Our first major paper this year uses a critical theory to better understand a short story. All papers that have been electronically submitted are posted below. Browse through, read some, and let us know what you think!
April "The Lottery"
When Mr. Hutchinson unfolded his slip of paper and saw it was blank, everyone in the square knew Tessie Hutchinson was the next victim of the lottery. The lottery started when the village first began. It is an old tradition that ensures people of the village will have a good harvest of corn every season. The lottery took place every 27th of June and, in this village, lasted 2 hours. When the lottery was over everyone returned to his or her home completing the work they left off with like nothing even happened.
Once a year on June 27th everyone in the village crowds together in the square, nervous and eager to find out who will be sacrificed this year from the lottery. Everyone draws a piece of paper out of the black box, Mr. Summers holds. Then, when they all have one they open them. Whoever has the black dot on their slip of paper is sacrificed by being stoned to death. In "The Lottery" it was Tessie Hutchinson who had the black dot on her slip of paper.
Shirley Jackson was a college drop out. She was shy and high-strung, not the type of person that would be expected to write stories. She wrote "The Lottery" in 1948 right after World War II, when everyone was still trying to recover from the war. When "The Lottery" was published in The New Yorker, there was a ton of angry letters saying they didn't understand the story when in reality they knew exactly what it meant (Miss Cellania).
"The Lottery" connects to the real world because people have traditions that they believe makes them have a good harvest season. With this said I do not believe any of his or her traditions involve someone being stoned. Although this was not my first time reading "The Lottery" I learned new things about it. For example, I now know why the lottery was held every year on June 27th. This is because this time of year is right before the harvest season, so by having the lottery at that time they will have a good one.
The cultural theory best fits "The Lottery" because the whole story is based on tradition. The reason they have the lottery every year is because they do not want to break the tradition and have a bad harvest season. Another tradition the people of the village do not want to break is having the slips of paper, that tell someone when their life is going to end, be drawn from the black box. Every year when Mr. Summers asks someone to make a new box, because the one that is currently being used is splintering and falling apart, no one volunteers.
Once every year on June 27th a person from the village loses his or her life to the lottery. This is the town's tradition to ensure they have a good harvest season. People in the village do not think the lottery is a big deal; it's just something that happens every year like Halloween. They do not think that killing someone by throwing stones at them to keep a tradition going is wrong because it has been done for so many years they are afraid something terrible will happen if they stop. That's why I think this story is ironic because in order to keep something horrible from happening they do something horrible to an innocent person. The people of the village feel they have to carry on the tradition that started when the village began.
(http://www.neatorama.com/2011/04/14/the-lottery-by-shirley-jackson/)
9/30/12 Dan
Honors English 9 Block 7
Different Cultures in “Birthday”
Divorce and love are the starting points in “Birthday” by David Wong Louie. The story advances upon those points and develops the characters with flashbacks. The actual real-time happenings though, along with the fact that the main character is a Chinese man in America, are only brought up every once in a while. It seems like the issue of cultural bias is avoided by the main character, just like he tries to avoid facing the complicated family issue.
“Birthday” is a story about Wallace Wong, a Chinese-American, just like the author. However, the story focuses on Wallace’s relationship with his ex-girlfriend’s ex-husband named Frank, and Frank’s son Welby; Frank actually appears in the story, while Welby is only talked about. Basically, the short story’s title references Welby’s birthday, and because it is Welby’s birthday Wallace goes to visit the boy. However, the boy’s father Frank is the only one at the house (Welby is at a friend’s home). Flashbacks occur when Wallace waits for Welby to come home. Most of the story and plot reveals are in these flashbacks, while the real-time events are of Wallace sitting in Welby’s room. Not much action goes on in the real-time parts. Instead, Wallace sits and describes what goes on around him. The exception is the ending, when he takes matters into his own hands by making a cake he knows the boy will enjoy.
Wallace Wong is of Chinese descent, while the other important characters are not. It all takes place in the United States of America, so Wong is a part of a minority, and his cultural difference does affect the story. The first time Louie mentions that Wong is Chinese is with the line “CHINESE ROMEO BITES GYM FLOOR.” The line is an imagined, embarrassing newspaper heading made up by Wallace himself. Later on in the story there is a mention of Wallace’s parents wanting him to marry a Chinese woman, as opposed to Welby’s mother who is of some other nationality. Wallace says “I tried to imagine myself as a condor at the dead end of evolution.” By saying that, he was comparing endangered animals to the race of Chinese people and the fact that he’d have to mate with a Chinese female to best continue the “species.” That is not really how things work out scientifically, but Wallace acknowledges the strangeness of the situation and quickly moves on. The last big mention of a Chinese feeling of alienation in America is in a story involving Wallace calling a radio psychologist. He told his tale of the divorce and Welby only to have the radio producer tell him it was too complicated. The listeners wouldn’t care unless he took out all “the Chinese stuff.” He doesn’t respond well to that. Though, this is important in that it shows that Wallace being Chinese ties directly into the issue of the family.
The themes of the story are about rights and influence of a person, but poor Wallace isn’t on the winning side for Welby in the court case and he eventually comes to see that Welby doesn’t even like the same things he used to. “…plastic and chrome. Do kids instinctively gravitate toward these materials? Whatever happened to animal love, the considerate petting of fur?” This may be about a “nature vs. nurture” type thing; with artificial plastic and chrome symbolizing Frank’s choices in raising his son, the “nurture”, and the petting of animal fur symbolizing what Wallace believes in, “the nature.” Now isn’t it true that people aren’t born with stereotypes in their heads? Those thoughts come about in the nurturing of a child. It seems that Wallace naturally sides with nature’s “lack of care” in the issue. But the story doesn’t focus on the Chinese aspect. It is rather about a stressed out man, and the awkward feel of being a minority undercuts the entire thing. The aspect doesn’t really have enough focus to steal the spotlight, but it has enough to subtly induce action. If a reader were to go through the story again and look out for this ethnological kind of thing, they would notice that once a reference to Wallace’s nationality is made the story quickly shifts gears to something else. It is as if Wallace doesn’t want to think about it so he goes to something else, and by the end of the story, both issues boil up to the point where he goes and solves them both. He bakes a cake to cheer up Welby, and the process of baking brings his mind to peace; he is doing something he enjoys, and that all types of people can benefit from- cooking sweets.
David Wong Louie makes a story here that involves two men of different nationalities pitched in a conflict that all men can relate to, a love of their children and the aspect of a “birthday.” And even though an argument goes on between the two and lies unresolved by the end, Wallace’s actions by baking the cake show that all men can relate to childhood and a love of innocence. It is a universal feeling.
9/30/12 Caroline
English-9
Gender Theory “The Telephone Call”
Have you ever wanted something so badly but not been able to get it? The woman in “The Telephone Call” wants a call from a man so badly that she prays to God. This story has many elements in it regarding gender. Reading a story using a criticism theory can change your view on any story that you read.
“The Telephone Call” is written by Dorothy Parker in an internal monologue. It is of the thoughts of an unnamed woman. All she wants is for a guy to call her back. She worries about it so much that she cannot sit still. She keeps talking to God hoping that “he” will make the man call her back. She feels that she cannot call him herself. She will not be able to do anything until this man calls her back. This story was also written out of context. The author never provides any information about the setting, time period, or characters. We can only assume these things and without the information it is difficult to understand a lot of aspects of the story such as, who the woman is, who the man is, what is the relationship between the woman and the man, why is he going to call and why is it so important that he calls.
My initial evaluation of this piece of literature is that it is simple. Anybody waiting for a phone call or message would understand the way that this woman thinks. The way it was written in an internal monologue was one thing that I found quite interesting. Being able to see what a person or character is thinking along with what they are saying or doing adds a different depth to the story. The fact that this story was written slightly out of context was confusing at sometimes because you weren’t always sure exactly what was going on. It is possible that she wrote it like this to give the readers to relate to the story. If she had been more specific it would have been harder to relate to.
Analyzing this story with a critical theory completely changes my view on the story. I am analyzing this story with the Gender or Feminist theory. This theory regards equality between men and women and the way that they are treated. The way that this unnamed woman is portrayed is that all she cares about is that this man calls her back. She will not leave the phone or do anything else in fear that she will miss the call. This is suggesting that women are dependent on men to live life, that woman cannot be happy unless they have a man. It is implied in this story that it is a woman’s job to stay home while men are out working. The character feels that she cannot call this man, he can only call her. Many girls feel that they cannot call a guy without being labeled “clingy” or “annoying”. The author is saying in the story that it is the man’s job to call the woman and a woman cannot call a man or they will be seen as desperate when they are not. The message that this story is conveying is that women need men to be happy. Parker could also have been mocking the way that this woman is thinking by showing how pathetic that she is thinking.
