Talk:The Lottery

message: The "conformity gone mad" quote in the first paragraph is not from a literary critic, but was said by Kent Brockman in the Simpsons episode "Dog of Death." It seems odd to have critical evaluation by a cartoon news anchor in the first paragraph. Should be changed.
:I can see your point, but the quote itself is then used as a serious basis for evaluation by a literary critic - as supported by the source.  Ultimately seems okay to me.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then the footnote should cite The Simpsons episode, rather than the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.179.38.164 (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Simpsons Quote in Opening

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

message: How strange. A spoiler warning but no plot summary. Can someone expand? savidan(talk) (e@) 03:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that, I am doing a summary of the story and there is no plot here.
totally new to wiki so I hope this shows up. In the summary it say "...Tessie Hutchinson, one of the most vocal and staunchest supporters of the continuance of the lottery, is the final choice.:"
I thought she was not a supporter but that she was against the lottery.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.177.60 (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

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

message: Because of the massive amount of vandalism from anonymous IPs, I'm thinking this article is a good candidate for semi-protection. Anyone agree? Perodicticus 08:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good candidate for shut up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.144.239 (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect? 

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

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

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

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

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

message: Unless we can produce claims from Trey Parker and Matt Stone, it is presumptuous to state that the "Britney's New Look" episode of South Park is based on "The Lottery".
For one, there is no actual lottery in the episode.  Second, the sacrifice self-destructs, as opposed to being directly murdered by the townsfolk.  
The notion that a sacrifice is necessary for a good harvest did NOT originate with "The Lottery", and that is the only common thread between the short story and the South Park episode.
: The quotation "Sacrifice in March, corn have plenty starch" from the South Park episode is a parody of a line from "The Lottery."--Baller McGee (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems there is a citation in the wiki page for the South Park episode.  Perhaps it should be added here. 67.175.56.225 (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

text: actually, the sacrifice doesn't self-destruct, but is photographed/harassed to death in this case. 82.83.236.90 (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park 

message: @ Islam in the Lottery: Ok so I have seen this can't simply go because it is a sourced claim, but
- It is an extraordinary claim and the arguments presented are not obviously plausible.
- It could be seen as making contentious claims about a recently deceased person.
- There are no similar interpretations in the literature, actually the paper hardly references academic literature on Jackson and the paper has not been cited or very little.
So it needs backing up by an extremely reliable source, yet it seems more like an academic vanity press,
- Note the immediate mention of publishing fees.
- It claims to have peer review, yet the article does not thank the referees, nor does the acknowlegment make clear who actually reviewed what.
- The subjects of the articles in CCS lack unity and generallly are about one culture, not crossing cultures.
- The website says CCS appears 'biOmonthly'.
- The other journals they publish have some very bad articles, see "An Introduction to The Generator of the Function Space." in their Progress in Applied Mathmatics, which does not contain a single proof or piece of new mathmatics or new presentation of old math, is borderline nonsensical and has numerous faults in the spelling and grammar of the English.
In short, extraordinary claim lightwheight sources means it should go.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.124.213.99 (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably qualifies under wp:fringe as well.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical interpretations 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Lottery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080502180310/http://www.wiredforbooks.org/judyoppenheimer/index.htm to http://www.wiredforbooks.org/judyoppenheimer/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: I quote the following text: 
'She repeats, in the final line of the text, "It isn't fair, it isn't right" (79). Even after being chosen for stoning, Tessie remains loyal to the practice of the lottery, blind to its cruelty even to her death.' 
I disagree. I would argue that right before her death, Tessie's views actually change. 'It isn't fair' is a long way from 'It isn't right'. When Bill picks the marked slip, Tessie protests that it isn't fair; she is still committed to the lottery at this point. She screams the same words as the villagers begin to stone her, but then continues 'it isn't right'. This marks a shift in her view. Regardless of whether she means that the lottery is not morally right, or that it violates basic human rights, or both, the words 'it isn't right' question the holding of the lottery itself, rather than any perceived error in its rules or practices. While this shift in view happens admittedly at the moment she is suffering the consequences of the lottery (in other words, it's pretty clear that Tessie is concerned neither with morality nor human rights at this moment, other than in relation to her own life) it's still a powerful statement, especially when considering the village society and its awe of the lottery as tradition. That the tradition has lost its meaning (as suggested in the story) only emphasises its power over the villagers; that is, they still hold fast to the lottery for tradition's sake, even though evidence shows that it has no effect on the agriculture of the district.
NB: I've taught this story to first-year uni students in Australia, so I'm familiar with the text and its discussions. (This is apropos of nothing except to give some context for how I may have formed my opinions). Democratie-Kate (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute over meaning