The short story the lottery analysis essay
The Conclusion. Just as the introduction was used to attract readers to your topic before the thesis was provided, you will use the conclusion to summarize exactly what has been learned so far and then mention the wider implications of the topic. Sometimes, the best way to learn and understand new information is through seeing work that is already completed. Having college essay examples give a student an in-depth idea of what a well structured and coherent essay looks like. Introduction “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson is a short story published in the June 26, edition of The New Yorker. Written immediately after World War II, it explores ideas such as. Narrative Analysis: Narrative Therapy. 1. Narrative therapy is a great approach to therapy because it produces many changes for clients. Examples of changes include “externalizing problems, deconstructing pessimistic life stories, and conveying confidence" (Nichols, , p. ). 12 Things Not To Do If You Win the Lottery. Paul Ausick. 24/7 Wall St. July 25, Imagine becoming vastly wealthy overnight. Being a winner of a multimillion dollar lottery has to be incredible.
- Free Essay Examples
- Persuasive Essay Category
- Karl Marx, Yesterday and Today
- Analysis of The Lottery by Shirley Jackson Essay
- Short story
How useful is Karl Marx—who died a hundred and thirty-three years ago—for understanding our world? On or about February 24, , a twenty-three-page pamphlet was published in London. Modern industry, it proclaimed, had revolutionized the world. It surpassed, in its accomplishments, all the great civilizations of the past—the Egyptian pyramids, the Roman aqueducts, the Gothic cathedrals. Its innovations—the railroad, the steamship, the telegraph—had unleashed fantastic productive forces.
In the name of free trade, it had knocked down national boundaries, lowered prices, made the planet interdependent and cosmopolitan. Goods and ideas now circulated everywhere.
Just as important, it swept away all the old hierarchies and mystifications. People no longer believed that ancestry or religion determined their status in life. Everyone was the same as everyone else.
For the first time in history, men and women could see, without illusions, where they stood in their relations with others.
The new modes of production, communication, and distribution had also created enormous wealth. But there was a problem.
The wealth was not equally distributed. Ten per cent of the population possessed virtually all of the property; the other ninety per cent owned nothing.
As cities and towns industrialized, as wealth became more concentrated, and as the rich got richer, the middle class began sinking to the level of the working class. Soon, in fact, there would be just two types of people in the world: the people who owned property and the people who sold their labor to them. As ideologies disappeared which had once made inequality appear natural and ordained, it was inevitable that workers everywhere would see the system for what it was, and would rise up and overthrow it.
The mission is worthy. Historicizing—correcting for the tendency to presentize the past—is what scholars do. Sperber, who teaches at the University of Missouri, and Stedman Jones, who teaches at Queen Mary University of London and co-directs the Centre for History and Economics at the University of Cambridge, both bring exceptional learning to the business of rooting Marx in the intellectual and political life of nineteenth-century Europe.
Marx was one of the great infighters of all time, and a lot of his writing was topical and ad hominem—no-holds-barred disputes with thinkers now obscure and intricate interpretations of events largely forgotten. Sperber and Stedman Jones both show that if you read Marx in that context, as a man engaged in endless internecine political and philosophical warfare, then the import of some familiar passages in his writings can shrink a little.
The stakes seem more parochial. Interestingly, given the similarity of their approaches, there is not much overlap. Still, Marx was also what Michel Foucault called the founder of a discourse.
Free Essay Examples
An enormous body of thought is named after him. But a lot of the significance of the work lies in its downstream effects. However he managed it, and despite the fact that, as Sperber and Stedman Jones demonstrate, he can look, on some level, like just one more nineteenth-century system-builder who was convinced he knew how it was all going to turn out, Marx produced works that retained their intellectual firepower over time. And, unlike many nineteenth-century critics of industrial capitalism—and there were a lot of them—Marx was a true revolutionary.
After his death, communist revolutions did come to pass—not exactly where or how he imagined they would but, nevertheless, in his name.
By the middle of the twentieth century, more than a third of the people in the world were living under regimes that called themselves, and genuinely believed themselves to be, Marxist.