Reading a story while in a mindset of a critical theory can open up your mind and give you a better idea and understanding of a story that you read. It is quite helpful when trying to better understand any story. Gender is a big part of our culture today. Many people are picking up on things that are now considered “sexist” today that weren’t when literature first started to become popular.
10/1/12 Katy
English 9 Honors Block 7
How would you like to be the chosen one to be sacrificed? In “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson a woman is sacrificed, so that the town can ensure a good corn harvest. The people expect the sacrificing every year. As tradition, the sacrificing was done the same way every time by picking a slip from a black box in the center of the village. Everyone chose a slip and one had a black dot on it which Tessie Hutchinson happened to pick. She fought and fought but everyone forgot about being her friend and they sacrificed her like she was just a random person.
This story was set in the early nineteen hundreds making it more unbelievable that someone would be stoned. I believe the author did this on purpose to make us really realize how bad the stoning was. Also, the women did all the housework while the men either tended to the fields or worked. A moral for this story is that following tradition isn’t always for the best. This is because it can hurt people mentally and physically. Also, the people in the story don’t change traditions to be more modern, they follow them exactly to ensure the “best” results. The villagers didn’t really know how the lottery came to be but they still preserved the culture. This sacrificing allowed ritual murder to occur each and every year. Many people follow traditions today but have modified them to fit to today’s laws and standards.
The lottery shows a lot of symbolism too. The falling apart black box shows that no matter how old the tradition gets the people will not change. The black box was once replaced but the new box still contains pieces of the original box. This is because they want everything to be the same because nothing has ever been different for them. The lottery represents the passing down through generations and that no one has had a problem with the cruelty of the lottery. No one has ever questioned the lottery because every year that they sacrifice a person they have a good corn harvest which makes them believe that killing someone helps them with their farming.
“The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson clearly displays the cultural theory. Cultural theory is a way to show different races, religion, and ethnicities and the way they affect the characters in the reading. “The Lottery” connects to cultural theory because the village is all about keeping the ritual of the lottery as similar as it can be to the original happenings. Also, the women just want to get back to their housework and don’t even think twice about the killing of someone. In the story Mrs. Hutchinson said, “Wouldn’t have me leave m’dishes in the sink, now, would you, Joe?”. The lottery was just a usual thing for the villagers and they never questioned the killing of someone in the village. The lottery was all the people ever knew. They didn’t know change and if change would still give them a good harvest. The fact that the people didn’t want to save people’s lives for the sake of their town shows a cultural issue. This was just a way to get away with ritual murder. The story could also be connected with gender theory. This theory is also connecting, to the quote above, to the women doing all the housework and the men being strong and working independently outside the house. Also, the person who is sacrificed is a woman which could be a symbol that women are weaker, and less important, than men. The ritual is about the growth of the plants and to have a good harvest. This relates to the women being killed because women are a main part of fertility.
Following tradition isn’t always the best way to keep a culture alive. Changing a tradition could affect future generations positively. If the tradition in the book was changed many people’s lives could have been saved. No one wants to die for no reason or without a chance to fight or change the outcome. This custom of the lottery caused many people to die without reason. Change is often for the better and the people of the village in “The Lottery” did not realize that.
October 15, 2012 Jessica
“The Somebody” by Danny Santiago
If you have ever walked into school, and walked the hallways on your own the whole day, or maybe you sat by yourself at lunch, you have felt alone. Usually we find comfort in the bus ride home, knowing we will have family to love and greet us. Although, sometimes it is hard to even fit in, in your family. Maybe you’re parents come home late from work, or they are too busy with their own affairs. Whatever the issue is, you feel abandoned, or neglected. All you want to do is be seen. Much like Chato in “The Somebody” by Danny Santiago, that is one of the themes.
Chato de Shamrock is a rebellious teenage boy who seeks trouble wherever he goes. He lets everyone in L.A. Santiago
The first thoughts I had about Chato were that he was a rebellious teenager, just trying to anger society like rebellious teenagers do. He felt as though people do not understand him, therefore he had to act out to get the attention he wanted. For example, his violating of public property. Also his gang past is an example of his wanting attention, joining a group of dangerous friends puts a label on you. Being labeled is better than not being labeled at all for Chato. He has many qualities of an anti-hero, which makes readers try to see the good side of him. An anti-hero is someone who can be portrayed as both a hero and a villain. Chato breaks laws and wrecks his future, although he shows potential which makes us feel hopeful that he could change. For example, he likes speaking German, and wants to pursue learning more in his life. Maybe he is trying to escape his Mexican heritage, and learning another, that is another example of cultural theory.
As I read this story, I found joy in uncovering Chato’s feelings. Like many other readers, it is a comfort to see the good in characters with bad ethics. It was curious that he wrote his name all over town, and this made me think back to what made him leave the house that day. He left his mother at a house full of babies, which we can only believe are his siblings, and he mentions that he hates the smell of babies. Maybe that smell brings back bad childhood memories for Chato. Quite possibly he had a life of a crammed house full of other siblings overshadowing him. He constantly says “He is just a Mexican”, which leads me to believe he thinks that just being a Mexican is not a good way to live.
This story has examples of cultural theory most of all. Chato is a Mexican American teenager, whose dad is of the same race. He describes people that he feels are not worth his times by stating “They are just a Mexican”. As if being of the Hispanic race makes you unimportant. He says this about his father in the beginning of the story, when they are arguing about Chato skipping school. He also says it after he talks with a worker at the Boys Club. After he encourages him to better himself, Chato says that he is a Mexican like everybody else, and that he shouldn’t listen to him. Another example of cultural theory is that he doesn’t take anyone of his race seriously because he feels that no one takes him seriously in the world.
Chato’s rule breaking and risk taking is key to his persona. He spends the day walking around his old gang’s rival’s territory. He writes his name all over it, as if marking his being there, letting them know that he is still there. He needs to let someone know he is still there, even if it is his old rival. What Chato Is needing of is attention, because of the neglect he gets at home, and also after his gang moved away, he feels lonelier than ever. If he can get anyone’s attention, he feels that asking for theirs could get the most notice from the biggest crowd. To show he isn’t ‘Just a Mexican’ like everyone else. He wants everyone to see him for himself and not his race.
For example, he was especially proud of this one piece he did, and he sat and watched people go by and study it. This seemed like a very familiar process to him, like he had done it before. It is quite possibly that he did do this often, maybe it was a sort of escape from his world of neglect. It was a reassurance that people did notice him, and could think of him as talented. Once, he stated how one girl looked at his writing so understandingly, that he knew she wanted to meet him. This could be a reason why he mentions how he wants to be famous one day, if his parents don’t notice him, he wants all of L.A.
Cultural theory plays a big role in Chato’s view on life, from not respecting any person of the Mexican nationality, to not respecting himself. The cultural theme in this story is that one entire race is in superior to the rest. This makes the story more intriguing because it gives the main character an ”underdog persona”. It makes it look as though he would never win but it gives him the drive and gives us the hope that one day he would overcome it. Without the use of cultural theory in this story, Chato would not have as much shame for his race. He also would not have the same drive to prove himself to everyone.
9/29/12 Andrew
English 9 Honors Block 7
Straight Pool
Have you ever been ignored by somebody? In the short story, Straight Pool by John O’Hara, a man’s wife cheats on him with his friend because of his carelessness towards her. The part that makes it even worse is the fact that the man’s wife is always crying and he thinks it is her fault. He also thinks that he puts time into trying to make her feel good only to discover that she is cheating on him. The psychoanalytical theory can explain the reasoning behind these actions.
This short story is about a man whose wife is always crying and worried. She always asks her husband where he is going and worries about him talking to Jack McMorrow. Her husband cannot figure out what makes her upset and is afraid that she may hurt herself. However, sometimes she seems okay like when he was going to the funeral of his aunt and she did not go, but when he got back she was upset again. One night she got drunk and they got into a huge fight. After the fight he went to the pool room and talked to Jack McMorrow. The book ends with Jack going on a date and the man realizing that it is with his wife. However, the story is told from the point of view of an unreliable narrator. It can be deciphered by the reader that the man is actually causing his wife’s problems. He neglects her and goes out drinking a lot. This is what causes the wife of this man to cheat on him. Although the story is only told from the man’s point of view and the reader does not actually know what Jack is saying, it is implied that he is cheating with the man’s wife because of how the man treats her and how the story ends.
