Coincidentally, I have read both of these short stories before; however, being that they are so interesting and that I forgot some of the details, I definitely did not mind reading them again. The lottery has a particularly slow build-up, then there is so much that happens so quickly at then end with Tessie getting stoned. It isn’t really revealed what the lottery is all about until the very end, which is great for building suspense. Anyways, on the leadership side of things, I have so many questions. It isn’t really clear who enforces this, rather it seems that the village does it every year out of pure ritual. Given how many years the lottery had taken place, it makes me wonder why no one ever took a stand to stop it. I think it’s particularly interesting because the village members aren’t being submissive to a person or a group, rather just an idea/ritual. It makes me wonder whether the village is subject to very severe groupthink.
The story of the Omelas is another really mind-boggling one. The setting is first introduced as this wonderful place by the sea in which there is a life of perfection for all of its residents. Who wouldn’t want to live there? However, once it is said this is only possible because of an imprisoned and tortured child who never sees the light of day, it flips the entire story upside down. Of course, the biggest question then is whether you would live there knowing that your happiness is based on the misery of a child. This question could be debated upon for hours, and there is not necessarily a right answer. Nobody would want to be the one tortured, but it comes down to whether or not you could live with yourself knowing the reason for your happiness. Many people in the story decide to leave after they are told about the child, but many decide to stay as well. Does leaving make you a better person than one who stayed?
I also found the reading very interesting, especially how Tessie objected to the stoning. She complained about the fact that it wasn’t fair because her husband did not have enough time to pick, but it seems like she is still part of the groupthink because she did not object over the actual practice of what they were about to do to her.
I also thought about groupthink when reading “The Lottery”, all of the people do not even question what the lottery is, and go along with it even when they know of many other places getting rid of the lottery. I think that in both of these stories it is easier for the people to just follow blindly because they know deep down that what they are partaking in is not right, and if they do confront that fact they leave like the Omelas.
the question on whether or not those who walk away or those who stay are better than the other is a very interesting one that caught me off guard when i read it at first. but i think they are equally as bad they don’t do anything but depending on your stance of how a good person is measured within the world both are equally as good its a weird paradox which i think is what lends to the story being so thought provoking.
It is interesting how in the Lottery it is not clear who is enforcing it and why the people continue to do it. I agree this is severe groupthink because with no clear enforcer and it just taking place purely because of it being ritual is odd because nobody has tried to petition against it.