>tradition is bad because this one tradition I made up is bad
Wow, such riveting social commentary. Thank you, Shirley Jackson!
>tradition is bad because this one tradition I made up is bad
>tradition is bad because this one tradition I made up is bad
Wow, such riveting social commentary. Thank you, Shirley Jackson!
If you want to reduce it to tradition it is that blindly following tradition for the sake of tradition (tradlarp) is bad and especially bad if the reason you do it is because everyone else is doing it.
>blindly following tradition for the sake of tradition is bad
Why exactly is this bad? The only reason to be against tradition is a blind "new thing good, old thing bad" mindset
>its an antinatalist
There is always something more traditional and authentic, you are arguing for infinite regression and missing the point.
How the frick did you get "antinatalist" from that?
And it doesn't matter if there exists older tradition, the existence of a "better" option doesn't make other options bad. It's not wrong to buy a Honda because Lamborghini exists
>How the frick did you get "antinatalist" from that?
I didn't, my post explained it. Do you not understand how greentext works? they are not literal unless they are a direct quote.
Because something being somewhat old doesn’t mean it isn’t having negative effects.
Because Jackson is reacting to blind tradition without substance and not an active tradition that keeps something like the Bill of Rights as an achievement (i.e. it was a different time, anon).
>Why is doing thing without any critical thought behind it bad?
Let me guess, youre religious
>The only reason to be against tradition is a blind "new thing good, old thing bad" mindset
Absolutely not lol. You can be critical of tradition and critical of new thought. I agree that rebellion for the sake of rebellion is foolish. But it is the same kind of foolishness as tradition for traditions sake. They are both the same thing.
>being overly reductive is moronic because this one anon is moronic
So what real world traditions are in any way comparable to throwing rocks at people for no reason?
I already explained that, any tradition you blindly follow for the sake of tradition or because other people are doing it. If those are your reasons for following a tradition it is meaningless to you and you end up corrupting that tradition especially in the latter case of doing it because other people are, you are handing that tradition over to the mob mentality. Literature might be beyond you.
Circumcision
paying taxes to and exchanging money with pedos
wait I was thinking of the wrong short story
"Sexual cleansing" rituals (there was a story about how one of the professional cherry busters was AIDS infected and still "working" awhile ago and another about a guy in Malaysia being prosecuted for it).
It's about the Draft and the very real fear of being drafted. I don't think anyone today would disagree, given that they'd be dying for Israel and MIC kickbacks to senators.
The draft view was largely applied years later during Vietnam. I don't think it fits with her style as a writer, from what I have read of her she tended to be more general in theme and not playing to the times, but I have not read much of her work so could be wrong.
You all make compelling arguments and I have realized the error of my ways. Farewell.
>American literature
>Fyodor Dostoyevskiy
He's a Tale Blazer.
A more realistic approach is that tradition is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. There are good traditions, which you should keep following; there are bad traditions, which you should stop following; there are neutral traditions, which it is up to you whether to follow.
is bad because this one tradition I made up is bad
Thargelia was a thing, you know.
Because it's the internet and you're starting a thread rather than replying to someone, I don't know if you're serious or sarcastic. Shirley Jackson doesn't have a thesis she's demonstrating in 'The Lottery.' Her work typically rests on the terror of the unknown, and the most unknown place is the mind. 'The Haunting of Hill House' is rightly considered a masterpiece because all the phantasmagoria that the protagonist experiences may very well be hallucinations or delusions, it's effectively impossible to tell. This leaves the reader with the disquieting knowledge that the 'ghosts' of Hill House are not confined to its grounds, but may be found in all of us. Any of us may be in error, or mentally unwell; then how would we tell our own thoughts from what goes bump in the night? A similar theme emerges in 'We Have Always Lived in the Castle' which progresses, step by step, from the story of two rustic sisters shunned by the rest of their New England town to instead two unwell reclusive co-conspirators in a family massacre who spiritually occupy the position of witches living in a house in the woods. Horror also excels in the short form. Her story 'Paranoia' also deals with doubt, fear, and the unknown; 'The Lottery' was published in her lifetime, but 'Paranoia' was not published until decades after her death and so hasn't become part of the U.S. high school curriculum. I also love 'The Witch' for how much power it packs in so few pages. 'The Lottery' isn't upsetting because of its protagonists adherence to destructive tradition, but because as the audience we are made vulnerable in how little we understand this culture. Only in its final paragraphs does realization hit us, even though we have not been lied to, only kept ignorant. Fear rests in the unknown, and there's so much you don't know.