The psychoanalytical theory can explain the reason for the adultery that was committed by the man’s wife in this story. She may have cheated on him because of how he treated her and made her feel. It can be implied by the reader that the narrator does not notice how he treats her and thinks that she is the problem. This most likely caused his wife to ignore her ego and superego because of how she felt. The id overpowered the ego and superego of both the wife and Jack. If both of their egos and superegos had balanced out their id then they most likely would not have done this. The story also mentioned that the wife was drunk a few times which could have resulted in the clouding of her ego and superego therefore letting her id act freely. There are a few reasons that the psychoanalytical theory best describes this story. One reason is that the wife probably wanted someone to comfort and listen to her unlike her husband was doing.
Cultural studies do not very well suit the story. One of the few ways that cultural studies could be argued in the story was that adultery is frowned upon by society in many cultures. One more reason that cultural studies would not make a good argument is because the man and his wife were both equal. This means that the man was not superior to his wife unlike many stories that have been written. Marxist criticism would also not be a good argument for this story. This would not be suitable for the story because there is no evidence of social classes in the story. In fact it seemed that the man, his wife and Jack were equals and none of them were superior.
The psychoanalytical theory is strongly portrayed in the short story, Straight Pool by John O’Hara. The story shows how the id can overpower the ego and superego. When there is not a balance between the id, ego and superego there can be some actions taken that a person would not usually commit.
Suicides of Private Greaves” Critical Analysis
You’re lying in your bunk in the barracks when you hear a loud thump come from the floor above you. You run upstairs to investigate, and find people are circled around a soldier writhing on the ground with a leather strap tightened around his neck. In the beginning of, “The Suicides of Private Greaves” by James Moffett, Private Greaves is the soldier contorted on the ground and he has just unsuccessfully tried to commit suicide by hanging himself. This story was written in 1956, sometime after the start of the Korean War because the captain recalls when he and his comrades were in a hole in Korea waiting for the enemy to attack. “Suicides…” can be looked at by two critical analysis theories: Psychoanalytic and Cultural theory.
After Greaves is found lying on the floor, he is taken to the First Sergeant’s (Master Sgt Brodder’s) office where he is told how he is useless, that he is the government’s property and that “He doesn’t know why but they want you,” says Brodder. The Sgt also says that the only people allowed to kill him are the enemy, not himself. When Sgt Brodder says that to Greaves, I thought he was motivating and encouraging him to not give up and go out and fight until his death instead of ending it now. Greaves passes out and then is literally dragged into a chair by one of the assistants. When Private Greaves comes to, he tries to commit suicide for a second time by slitting his wrists with a pocket knife. Once again, unsuccessfully because Sergeant Krita applied pressure to and bandaged his wrists before Greaves started losing blood. The captain comes to talk to Greaves and tells him he should go back to training and that he thinks he’s “playing crazy.” Later during training, Private climbs the water tower and is about to jump but the colonel persuades him not to. Private Greaves is up on the platform, about to jump when he salutes the crowd that formed beneath him. The “full-bird” colonel salutes Greaves in response. The colonel feels exposed and naked because he hasn’t taken of his helmet in years. The colonel starts to ascend the ladder of the water tower as he starts to climb up the ladder when it says, “he saw the shapeless, half-created boy between the rungs.” I think this means Private Greaves did jump and the colonel is seeing the private falling, through the rungs of the ladder.
This story can be looked at with two critical theories: psychoanalytic theory and cultural theory. Some reasons that this story can be looked at psychoanalytically are that Private Greaves joined the military to get away from his troubled family. But Greaves “doesn’t like soldiers” which is one of the reasons why he relentlessly tries to commit suicide. He hints that his parents and family aren’t supporting when he’s in the office and he says they don’t write letters to each other. As Greaves talks to the people “helping him,” they get harsher. Brodder is emotionally putting him down, and then Krita physically beats him. “Suicides…” can be looked at with cultural theory as well. Sgt Clinton, an African-American soldier, brings Greaves into his office after the unsuccessful hanging and talks to him. Sgt Clinton helps Greaves in the beginning but in the end, he cannot get Private to come down from the water tower and he hurries away because he doesn’t know what to do. While he’s talking to Greaves, he remembers his mom saying that black people help the white children when they’re soft and helpless. As Greaves is looking around, the description of the scene is all some variant of “black.” For example, Greaves sees a picture of black baseball players and a
magazine with an African American woman on the front. Also, Sgt's Brodder and Clinton were both African American and the Civil Rights movement was taking place while this story was written which could explain all of the racial subjects.
Although “Suicides…” can be looked at with cultural theory, I think it can more closely be seen with a psychoanalytical lens. In “The Suicides of Private Greaves,” Greaves is treated very poorly. Because of the way he was treated by the sergeants and the other people “helping” him, it caused him to take his suicide to the next level each time. The way his assumed background and support from his family is made out to be, is a reason why Private Greaves enlisted and the fact that he “hates soldiers,” causes him to commit suicide the first time. In the military, drill sergeants and other positions of authority, “break down” and insult soldiers and then build them back up. This is what I think Sgt Brodder does when he tells Greaves that “the only people who can kill him are the enemy.” This may be a way of encouraging private to keep going, fighting and not to give up.
10/2/12 Emily
English Honors 9 McKeeby
A beautiful summer day, warm and not a cloud in the sky, and the flowers in full bloom. Dear Mrs. Hutchinson runs to the town square. As her thoughts were preoccupied with her housework, she had forgotten that it was the 27th of June, the ever so fateful day of the lottery. She can see everybody gathered between the postal office and the bank. Families huddle together, Mr. Summers before them all, waiting patiently with the traditional, black box at his side. What she is completely unaware of, however, is that she will be dead by noon, at the hand of her neighbors, her friends, and her family.
In “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson, there is a village with a peculiar tradition, where all the citizens gather once a year to determine, by drawing slips of paper from a beaten up wooden box, which one of them will be consequentially stoned to death. The tradition is old, and is meant to benefit the village’s crop growth and general good fortune. At first glance I chose to apply Marxist Theory to the story, noting that the most powerful, involved, and wealthy man, Mr. Summers, essentially holds everyone else’s lives in his hands, and that the lottery is done for the general benefit of the rest of the town. But while these ideas do generally fit with Marxism, upon closer analyses I determined Gender theory applied much more to the text than my interpretation using a Marxist approach.
The gender role ideals painted for you in the story probably come from the world in which Shirley Jackson lived. Jackson
The work can be evaluated through gender theory. In the story, all the females are perceived as timid, gossipy housewives in dressed “faded house dresses and sweaters”. The male characters, on the other hand are quite prominent, in every sense of the word, as well as there are many more of them mentioned in the story than there are females characters. The men were also portrayed as more aggressive and respected, when “Bobby Martin ducked under his mother’s grasping hand and ran, laughing, back to the pile of stones. His father spoke up sharply, and bobby came quickly and took his place between his father and his oldest brother”. Some male figures who collect respect as well as admiration throughout the story are Mr. Summers and Old Man Warner, who openly speak their minds on multiple occasions. Jackson
The most compelling piece of evidence, still, is the fact that the townsperson who is victimized in the end is Mrs. Hutchinson herself. Her identity as a female could stand for a few things. Maybe Jackson
While sexist gender roles are more against women than men in this particular story, they do affect both sexes, and are just as strong in today’s society as it was in 1949, the year “The Lottery” was published. Gender stereotypes are everywhere, creeping through advertisements and television and movies and literature. And it is this constant bombarding from the media gives us the ideas that men need to be athletes with movie star good looks, and women should look like underwear models, sometimes being unintelligent to boot. These false ideas are what give people unrealistic expectations of others, expectations that can hurt people who don’t fit them, given the right circumstances. But if people were to except others small traits that the media insists are unattractive, what would become of us? And if we looked at everybody else, not seeing only a sex –or a race or social class for that matter- but instead seeing a brilliant, incredible, unique human being with ideas and the potential to positively contribute to something? Well, then I think we could all move forward unified, as one society, to a beautiful and successful future.
How far are we willing to go for our traditions? Are we going to go against and sacrifice each other over something with no logic or proof to back it up? “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson revolves around this topic. The unorthodox traditions of one town are enough to overcome logic and common sense once every year. Every year the ritual, known as the lottery, claims its newest victim.
