1. The author used third person point of view for this story. She described an un-named village that held a lottery every year. Whoever was picked from the lottery, was stoned to death. The position the author had, knew the outcome of the story. Therefore, she did not use perceptive on any of the characters. She gave a lot of information on following tradition, customs, society issues, and barbarism was even practiced in this story. 2. If the story was written with an omniscient point of view, the reader would know what type of lottery it was. The reader would have no surprise at the end. The reader would know enough about the characters to figure the story out. The author would list thoughts and reactions. Notice, the author did not
…show more content…
The author used third person point of view for this story. She described an un-named village that held a lottery every year. Whoever was picked from the lottery, was stoned to death. The position the author had, knew the outcome of the story. Therefore, she did not use perceptive on any of the characters. She gave a lot of information on following tradition, customs, society issues, and barbarism was even practiced in this story. 2. If the story was written with an omniscient point of view, the reader would know what type of lottery it was. The reader would have no surprise at the end. The reader would know enough about the characters to figure the story out. The author would list thoughts and reactions. Notice, the author did not put her own emotions in the story. If the story came from a first-person point of view, the author might have added some emotions that would have watered down the story. Coming from a first person perceptive, the reader would feel the authors situation more than the plot. The story would still be suspenseful as is, because she never explained why the lottery existed. If the story was written as a mingling point of view, the story would have been divided between first person and third person. Honestly, the author could have used both. She could have told the story, but also placed her personal belief or emotions in the …show more content…
Whether the act of these people was superstition or motivation, it was a yearly tradition that was based on the outcome of the farmers corn harvest. For an example, the Bible mentions Joseph. He interpreted Pharaohs dream, which said Egypt would have seven good years harvest and seven bad. A person did not get killed or punished for the bad years. That was the difference of these stories. The Bible is not superstitious. Sacrifices were in the Bible also, but for the remission of sins. The world took it to extremes in cultures and tradition. That is what brought superstation and witch craft. Like the stones being thrown in the story, that is not a new ritual. 5. I believe this story is not completely horror, because the reader does not suspect a killing is involved. In a horror story, the reader is expecting death from the beginning and knows it is coming. This story is defiantly surprising. The author made the story like this, to show readers violence, is still common and used in different ways.
ENG 102
The author used third person point of view for this story. She described an un-named village that held a lottery every year. Whoever was picked from the lottery, was stoned to death. The position the author had, knew the outcome of the story. Therefore, she did not use perceptive on any of the characters. She gave a lot of information on following tradition, customs, society issues, and barbarism was even practiced in this story. 2. If the story was written with an omniscient point of view, the reader would know what type of lottery it was. The reader would have no surprise at the end. The reader would know enough about the characters to figure the story out. The author would list thoughts and reactions. Notice, the author did not put her own emotions in the story. If the story came from a first-person point of view, the author might have added some emotions that would have watered down the story. Coming from a first person perceptive, the reader would feel the authors situation more than the plot. The story would still be suspenseful as is, because she never explained why the lottery existed. If the story was written as a mingling point of view, the story would have been divided between first person and third person. Honestly, the author could have used both. She could have told the story, but also placed her personal belief or emotions in the …show more content…
Whether the act of these people was superstition or motivation, it was a yearly tradition that was based on the outcome of the farmers corn harvest. For an example, the Bible mentions Joseph. He interpreted Pharaohs dream, which said Egypt would have seven good years harvest and seven bad. A person did not get killed or punished for the bad years. That was the difference of these stories. The Bible is not superstitious. Sacrifices were in the Bible also, but for the remission of sins. The world took it to extremes in cultures and tradition. That is what brought superstation and witch craft. Like the stones being thrown in the story, that is not a new ritual. 5. I believe this story is not completely horror, because the reader does not suspect a killing is involved. In a horror story, the reader is expecting death from the beginning and knows it is coming. This story is defiantly surprising. The author made the story like this, to show readers violence, is still common and used in different ways.
ENG 102