"The Lottery, " compiled by Shirley Jackson and William Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily" are admittedly very different reports. Although both reviews package with murder in some fashion, they vary in almost all of the significant elements of fiction including personality, plot, establishing and framework. However, "A Rose for Emily" and "The Lottery" promote an idea more powerful than murder. In different ways, both short stories bring focus on the tragic effects of the outdated, relatively senseless customs and practices that occur within their societies.
In Jackson's account the "lottery" is an inexplicable, violent taking place that occurs once a year in an private American village. No one in the village seems to know how or why the tradition started nonetheless they try to maintain it likewise. From the very beginning, Jackson points out just how "normal" this custom has become in the community. "The kids assembled first, of course. School was just lately over for the summertime, and the feeling of liberty sat uneasily on almost all of them; they tended to assemble together quietly for a while before they broke into boisterous play, and their talk was still of the classroom and the teacher, of literature and reprimands" [CITATION]. Even the kids have become familiar with it. The disturbing civility and normalness the villagers have toward the barbaric practice is well comprehended, even following the real stoning has begun. For example, Mrs. Delacroix, who looked like very friendly and pleasurable in the beginning of the report, is the same girl who does not have any problem selecting a natural stone "so large she had to pick it up with both of your hands, " to murder her good friend [CITATION].
Many aspects of the lottery have long been forgotten. The initial black box is gone, a chant performed by the official of the lottery had been forgotten and a ritual salute transformed over time. The one areas of the lottery villagers had not forgotten or improved were the rocks and the technique of eradicating the unfortunate champion. "Even though the villagers had ignored the ritual and lost the original black container, they still kept in mind to use stones. The pile of stones the boys got made previously was ready; there were stones on the ground with the blowing scraps of paper that had emerge from the pack" [CIATAION].
The blind popularity of this custom has allowed ritualistic murder to be so engrained in this population that some dread civilization will return to primitive times if indeed they reject it. "'Listening to young individuals, nothings good enough for them. The next thing you know, they'll be wanting to go back to surviving in caves, nobody work any more, live that method for some time. . . '" [CITATION]. Shirley Jackson's characters in "The Lottery" easily eliminate for no other reason than they have got always kept a lottery to get rid of someone. "'. . . Used to be a stating about 'Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon. ' Very first thing you understand, we'd all be eating stewed chickweed and acorns. Almost always there is been a lottery'" [CITATION].
This story focuses on how the power of world over the individual creates an extremely destructive nature of custom. Jackson creates a community where people live regarding to traditions and custom, never preventing to think individually or even to question their specific or collective behavior. Tessie Hutchinson is a victim of a cruel ritual and has no capacity to stop the occasions that determine her destiny. If the folks of the village acquired quit to question the lottery, they would be forced to ask themselves why they may be committing murder, but no-one ever quit to question it. Even Tessie Hutchinson acted nonchalant about it until her partner drew the condemned slip of paper. However, when Tessie have complain it was no more than the fairness of the particular drawing, not the absence of any interpretation behind it. "'I think we ought to start over, ' Mrs. Hutchinson said, as quietly as she could. 'I tell you it wasn't fair. You didn't give him plenty of time to choose. Everybody noticed that'" [CITATION]. She even goes so far as to try and make her little girl and son-in-law "take their chance. " Although plainly upset at the problem, Tessie makes no work to persuade the village that the lottery is merely barbaric foolishness, she'd do not have spoken up if someone else was chosen to be the scapegoat. Nebeker identifies the "horror" of thisё writing "man is not at the mercy of a murky, savage id; he is the victim of unexamined, unchanging practices which he could easily change if only he became aware their implications. Herein lies horror" [CITATION].
"A Rose for Emily" by William Faulkner also showcases the theory that adherence to tradition simply for the sake of tradition is a very dangerous social drive, albeit for different reasons. Unlike the people in "The Lottery" that belonged to a community dominated by the bizarre groupthink mentality, Emily continued to be really the only person in her speedily changing community who steadfastly refused to break with tradition. Just like Mrs. Hutchinson, Emily's life is sacrificed in the name of the tradition. Although Emily lives well into her later years, she has no genuine life to speak of, save for Homer Barron, the man she poisons. Although Jefferson as a town is changing substantially, lifestyle for Emily Grierson was defined by the attitudes and traditions of the antebellum South; customs which eventually resulted in her downfall.
According to Fang, one of the typical Southern traditions is "patriarchal chauvinism" [CITATION]. Emily's daddy had in a sense "robbed" her of her life. He previously deemed all potential suitors inadequate to marry his girl to keep her under his control. Emily eventually became so dependent on him that even after his death she cannot let him go, his denial and control was probably the only form of love she realized. It needed three days on her behalf to stop her father's body for burial. Faulkner creates, "We didn't say she was crazy then. We believed she had to do that. We kept in mind all the teenagers her father acquired powered away, and we understood that with little or nothing left, she would have to cling to that which experienced robbed her, as people will" [CITATION].
"Puritanical womanhood" is another tradition that helped to form Emily Grierson's fate. [CITATION] Fang argues that because the South was so highly affected by Puritan values women were necessary to remain submissive, faithful, humble, and humble. Emily must sustain her "noblesse oblige" all the time.
Another principle is the "conflict between community and individual" [CITATION]. Again, unlike the characters in "The Lottery, " Emily and individuals in Jefferson have very unique personalities that can conflict with the communal environment of the town. "When both come into conflict, it surely may cause great confrontation in case the energy of the city is strong enough, it often results the devastation of the average person" [CITATION]. This discord between Emily and the townspeople is obvious throughout the storyplot. Emily stubbornly refused to pay her fees, or affix amounts to her house when Jefferson received postal service. Emily's house is described as "an eyesore among eyesores, " and Emily herself as "a custom, a work, and a health care; sort of hereditary obligation upon the city" [CITATION].
The traditions of the society pressured Emily to seclude herself in a sort of timeless vault, like an hourglass minus the sand, and stay out of touch with the reality that constantly threatened to break through. The murder of Homer was not a violent take action by a homicidal psychopath. It was Emily's way to freeze time and stop change. It was the only way she could be certain he wouldn't leave her by themselves like her daddy did.
Although the brutal ritual described in Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" centered more on the energy of culture over the average person, both stories discuss the theory that outdated customs can have heartbreaking effects on members of a society. Both experiences occurred in a poisonous culture of communal conformity, and in both stories people became victims of the ideologies, customs, and traditions of their societies. Tessie Hutchinson in "The Lottery" was an obvious sufferer. She became the scapegoat of an horrifying act of violence in the form of a barbaric traditions that was without merit, even to the eldest in the community. Emily Grierson in "A Rose for Emily" was a sufferer of old-fashioned Southern traditions, specifically "patriarchal chauvinism, " "puritanical womanhood, " and "issue between community and specific" [CITATION]. As a direct result Homer Barron became a second victim, a scapegoat in his own right. Both testimonies bring about the theory that outdated customs can have tragic effects if they remain prominent in societies in which they haven't any relevance or value.