Once a year on the day of June 27th, one village gathers and holds a lottery, conducted by Mr. Sumers. The idea behind this event is that one person will be sacrificed in order for the village to have a good crop season. Slips of paper are drawn from a black box, the same box that has been used for generations, and whoever gets the piece with the mark on it is stoned by the crowd. In this particular lottery Ms. Hutchinson is the victim. As soon as Mr. Hutchinson revealed his blank slip, it was obvious who was next. Taking stones from the pile the children had formed, the villagers closed in on Ms. Hutchinson and killed her. The lottery has been going on for so long, the villagers do not know a time without it and will not change their ways. In some ways this story was like The Hunger Games, because of the way it was held annually, was important to the town, and a ceremony was held for the event. The main reason I found it similar to The Hunger Games is due to the fact that people were “chosen” to potentially die, or, in the case of “The Lottery,” actually die, and there was no real sense to it. When this story was published in the New Yorker in 1948, the same year it was written, “The Lottery” received negative attention and caused controversy.
When I first read this story, my initial reactions were confusion and annoyance. I was confused because I did not fully understand what the point of holding a lottery was. What difference would it make whether they sacrificed someone or not? I was also a little annoyed for a similar reason; I kept wondering why they would do something so stupid and irrational. Why had they continued to carry on such an act of violence and why had no one thought to speak out against it or put an end to it? It seemed to me like they had lost their senses and were behaving like animals. It doesn’t take a genius to realize stoning innocent people to death is not going to have any effect on the crops. I also thought this story was a bit odd because of the way the people acted as if the lottery is no big deal; even though what they were doing (killing someone) is a serious matter.
From a standpoint of critical evaluation, this story can be seen differently. “The Lottery” works with the psychoanalytic theory, specifically the “id”. The id is the part of the psychoanalytic theory, the theory that considers what the characters were thinking or feeling, that looks at the instinct of the characters. The reason I believe it is the id is because the main event of the story mostly deals with animal behavior. The whole idea of killing someone so the crop season will be good has no logic or sense to it, and is simply their instinct. The psychoanalytic theory also includes the superego. The superego deals with the moral values which the characters have acquired during their lifetime. The superego can be applied to this story because the reason the lottery was still held was because the characters had done it their entire lifetimes, and knew nothing different. Society thought nothing of it and generations before them considered it to be very ideal. In the story Shirley Jackson writes “‘They do say,’ Mr. Adams said to Old Man Warner who stood next to him, ‘that over in the north village they’re talking about giving up the lottery.’” To that, Old Man Warner responded by calling them a “pack of crazy fools.” Also, when Mrs. Adams informed Old Man Warner that some towns had discontinued the annual lotteries he told her that would stimulate nothing but trouble. That shows that the people have been doing the lottery for so long, they see more wrong in not holding the lottery than in continuing to hold the lottery.
“The Lottery,” by Shirley Jackson shows how far people will go based on their instinct, superstitions, or traditions. In this case, people were killed over something with no logic to back it up. No one had any proof that had a villager not been killed each year, the crop season wouldn’t be successful. If someone had come to their senses and realized it was illogical, many people could have been spared. This story goes with the id and superego aspects of the psychoanalytic theory. It works with the id because the lottery is the result of the characters’ instincts, and it works with the superego because the lottery is held because the characters still hold the lottery because it is in their moral values and is what they believe is right. Reading this story from a critical point of view presents the reader with new things to think about and brings up different sides of a story. “The Lottery” shows that sometimes common sense of people can be overruled by their instinct.
Source Page
-used for background of story
-used for parts of psychoanalytic theory
“The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson
Have you ever feared death? Have you ever used every daily social interactions to handle stressful situations? Have you ever felt guilty for not acting in a way that everyone else is acting? All of these questions will be answered in this essay. In the short story “The Lottery”, by Shirley Jackson, we can use the psychoanalytic theory to gain insight into the understanding of the story. This theory is based on the works of Sigmund Freud. Sigmund Freud was a German neurologist who believed that these three parts of thinking could answer all questions of human behavior. This will reveal why the people acted this way in the story and will also show some underlying themes.
The short story “The Lottery” takes place in a small unnamed town. Everyone is gathered around in the square for the drawing. All of the men of the family go up and take a slip and if they get the wrong slip of paper then “the Lottery” is only between that family. Then all of the family members of that family must also choose a slip and if they get the wrong slip that person is then stoned by the rest of the community. At first glance this book seemed like it was depicting a dystopia. I also thought that it was very wrong and gruesome for the townspeople to stone another human! Once I took a more in depth look at the story I found out many other themes though.
Sigmund Freud describes the id in human beings as their most basic functions that they are born with. The id controls the desire to survive. The desires of the id are unconscious. Examples include a person’s needs for survival, including food, water, safety and other basic things like shelter and warmth. It is common among all people to have these inborn characteristics. In “The Lottery”, an example of the id at work is displayed by Tessie Hutchinson. Tessie Hutchinson was a community member; a married housewife with three children. In the town lottery, the men of the house choose names from a box. Whichever man is chosen, he and his family must all then put their names in a box. A second lottery is drawn within the chosen family, to determine who dies. When Tessie’s husband was initially chosen, Tessie tried to fight back, saying the lottery wasn’t handled fairly. When she was chosen within her family to be killed, she continued to protest. When she is about to be stoned to death, she tries everything that she can to stop the village crowd from stoning her to death. This character displays a desperate attempt to survive – the id. Also, everyone at the lottery was nervous for the lottery drawings and was fearful for their own lives. This is another example of Freud’s theory on the id. Within id there is also a feeling for protection of your family. Bill Hutchinson exemplified this part of id when he tried to protect one of his daughters from being put into the second portion of the lottery.
Another part of physcoanalytic theory is the next level of thinking, the ego. The ego controls the impulses of the id and makes them come out in a socially acceptable way. The ego deals with the reality of the world and tries to mix the reality of the world with the needs of the id. An example of the way the ego works is shown in “The Lottery” by many characters. Tessie shows the ego part of her personality when she fights against the lottery in a socially acceptable way to try to change her fate. She speaks to her neighbors and tried to convince them. She did not get violent. She also showed ego by acting as if this ritual, “The Lottery”, were normal. When she first came to the town square to participate in the Lottery with her family, she said she was alter because she had to finish cleaning her dishes. She joked to others that they couldn’t expect her to leave her dishes dirty! This is very ironic since the lottery was a life or death situation. Children, waiting for the lottery to start, also make a game out of gathering the stones used to execute the chosen person. They make the pile of rocks into a fortress and try to protect it from other children. All of the villagers, once gathered for the Lottery, started to talk about normal things like gossip and the weather to try to act as if the lottery were normal in their daily lives. Even the person who conducted the ceremony was very laid back and relaxed even though he also knew that it was an awful thing and would end in death.
The other level in Frued’s theory was the superego. The superego is what controls our morals. The superego is built and shaped by the ideals that you grew up with. You usually attain theses morals from society and your family members. An example of the superego is displayed in how this whole town handles the idea of killing someone. They have established a standard in their community that says that it is necessary to hold a lottery and for all to participate. In fact there is a conversation about how other towns have stopped holding a lottery. Many people who heard this gave a reaction of anger towards these communities because this ritual has been going on for many years. While many people do not like this ritual their superego tells them that the ritual is necessary because that is how they grew up. Tessie’s youngest son also displays superego by throwing the rocks that were given to him by some parents, even though it was at his own mother. He did this because in he grew up in a society where this was expected of him.
In conclusion, “The Lottery”, by Shirley Jackson, can be deciphered by using Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory of personality. I think that looking at the story through this lens helps me better understand the story. It gives me an explanation of how an event like this could occur in a community. By analyzing this story through this lens it also showed me how important the values you get from your community are and how it can affect your later self. It also struck me that the theme of this book is similar to a currently popular series, The Hunger Games. Shirley Jackson wrote this short story, “The Lottery” in 1948 and the Hunger Games were just recently published which shows how interesting this topic is to many people. I recommend this story. I also would advise the reader to look at it through a psycho analytic view like I did because the story becomes more meaningful.
10/15/12 Tori
The Eggs of the World
There was once a man who was feared by many. He was not all that scary, just clever. The problem was that he was clever when he was drunk and when he was sober. People feared this because they could never tell if he was sober or not, so they never knew what he might say or do to them. They hated him but did not dare to ridicule him.
At first glance the story is very confusing and doesn’t make much sense. The author wrote this story to be confusing for the reader to make the reader want to think about the story more and try to understand it. For example Sessue says "You have me wrong! I cannot break the eggs. You cannot break the eggs. You can break an egg though." It is told in the point of view of the young boy. Even though he doesn’t have many lines or much importance it is still told in his point of view. The first time it is read it feels like there is this giant underlying meaning to everything he is saying. You can’t quite figure it out when you’ve read it only once. For the first time it just seems like the ramblings of a confused, drunken man. Throughout the story you wonder if he is drunk or sober because he could be either with some of the things he says. You also wonder if Mr.Hasegawa is taking Sessue seriously or if he is just trying to make him realize how ridiculous he sounds.
