For fans of The Hunger Games series
by Suzanne Collins, the similarities between the novels and the short story
“The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson seem undeniably obvious. Although, the
differences do stand out, the story lines are too similar to ignore.
For those who of have not read “The
Hunger Games” (or seen the movie), there is an annual “reaping” where 1 boy and
1 girl between the ages of twelve and eighteen are chosen to participate in the
annual Hunger Games. There “over a period of several weeks, the competitors
must fight to the death”(Collins 18). There are a total of 24 kids chosen to
enter the arena of the Hunger Games. Much like in “The Lottery”, the town (or
district) must gather together once a year. There the “mayor” of the town will possess
a slip of paper that will soon seal the fate of an unfortunate individual. In
the Hunger Games, being chosen puts you into the fatal arena where only one of
twenty-four will survive (well that is what is suppose to happen). In “The Lottery” the name chosen from
random will be forced to have the entire town throw rocks upon the chosen
individual no matter the age. In “The Lottery” Tessie Hutchinson is chosen and
the narrator describes the brutal scene when she states, “Tessie Hutchinson was
in the center of a cleared space by now, and she held out her hands desperately
as the villagers moved in on her”(Jackson 202). In both storylines a character
is chosen at random, and is forced to endure pain and possibly death while
family and friends watch. This
forces the readers into shock and horror. These stories are not meant to have
the audience envy the characters, but pity them instead.
The differences in the stories are
also very obvious. In “The Lottery” the town seems almost supportive of the
actions being taken and are even rushing to get it over with so they can all
return to work (Jackson 197). Even Tessie Hutchinson (the woman chosen) arrives
“laughing”, “cheerfully”, and “grinning” (Jackson 197). It was not until she
discovered that she was chosen did she start to panic and consider the action
unfair (Jackson 202). In comparison, the characters within the districts in
“The Hunger Games” are all against the brutal action they may be forced to
endure. Katniss Everdeen (the main character who goes into the arena) describes
the unbearable emotions of the crowd at the reaping when she states, “I can
hear the crowd murmuring unhappily as they always do when a twelve-year-old
gets chosen because no one thinks this is fair”(Collins 21). The reactions from the families are
also very different in the 2 stories. In “The Lottery” “Someone gave little Davy Hutchinson a
few pebbles” to throw at his own mother (Jackson 202). While Katniss in “The
Hunger Games” volunteered her own life as a replacement for her sister (whose name
was originally drawn) because she could not bare the fact that her surviving
the game was slim to nothing (Collins 22). The bottom line is that in “The
Lottery” the town seems to support the violent acts thrown upon an innocent and
random individual who must undergo pain and possibly death; while in “The
Hunger Games” the districts (towns) are against it.
Still it is not unreasonable to
believe that Suzanne Collins formed her series around the idea from Shirley
Jackson’s “The Lottery”. The lottery and the reaping are essentially doing the
same thing. But the actions that come after that are different. This includes
the crowds’ reactions and the punishment thrown upon the chosen individual.
[605 words]
I think that I may have to disagree with your comment about pitying Katniss and Tessie. Obviously you, as a reader, feel bad that they're both put in that situation to begin with. However, at least for me, I became a little frustrated that no one spoke against Tessie being stoned to death. And in the case with Katniss, I feel like the moment that she volunteered as the tribute, you began to root for her to win!
ReplyDeleteHowever, I agree with you with the differences between the stories. In "The Lottery" it almost seemed like people were egger to stone Tessie and get on with their lives. I feel like they've become so used to it that they've become immune to the emotions a person may feel when someone dies, if that makes sense. In contrast, the citizens of District 12 even though they've done this for 75 years, they still dread it and have "unbearable emotions" (as you stated above). I wonder what caused the differences between story as to why they react to the situation differently?
I can see why you would see it that way. And I think that the reason the characters reacted differently in each of the stories is because it's a tradition in "The Lottery". It seems as though that the event is something they almost celebrate because they are so use to it. It is all they have ever know, and change is something they fear. In "The Hunger Games" the districts have lived a life without it. Obviously, the children are new to it, but the adults have not always been forced to participate. The biggest difference between the 2 is because of tradition and authority. They differ in both cases. The citizens in "The Lottery" are not against the people in charge and seem to support their authority. It is the exact opposite in "The Hunger Games". The districts fear and hate the capital. That is why they react to the situation differently. Why do you think the characters in "The Lottery" support the annual stoning?
ReplyDeleteForgive my post because I've never read the Hunger Games nor seen the movie. I had to call a friend to tell me a little more about it. However, I will agree with Brandi on the differences. From what I know about it, I can say that the citizens are more aware of the harm that the Hunger Games bring. I think that the “Hunger Games” are meant to be a punishment in the first place (set by the Capital). The villagers in the “Lottery” show more support because they believe that it is right and have been raised to be desensitized the horrific nature, while the citizens in the “Hunger Games” know that it is inhumane and meant as punishment.
ReplyDeleteI also find it funny that the “Lottery" seems to be based on a present-day (when it was published) village using old world traditions (I say this due to Old Man Warner's quote: "There has always been a lottery."). The Hunger Games on the other hand is based in a futuristic society after the destruction of the United States. It has a sense that this could be our future or that we will evolve into this. While one warns us against continuing inhumane customs, the other warns us of adopting such customs.
The main difference for me is the way the people responded to the reaping vs the way people responded to the lottery. I feel that in the hunger games book the people at the reaping are more aware of the harm in what is being done. The capital in the hunger games are the ones enforcing the reaping and the killing of the children. The citizens in the hunger games fear the capital. The citizens in the lottery seem to have a different relationship with the enforcers of the lottery.
ReplyDeleteYou make a very good point in your second paragraph directly stating "The bottom line is that in “The Lottery” the town seems to support the violent acts thrown upon an innocent and random individual who must undergo pain and possibly death; while in “The Hunger Games” the districts (towns) are against it." I agree that the groups have oppsoing views about death among their fellow townspeople. Do you think the townspeople in "The Lottery" aren't against the stonoing because they are scared of the mayor or because they condone it?
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of you on this and really enjoyed this post. I have just seen the movie but in my opinion the attitudes held by the public was definately the biggest difference. In the hunger games you get a split reaction with the upper two districts in the capital celbrating the games while the public in the lower districts mourned for the chosen and watched on in horror. In the lottery you had neither of these attitudes but instead a sick twisted mix of both. The townspeople in away celbrated the lottery and whatever it brought, but at the same time you could tell that they were afraid to be chosen, it simply was traction.
ReplyDeleteI believe Michelle makes a very good point about having a different relationship between the people and enforcers in The Hunger Games versus The Lottery. Personally, I could see the lottery as a future of the hunger games lottery. Once the lottery becomes a long term tradition as it seems to have in Jackson's lottery, there may not be a need for as much enforcement. It seems that in Jackson's lottery, the original enforcers could have more than likely been the ones that did the stoning or perhaps would punish anyone who did not participate in stoning their fellow townsmen so severely that the people became afraid of resisting and felt safe or comfort in throwing the stones because they had the assurance in the other person's death that they were going to live this time around. Since we do not read about any enforcers in Jackson's lottery and it seems to be self-governed by the town and people, we can assume that at some point in their history there were enforcers but the townspeople are so resigned to the tradition and don't dare question it that the lottery stopped needing such severe enforcement by whatever higher power initiated this custom. I believe that the same thing could have happened in the future for the Hunger Games lottery given under the right circumstances.
ReplyDelete