. I would argue that right before her death, Tessie's views actually change. 'It isn't fair' is a long way from 'It isn't right'. When Bill picks the marked slip, Tessie protests that it isn't fair; she is still committed to the lottery at this point. She screams the same words as the villagers begin to stone her, but then continues 'it isn't right'. This marks a shift in her view. Regardless of whether she means that the lottery is not morally right, or that it violates basic human rights, or both, the words 'it isn't right' question the holding of the lottery itself, rather than any perceived error in its rules or practices. While this shift in view happens admittedly at the moment she is suffering the consequences of the lottery (in other words, it's pretty clear that Tessie is concerned neither with morality nor human rights at this moment, other than in relation to her own life) it's still a powerful statement, especially when considering the village society and its awe of the lottery as tradition. That the tradition has lost its meaning (as suggested in the story) only emphasises its power over the villagers; that is, they still hold fast to the lottery for tradition's sake, even though evidence shows that it has no effect on the agriculture of the district.

NB: I've taught this story to first-year uni students in Australia, so I'm familiar with the text and its discussions. (This is apropos of nothing except to give some context for how I may have formed my opinions). Democratie-Kate (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)