The story was set in Japan
When I read this story I looked at it through the lens of psychoanalytic and Marxist theories. The criticism could be Marxist because everyone fears Sessue, like he is better than them somehow. It seems like he is on a different social level just because he is clever when he is drunk and when he is sober. Even though everyone hates him they have a certain respect for him like they’ll have a consequence if they don’t. It could also be psychoanalytic because Sessue says that Mr.Hasegawa must break out of his egg or he will rot, meaning he won’t have lived his life to the fullest. But, he says the boy’s egg is only just forming and he has some time before he must break his own egg. When you are young you don’t have an egg but as you grow older your egg starts to form if you don’t do anything to stop it.
This story led me to believe that the critical approach should be psychoanalytic. I think the author was inputting some of his own personal feeling because I felt like I could relate to it or at least understand the reasoning once I fully understood the story's main point. It also led me to believe it was too deep and well thought out to have just been made up. You have to have goals in your life even when you’re very young and once you have them you must achieve them, don’t let yourself give up on them. You have to do everything you want to do in life while you’re young; when you’re not afraid to hold back because you have nothing to lose. Once you’ve done them you can get new goals and keep achieving them as you get older. You are not afraid to try to do them because you have accomplished your goals before so you can do it again. But, if you never try to achieve your goals when you’re young you wont try to when you’re older and you will be “stuck in an egg” like the other people who never amount to anything or do what they want to in life.
9/29/12 Stephen
English 9 Honors Block 7
Critical Analysis of “Why, You Reckon?”
You are walking across the street from your car when all of a sudden you are being grabbed and shoved down a long dark hallway. You think to yourself that you are just a young boy. You are all alone except for strangers who have one goal: taking everything you own. During early to middle 1900’s this is how it was lots of conflict between minorities and whites, as there still is today.
“Why, You Reckon?” written by Langston Hughes is a story of racial inequality during the Great Depression. The story takes place in the late 1920’s in the Harlem area of New York City. Harlem is a predominantly black area of the city, so when a white man was in the area there was bound to be trouble. During the Great Depression, the unemployment rate was extremely high and those that had jobs made very little money due to the state of the economy.
“Why, You Reckon?” starts out with ‘hongry’ black man in need of monetary assistance. Another black man offers him some money for food if he helps them steal from a white man. The black man is persuaded into helping the others carry out the “stick up”. After the white male is taken in and stripped of his belongings, all of the black men, except one, left with the white boys stuff. The one African American left, the one who was originally the most in need of the money, was abandoned with the white boy. While together, they developed an understanding of each other’s situations.
This piece of writing can be connected to aspects of life in many ways. In today’s society for teenagers, there is an idea of different social levels, just like there is in “Why, You Reckon?”. For example, “popular” kids cannot be seen with “nerds” or “geeks” because other popular kids will make fun of them. This is how teenagers view social classes. Yet if a popular kid actually takes the time to know a nerd they might find that they have a lot in common. In “Why, You Reckon?” the popular kids would be the whites, who wouldn’t be caught dead with a black. The geeks are more like the minorities or more specifically the blacks.
“Why, You Reckon?” can have many different meanings to it. On a first glance at the story, without using any critical theories, it can be simply viewed as a simple story showing racial differences in the Depression Era. The story clearly shows the difference between races at the time. Other than that, there is no other main theme located on top of the story. In order to uncover the rest, a critical theory is necessary. Two theories that apply to this story are Marxist Theory and Cultural Theory. The fact that race is such an important issue in the story would qualify it as cultural. There is a definite line between the two races that is easy to see and understand. The descriptions and point of views also show this aspect of the story. When you look more into the story you also notice the aspects of a Marxist idea. The blacks and the whites are clearly of differing social classes, the white being in a higher class compared to the black. There is another line drawn between the two classes. It is shown as the white boy having a car with a driver and lots of fancy things while the black can’t even find food. The Great Depression also amplifies this idea of extreme differences between social classes.
“Why, You Reckon?” shows the contrast between different backgrounds. Race is a very strong issue in the story and as is the idea of different social classes. It shows how people have a hard time of understanding each other unless they’ve walked in their shoes. Different races and different social classes face different issues in life. They have different struggles. But no matter what color your skin is or how much money you have, everyone faces problems in their life.
Robby Block 7
“Why, You Reckon” Critical Interpretation
It’s a cold, dark night in Harlem during the 1930’s. A street filled with men all of the same race, all hungry and angry. A rich-looking white person sticks out like a sore thumb, walking with a girl on their way to a club. But then he stops, turns around and goes back to his car to get something by himself. He never gets there. A plan was contrived to teach this man a lesson. But somehow, this ends up changing a starving mugger’s mind about money, social classes and life in general. How did this racial battle end up a mental debate about the importance of money?
“Why, You Reckon” is a story about an African-American man living in Harlem during the Great Depression. It begins when another black man asks him to assist him in a stick-up. His plan was to grab a rich white guy coming out of a club, and then mug him. At first, the main character refuses, because it was against the law. But after a little coaxing from the other man, he agrees because of his hunger. They waited until nighttime, when they saw a young, rich white kid going back to his car to grab’s his friend’s purse. The black men snatch up the white guy (Edward) and drag him to the basement of an apartment complex where nobody goes. The other black man takes the white kid, Edward’s, money, watch, cigarette lighter, coat and even his shoes, while berating him for walking into Harlem “All dressed up in a tuxedo with… diamonds shinin’ out the front of it”. This appears to terrify Edward, to the point where it looked like he was about to cry. After this, the other black man who took the guys clothes and money ran off, leaving the first man without a dime. While he was helping Edward to a cab, Edward announces that it was “the first exciting thing that ever happened to me”. Then, the shocked black man tells Edward that with all his money, he would be having a good time. Edward says “No you wouldn’t” leaving the black man to ponder why, with all their money, these rich whites weren’t happy.
At first glance, this story appears to be about the problems between blacks and whites during the Great Depression. Race was certainly involved in people’s judgment of one another. Blacks seemed to feel an immediate resistance of whites, while whites pretended not to notice blacks. This is what legitimized the two main African-Americans in the story’s decision to stick-up Edward, who is white. Even after they took him, the racial divides continue to the point where the other black man didn’t even understand Edward’s full name, because he was a third, having the same name as his father and his grandfather. But after the crazy man leaves, the storyteller realizes that blacks and whites are really not that different, and can sometimes be more similar to each other than members of their own race, because of Edward’s awkwardness, and he sends Edward off on his way. The moral of someone reading the story this way would be that everyone is equal, no matter what their color. But is the real point of the story even about race?
While it may seem this story is about the divide between the races, it actually isn’t completely. Critiquing this story in a Marxist way, it is about money, and people’s opinions on how important it really is. The reason is one little detail early in the story. While the man who approaches the storyteller does say that they would grab “The first white guy… (who) looks like buck”, he makes almost no mention of the person they plan to grab’s race after. While there are certainly racial points in the story, they are not dominant, social class prejudice is. In the story people of the lower social classes think that it is the most important thing there is, because not only does it help them survive, it provides them with commodities. The rich people who set the trends like Edward place a lower value on money because they have a lot of it. They have all the precious commodities, and some of them (like Edward) realize how useless some commodities are. People who don’t have a lot of money think that it brings happiness, people who do realize that that is not always the case. Lower social class people might not always understand this, causing resentment, which was one of the reasons why the African-American men kidnapped Edward. Also, they didn’t just take him because he was white, they took him because he was rich too. From the beginning, the Marxist theory is proven. The reason they are in this whole mess is because of their lack of money. They have almost no commodities, while Edward and his friends have enough to last a lifetime. Using these critiquing methods, the reader realizes that this story, which first appears to be all about the racial the divides of the Great Depression era, is really about social classes and money, the value people of different social classes place on it and the divide and resentment it creates.
How important is money really? Different people would give different answers. Hughes, a man who had been both rich and poor, lived in the white world and the black, realized that money doesn’t solve every problem. But he also realizes how tantalizing money can be to someone who doesn’t have it. In the story, Hughes creates 2 contrasting characters. One character (2nd Black Man) to represent how Hughes felt about money before his fame and one (Edward) to represent how he felt about after he was rich. His point in writing this story is to show us that if money doesn’t bring us happiness, other than to survive, who needs a lot of it? And someday Hughes hopes, maybe everyone else in the world will realize the uselessness of unnecessary commodities, if they don’t bring happiness.
Meagan L.
It is not easy being the victim of bullying. Sue Johnson was targeted by her classmates because of her skin color. The only friend who wasn't judgmental of Sue was Doby. Even though Doby was only a figment of her imagination, he understood Sue better than anyone else. The day Doby went was a turning point in the life of Sue Johnson.
The short story "Dobys Gone" by Ann Petry takes place in the town of Wessex , Connecticut New York but decided to trade their farm life for a quaint New England town with traditional colonial houses. On the farm Sue Johnson had no kids to play with. She was around the age of two when Doby first appeared. Sue and Doby did everything together. It was important that Doby always had a spot at the dinner table, or a seat on the bus. He even slept in a chair next to Sue's bed so that they would wake up at the same time. By the time Sue was six-years old and starting school, her mother wished Doby to fade out of her life, but Sue had to learn to let Doby leave on her own.
Sue Johnson was an African American. She was no different from the other kids except her skin was black. It was obvious to the other children Sue was different on the outside, and Doby could only understand what Sue was like on the inside. Adults like Sue's teacher knew not to judge her but young children did not. Although Sue had Doby and her teacher, she lived in constant fear of the other children.
One day Sue was walking home and she didn't see the group until it was too late. They circled around her and began their chant, this time even threatening her physically. One child even went as far as to slam Sue in the back. The limit had been reached and Sue cracked. Fuming with rage she began to hiss, spit, bite, scratch, and flail her limbs in every direction to show she was not as weak and vulnerable as they thought. Immediately the crowd dispersed leaving only Sue. It was in the midst of Sue's tantrum that she realized Doby had gone for the first time in her life. It was different though. Sue accepted that he had left and wasn't coming back. It was almost as if Sue's problems had gone with Doby.
Showing her strength inspired other kids to open up to Sue. A boy and a girl who once shunned her now reached out to try to befriend Sue. Together the trio walked towards the center of town. Along the walk they had a laugh hallooing into a well. Finally at Sue's house her mother asked why she was in such a disastrous state, and Sue replied "Oh! Dobys gone". Completely forgetting the past Sue was ready and eager to enjoy friendship and grow up.
When Sue Johnson was being bullied by the other children she did not fight back or stand up for herself until it became a daily thing. It is an understatement to say she was brave. A six-year old child displayed the maturity of an adult. Her actions sparked the idea of equality in the minds of other young children her age. Every person should try to accept people the way Sue learned to accept herself.
Throughout this story there are many examples of racism, harassment, cultural diversity, and conflicts because of race. Sue is picked on by her peers because she is African American. Although the children are young, it is still very offensive to Sue and her culture to make fun of her skin color. It was also very disappointing that at such a young age kids were judging each other. For these reasons I believe the cultural theory best represents the main themes of this short story.
The Author of this short story was an African American herself. She grew up in a predominantly white town and was just barely a part of the middle class. Ann Petry's experiences during her childhood may have affected her ideas and themes of "Dobys Gone". It was important for the main character, Sue, to show strength because Ann established herself as a strong writer and important contributor to literature despite her race. Ann could connect to Sue because she probably experienced racism and bullying in her schools as a child. Obviously it is not your race that affects your success, but your drive to reach your goals. Based on the connections between Ann Petry and Sue this short story could also represent the autobiographical theory.
Overcoming society is a difficult task. Sue Johnson gained her equality by showing her strength and letting go of the past. In the short story "Dobys Gone" by Ann Petry the cultural theory can be used to describe the relationships between different races. The autobiographical theory is also displayed in this story. It is never fair to judge somebody based on their outward appearance. Sometimes the ones who understand us the most are even closer then we think. If you learn to let go of the things holding you back then no judgement can ever affect your positive state of mind.
Nick Tymeson 10/1/12
Mr.McKeeby Final Draft of Paper
We don't realize what wandering mean, sometimes we find ourselves doing it, we just don't really get it automatically. When we go for walks, longer than necessary, roaming around in our own little world, nothing could bother us. We often see signs of wanderers who leave their marks, literally. Like on trains, rooftops, etc. Quite frankly, I see it daily; Random people doodling on property that isn't theirs, writing useless information. Have you picked up on this as well? I always wanted to understand the reasoning behind it. Think about it for a second. You're in a car say driving to the market and you take a glance to your right to notice someone's name on a wall, belonging to a store. The font is big, bright, obnoxious, and hard to miss, located right smack in the middle of everything. What is the first question that comes to your mind? For me it's simply, why would you? Which types of feelings was the writer feeling? There could be a wide variety of answers, most of them all making sense. Go ahead and pick, and see if it relates to the story of a Mexican teenage boy, who drops out of school just to do this every day, with his reasoning hidden.
This story is called The Somebody by Danny Santiago. Other than my brief description, I found this story weird, confusing, and a little random. The boys name is Chato; well that's what his gang members call him. If you were to ask him why, he'd simply respond with," I want nothing to do with my father, and my actual name has to do with him." This depressing type of interaction towards someone, suggests that he could want to prove himself to his father, in a way. Especially just to show him that he isn't the type of kid he thought he was. Some teenagers could say that that's what they try to do in real life situations. That would later turn out to not work out too well for him.
So as he begins on his journey out of his house, to the world permanently he leaves and goes almost everywhere writing his "signature" or message of something. First, he went to a gate, just to find the markings of another gang. Quickly, he rubbed those remains clean off, and he made a mark of his own. He really takes time with his writing, to make sure his penmanship is utterly perfect. This is important to him. Eventually in his process, he decided he needed to brighten it up a bit, so he purchased many crayons and markers of all colors.
As Chato continued to write random and meaningless things, he chose a spot to write and went back to it later. It was then he noticed a heart outlined his work, in an obnoxious color of lipstick. After sprinting ahead, he found the girl responsible. They both bickered back and forth and for some reason agreed to go writing together. Eventually the girl left him, and he ended up with two markers in his hand, both hideous colors, and no further ideas.
I found this story only having one type of criticism theory that would make the most sense, that being the Cultural Theory. I say this for many reasons. First, I think the character(s) are represented in a simple and almost pointless way, which could be related to certain groups of people, from different cultures, in real life. For example, there is a Mexican teenager. He doesn't get along with his family too well, decides one day to become a school dropout, and basically becomes a nobody who wanders the streets, writing. Also, somehow I think it makes sense that the character isn't represented as one to be financially stable. He just goes out on his own with nobody, and walks the street all day long, with nothing but crayons and markers. Another fact in the reading to support the cultural theory being able to apply to it is that it mentions in the beginning that the boy is Mexican. That really changed how I comprehended the rest. Just from that tiny word, my perspective change and I'm sure yours might have as well. That one part was very important. In a way, I think this story could also show a little bit of Psychoanalytic because the author could've used his own psyche and tie that into the story. But the entire story supports Cultural theory the best I thought.
As a result of analyzing this I got a better understanding of the theories that could possibly be the solutions to stories. I tried to come closer to answering my question from the very beginning. Which was simply; why do people do what I just mentioned? Is there a specific cause, or a hopeful effect? This I find is very important, and requires critical thought to be understood completely. Have you come closer to the answer? Think about it carefully.
Have you ever felt the pressure to do something that, when looked at from a larger perspective, is silly and pointless? Maybe it was because of your looks, your age, or even your gender. Gender theory plays an important part in the short story, A Telephone Call, by Dorothy Parker. Gender theory is the idea that some literature reveals bias between genders. The story is the internal monologue of a woman who is waiting for her lover to call her, and she is still waiting hours after he said he would call. It sheds light on the fact that we live in a world where gender roles are unfortunately unbalanced. Traditionally, the man is the powerful one, who will call when he wants to, and the woman is expected to wait for him and to not complain or show her feelings.
This woman has waited hours. She has prayed to God. She has felt anger, sadness, pain, and anxiety. And for all she (and the reader, for that matter) knows, this man who never called isn't even thinking about her. Her internal monologue starts exactly two hours and ten minutes past the time when he said he would call. This woman spends the entire tale wondering where her lover is, what he's doing, why he hasn't called her, and if God is angry with her and is punishing her. In the meantime, the man is nowhere to be found.
I generally liked this story. It was short, and profoundly showed the woman's craziness over this telephone call in a humorous way. It led me to think about why people enjoyed it and even laughed a bit at the narrator's situation. Maybe it is because we've all felt like that sometimes -- anxious, overthinking the situation -- and we can all relate. I know I certainly can. I thought the story was a bit vague at times, but maybe that was the appeal of it, so that we want to learn more. Unfortunately, we never find out the outcome - does he call? Is he dead? Stuck in traffic? Is he a jerk? --, As the last words of the story are the narrator feverishly counting by fives once again.
I picked gender theory to be the focal point of the story because it shows in every word that is written. The man is clearly the one with the power, and the woman is the one who is waiting on him. Her thinking shows how society has unequal expectations for men and women. For example, she doesn't call him because she doesn't want to seem too pushy, and if she shows that she is upset on the phone, he will resent her. "They don't like to see you cry." She says "they" as if men are all the same, as if none of them likes to see any woman cry. Women can't be thought of as strong, or willful, because that would make them powerful. And we know that women aren't powerful because powerful people can call someone on the phone, especially someone they love. Women must just wait.
In Dorothy Parker's short story, A Telephone Call, a woman tears herself apart while waiting for a man to call her. It shows gender theory because the woman is the one waiting, not the man. There are several points in the story where the woman thinks things that reveal that she understands men to hold all the power, while women should never complain and always wait patiently. It was a very well written and relatable story, and I liked it a lot. I am also glad that times have changed.
Megan C
Have you ever had to move houses so often it made your head spin? Every time you found happiness, you had to leave it behind? That's how one boy felt when he had to move a lot because of his father's ever changing jobs. For him, going to school was a privilege, one that didn't happen too often. In the short story “The Circuit” by Francisco Jimenez, when a young boy finally feels comfortable where he is, it's taken away from him. By using Marxist Criticism, you can gain insight to what truly is going on with the boy and his family in this story.
This boy's life is constantly changing. He was originally from Jalisco, Mexico and his family moved to the United States. His father is in need of work, so they move every couple months when he finds new jobs. In the beginning, the family works at a strawberry farm with a couple other families of the same heritage. The first time that the boy discusses moving is when they are leaving their current home. They pack up their car and drive to Fresno, California. They get to live in a broken down and dirty garage while they work at a labor camp. They worked in a vineyard; all three of the older men. Once the grape season had finished, the boy could go to school. He is in sixth grade, but since his brother Roberto is older, Roberto has to go work in the cotton fields until that season was over too. The boy has to go to school and enroll by himself, even though he can speak Spanish and only a little bit of English. When he gets asked to read in class, he doesn't know how so the teacher picks on someone else. At his lunchtime that day, and everyday after, the teacher helps him learn to read. One day the teacher asks if he wants to learn the trumpet. He agrees, but when he goes home that day, his “house” is all packed up, and the family is ready to move again. He doesn't get to go back to school.
The author, Francisco Jimenez, based this story on his childhood. He was born in Mexico, but lived in the United States. He grew up in a family of migrant workers. He never had a permanent home or regular school, as his family traveled around California to find work. This is all almost exactly what happened in the story he wrote. The family characters in the story are the same in his real life family. In the story, some Spanish is included, but is still easy to understand what is going on. The author connects his story with his life; much of it is real stories from his childhood. This story somewhat connects to modern day issues too. Just like the story, the economy today is unsatisfactory, and a lot of families can't afford enough food or houses. They need to keep traveling because they need to move with the harvest in order to be able to put food on the table. It's common for people to have to switch jobs, because of high unemployment rate going on right now. The family only has jobs during the different crop seasons, which is why they're migrant workers.
I thought this was a very well written and informative short story. Although it is fiction, it is based off a true story, and can still show true facts. It really shows what some families had to go through just to feed their kids. It also proves that going to school was a privilege to many, not something they dreaded at all. Many didn't get to have steady schooling because their families had to move with the harvest; basically when the season ended they had to leave to find new jobs. The boy's father doesn't speak English, so it's extra tough for him to find work. He'll take any job he can find to provide for his family. The older brother always works alongside his father. The mother cares for the younger kids. The boy does what he can to help his family, even if that means working all day in fields instead of going to school to learn. He helps his father and brother, who spend their lives trying to feed the large family. To think that they actually had to go through that is sad. The boy likes to learn, so when he does go to school, is not hesitant about wanting help to learn how to read better. That partly shows how important learning to read and write actually is; without it, life would be harder in general, especially when trying to find work. The boy speaks mostly Spanish, and isn't very book-smart because he only goes to school for part of the year. He even stays with the teacher everyday during lunchtime just to improve his reading and writing skills. He is so excited to show his family what he is learning, especially when the teacher offers to teach him the trumpet. It is heartbreaking for him (and me!) when he never gets a chance to because his family has to move again. The story even says, “..when I opened the door to our shack, I saw that everything we owned was neatly packed in cardboard boxes.” The cotton season finishes, and takes their families jobs with it so they have to find a new place to work and go to school.
“The Circuit” fits under the Literary Criticism category of Marxist Criticism. Marxist Criticism is an ideology created by Karl Marx, and focuses on the idea of social classes. That's what this story deals with. I thought Marxist Criticism applied to this short story because the family is very poor and the only way they survive is by moving around every couple months when different crops are in season. They work for upper-class people, who can afford to pay other people to harvest their crops. Only a few of the kids get to go to school because they need all the help they can get earning money for the family. Once they reach a certain age, they have to go find work with the rest of them. None of the children have a regular school, it changes whenever the family has to move for work purposes. The boy, when he is able to go to school, doesn't have any friends because he is a lower social class and they all know fluent English, know how to read and write, and have stayed in the same school. His only friend is the teacher, Mr. Lema. He has trouble reading because they speak Spanish within his family, and his textbooks are in English. The whole story is basically just a showcase of reasons they can't afford something, and what they need to do to earn the money.
The short story The Circuit was written by Francisco Jimenez. If you read this story using a Marxist point of view, you can analyze the text better and it'll help you understand it more. If you go more in depth, you can learn that the author wrote this story based on his childhood, but also used it to inform people about migrant workers and what that type of lifestyle is like. The fictional boy in this story enjoys going to school; he realizes how valuable the things he learns in it are but only because most of the year he doesn't get to go to school at all. He proves that school and learning shouldn't be taken for granted. Teenagers today need to realize that going to school is a privilege, and should make the most of it.
Have you ever had to move houses so often it made your head spin? Every time you found happiness, you had to leave it behind? That's how one boy felt when he had to move a lot because of his father's ever changing jobs. For him, going to school was a privilege, one that didn't happen too often. In the short story “The Circuit” by Francisco Jimenez, when a young boy finally feels comfortable where he is, it's taken away from him. By using Marxist Criticism, you can gain insight to what truly is going on with the boy and his family in this story.
This boy's life is constantly changing. He was originally from Jalisco, Mexico and his family moved to the United States. His father is in need of work, so they move every couple months when he finds new jobs. In the beginning, the family works at a strawberry farm with a couple other families of the same heritage. The first time that the boy discusses moving is when they are leaving their current home. They pack up their car and drive to Fresno, California. They get to live in a broken down and dirty garage while they work at a labor camp. They worked in a vineyard; all three of the older men. Once the grape season had finished, the boy could go to school. He is in sixth grade, but since his brother Roberto is older, Roberto has to go work in the cotton fields until that season was over too. The boy has to go to school and enroll by himself, even though he can speak Spanish and only a little bit of English. When he gets asked to read in class, he doesn't know how so the teacher picks on someone else. At his lunchtime that day, and everyday after, the teacher helps him learn to read. One day the teacher asks if he wants to learn the trumpet. He agrees, but when he goes home that day, his “house” is all packed up, and the family is ready to move again. He doesn't get to go back to school.
The author, Francisco Jimenez, based this story on his childhood. He was born in Mexico, but lived in the United States. He grew up in a family of migrant workers. He never had a permanent home or regular school, as his family traveled around California to find work. This is all almost exactly what happened in the story he wrote. The family characters in the story are the same in his real life family. In the story, some Spanish is included, but is still easy to understand what is going on. The author connects his story with his life; much of it is real stories from his childhood. This story somewhat connects to modern day issues too. Just like the story, the economy today is unsatisfactory, and a lot of families can't afford enough food or houses. They need to keep traveling because they need to move with the harvest in order to be able to put food on the table. It's common for people to have to switch jobs, because of high unemployment rate going on right now. The family only has jobs during the different crop seasons, which is why they're migrant workers.
I thought this was a very well written and informative short story. Although it is fiction, it is based off a true story, and can still show true facts. It really shows what some families had to go through just to feed their kids. It also proves that going to school was a privilege to many, not something they dreaded at all. Many didn't get to have steady schooling because their families had to move with the harvest; basically when the season ended they had to leave to find new jobs. The boy's father doesn't speak English, so it's extra tough for him to find work. He'll take any job he can find to provide for his family. The older brother always works alongside his father. The mother cares for the younger kids. The boy does what he can to help his family, even if that means working all day in fields instead of going to school to learn. He helps his father and brother, who spend their lives trying to feed the large family. To think that they actually had to go through that is sad. The boy likes to learn, so when he does go to school, is not hesitant about wanting help to learn how to read better. That partly shows how important learning to read and write actually is; without it, life would be harder in general, especially when trying to find work. The boy speaks mostly Spanish, and isn't very book-smart because he only goes to school for part of the year. He even stays with the teacher everyday during lunchtime just to improve his reading and writing skills. He is so excited to show his family what he is learning, especially when the teacher offers to teach him the trumpet. It is heartbreaking for him (and me!) when he never gets a chance to because his family has to move again. The story even says, “..when I opened the door to our shack, I saw that everything we owned was neatly packed in cardboard boxes.” The cotton season finishes, and takes their families jobs with it so they have to find a new place to work and go to school.
“The Circuit” fits under the Literary Criticism category of Marxist Criticism. Marxist Criticism is an ideology created by Karl Marx, and focuses on the idea of social classes. That's what this story deals with. I thought Marxist Criticism applied to this short story because the family is very poor and the only way they survive is by moving around every couple months when different crops are in season. They work for upper-class people, who can afford to pay other people to harvest their crops. Only a few of the kids get to go to school because they need all the help they can get earning money for the family. Once they reach a certain age, they have to go find work with the rest of them. None of the children have a regular school, it changes whenever the family has to move for work purposes. The boy, when he is able to go to school, doesn't have any friends because he is a lower social class and they all know fluent English, know how to read and write, and have stayed in the same school. His only friend is the teacher, Mr. Lema. He has trouble reading because they speak Spanish within his family, and his textbooks are in English. The whole story is basically just a showcase of reasons they can't afford something, and what they need to do to earn the money.
The short story The Circuit was written by Francisco Jimenez. If you read this story using a Marxist point of view, you can analyze the text better and it'll help you understand it more. If you go more in depth, you can learn that the author wrote this story based on his childhood, but also used it to inform people about migrant workers and what that type of lifestyle is like. The fictional boy in this story enjoys going to school; he realizes how valuable the things he learns in it are but only because most of the year he doesn't get to go to school at all. He proves that school and learning shouldn't be taken for granted. Teenagers today need to realize that going to school is a privilege, and should make the most of it.
April's point about the story (The Lottery)being released just after WWII brings to mind the group think that existed just after the invasion of Afghanistan and then Iraq. The fact is that we all understand this story all too well. To come to grips with how we kill people without any remorse as a society and then wash our hands is tough thing to do. Notice that one of the characters (Mrs. Hutchinson?) is actually doing dishes when it comes time to go to the killing. She is washing off the guilt only to put more blood on her hands. I think it turns out to be her own blood. Perhaps this is a ritual immersion in preparation for death (sacrifice) at the altar of the town? One of the essays brings to my mind the final line of a Robert Frost poem "and they since they were not the ones dead turned to their affairs." We each of us turn to our affairs when such horrors are committed in our name...
ReplyDeleteStephen,
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly liked your introduction and it really made me want to read more of the essay, and your idea on what critical theory should be applied was really clear-Noah
Nick, I thought your introduction was a bit lengthy but still intriguing. Also, it contained a lot of questions. Other than that that your paper was very well put together.
ReplyDeleteMegan L, You did a very good job in the application of the cultural theory. You also gave the reader a very clear idea of what happened in the story along with background information on the author.
I felt that many of these essays were nicely written. One that stood out to me was olivias, It was clearly written and I especally found the connection to the Hunger Games very interesting. -Caroline
ReplyDeleteEmily(The Lottery),
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your paper, especially the introduction, which I found very engaging and well written, which made me 100% want to read the rest of your paper.
Dan,
I really liked your conclusion, and how you related the characters in the story you read not only to a theory but to other people's life experiences.
-Jess Gordon
Emily,
ReplyDeleteI loved the way your introduction portrayed "The Lottery" as a story of a simple summer day and then ended with "What she is completely unaware of, however, is that she will be dead by noon, at the hand of her neighbors, her friends, and her family.". This twisted sentence inspired me to keep reading your essay. I thought that the gender theory was very appropriate to this story as i was so intereted i went and read "The Lottery" myself. It was a very good essay all around, great job!
Jess, I like your intro, it makes the reader relate to the story a bit before you start making your points, which I think is good. I also really liked how you talked about the many sides of Chato, I found that really interesting. You applied cultural theory perfectly, and the end really tied everything together- Emily B.
ReplyDeleteEmily,
ReplyDeleteI liked how you could picture everything that was going on in your essay. It was very descriptive and well written. The sentence that really grabbed my attention is in your introduction that says, "What she is completely unaware of, however, is that she will be dead by noon..." I really wanted to keep reading once I read that. I enjoyed reading your essay and agree with your choice of critical theorys. -April
I really enjoyed April's introduction and how it real tied you into the paper with tons of suspense right at the begging of the intro.I also like Caroline's conclusion and how it really summed it up while still using diverse words and not repeatedly using the same words.
ReplyDeleteHere are my comments on April's paper since she read my essay for peer editing and I never got to see hers bacause of how the papers got mixed up, but here it is.
ReplyDelete- the first paragraph sounded kind of weird, it may have been a switch in tenses (present to past) or something like that
- the bit about the "angry letters" was interesting
- I also liked the observation about the time of year and how it related to the harvest
- Although, I don't think you went far enough into the analysis. You could have written some more on the criticism in my opinion
Opinions on Tori's "Eggs of the World" essay
- I actually got hooked by the intro. It made me read your essay instead of some of the other ones
- "The eggs are the boundaries we have to cross if we want to make anything out of our time here on Earth." This line at the end of the third paragraph was deep and easy to understand at the same time. It was great to read.
- Your conclusion was my favorite single paragraph on this page. I liked it for the same reason I liked that sentence I mentioned. It was clear and awesome.
- My only complaint is the mention about Marxism. it doesn't really add to the essay much in my opinion.
Opinions on Nick's essay on "The Somebody"
- the introduction was really cool and intelligent
- Your mention of psychoanalytic theory towards the end of the paper sounded like you realized you needed to mention another theory as you were about to finish your paper and just "threw it in there."
- That aside, the conclusion was great, especially those last two sentences. They were fun to read because they mentioned the reader to end it all off.
Dan
Meagan L: I liked the info about the author, showed where story was coming from.. conclusion was good too, the ending statement was really well written.
ReplyDeleteApril: You're was really interesting, the description of the backround and the story plot was well done. The way you described it being a causal thing was good I thought.
--Megan C
Jess,
ReplyDeleteI think your intro was good and it made me want to keep reading your paper. Also you explained how Chato must have felt and why he chose to do what he did very well.
-Tori
Emily H-
ReplyDeleteI really liked your summery of A Telephone Call. It was short and sweet yet gave a good idea of what the story was. I also liked how you explained what gender theory was because it gives a clear idea of the message you are trying to get across. The first sentence in the intro grabbed my attention somewhat, but i think i would have been more intrigued if it was a bit simpler. Good essay over all!
-Kat B
Olivia, I really liked how your first sentence said that there really was no logic or proof of why they killed someone. I thought that was a great detail to grab people into your essay. Also I really like your connection to the Hunger Games because it is a very well known so someone who didn't read "The Lottery" would be able to really understand the harshness of it.
ReplyDeleteRobby, I really like your first sentence too because it sets the stage for the rest of the paper. The language in your paper was very mature and I feel the paper really flowed nicely.
-Katy
Meagan-
ReplyDeleteI really liked your essay about the short story "Doby's Gone". It made me want to read the story and really connect with Sue's situation. I saw how the author also connected to Sue. It did a good job of showing how frustrated she got at the kids who were bullying her because of her race. You did a good job of showing how the author had been in a similar situation and why she would have written a story like this. -Emily
April-
ReplyDeleteI think that your introduction was very strong. It made me want to keep reading. I also think that you describe the story well, because i understood what was happening in the story without haveing to actually read the story. Overall I think the essay was very well writen and I think you got your point across.-Claire
Tori-
I think that your conculison really wraped up the essay, but i think you should have made the conclusion paragraph into two paragraphs because you put the critical theory in with the conculsion. If you could change that I think that your essay would be complete. Also I think that you described the story well because i could see what you ment by the story was confusing unless you read it a few times. I think that overall the essay was well writen.- Claire