He saw that modern free-market economies, left to their own devices, produce gross inequalities, and he transformed a mode of analysis that goes all the way back to Socrates—turning concepts that we think we understand and take for granted inside out—into a resource for grasping the social and economic conditions of our own lives. Apart from his loyal and lifelong collaborator, Friedrich Engels, almost no one would have guessed, in , the year Marx died, at the age of sixty-four, how influential he would become.
Eleven people showed up for the funeral. For most of his career, Marx was a star in a tiny constellation of radical exiles and failed revolutionaries and the censors and police spies who monitored them but almost unknown outside it. The books he is famous for today were not exactly best-sellers. After four years, it had sold a thousand copies, and it was not translated into English until Marx had spectacularly bad handwriting; Engels was one of the few people outside the family who could decipher it.
The unfinished Paris manuscripts, a holy text in the nineteen-sixties, did not appear in English until Marx seems to have regarded none of that material as publishable. To the extent that those movements were reformist rather than revolutionary, they were not Marxist although Marx did, in later years, speculate about the possibility of a peaceful transition to communism. With the growth of the labor movement came excitement about socialist thought and, with that, an interest in Marx.
After , communism was no longer a utopian fantasy. Marx is a warning about what can happen when people defy their parents and get a Ph. Hegel was cautious about criticizing religion and the Prussian state; the Young Hegelians were not, and, just as Marx was being awarded his degree, in , there was an official crackdown.
Persuasive Essay Category
So Marx did what many unemployed Ph. There is a story, though Sperber considers it unsubstantiated, that once, in desperation, he applied for a job as a railway clerk and was turned down for bad handwriting. In the eighteen-forties, Marx edited and contributed to political newspapers in Europe; from to , he wrote a column for the New York Daily Tribune , the paper with the largest circulation in the world at the time. When journalistic work dried up, he struggled.
He depended frequently on support from Engels and advances on his inheritance. Sperber contests this. Marx had less money to waste than historians have assumed, and he accepted poverty as the price of his politics.
He wrote and published articles offensive to the authorities, and, in , he was kicked out of Cologne, where he was helping run a paper called Rheinische Zeitung. He went to Paris, which had a large German community, and that is where he and Engels became friends. Engels, who was two years younger, had the same politics as Marx.
Karl Marx, Yesterday and Today
Engels hated the work, but he was good at it, as he was at most things. Engels eventually became a partner, and the income helped him keep Marx alive. In , Marx was expelled from France. He moved to Brussels. Three years later, though, something happened that almost no one had foreseen: revolutions broke out across Europe, including in France, Italy, Germany, and the Austrian Empire. When unrest reached Brussels, he was suspected of arming insurgents and was evicted from Belgium, but he returned to Paris.
Rioters there had broken into the Tuileries and set the French throne on fire. He got the phrase from Engels. Bonaparte eventually declared himself Emperor and ruled until , when France lost a war with Prussia. The Paris Commune was a by-product of that war. So in Marx was forced into exile once again. He fled with his family to London. He assumed that the stay would be temporary, but he lived there for the rest of his life. The impressive bronze bust you see on his tombstone today was placed there, in , by the Communist Party of Great Britain.
What was Marx like? The number of first-person reports is not large, but they tend to agree. He was, in some respects, a caricature of the German academic which he had once expected to become : an imperious know-it-all with untamed hair in a misbuttoned frock coat. In professional matters, he was forbidding.
He was a cogent speaker but had a lisp and was a poor orator; he knew it, and rarely addressed a crowd.
He was ruthless in print, made enemies of many friends and former allies, and did not suffer fools—a large subset of his acquaintance, in his view. Still, he commanded respect. His hair was black; his eyes were black; his complexion was swarthy. In private, he was modest and gracious. When he was not sick—he had a bad liver, suffered from bronchitis, and grew fist-size boils, which Sperber thinks were caused by an autoimmune disorder but which may have been a symptom of his liver disease—he was playful and affectionate.
He loved Shakespeare, made up stories for his three daughters, and enjoyed cheap cigars and red wine. His wife and daughters adored him. He became engaged to Jenny von Westphalen, also from Trier, when he was eighteen and she was twenty-two. Sperber thinks that a fairy tale has grown up about the marriage, but Jenny is said to have been exceptionally beautiful, and she was devoted to Karl.
He wrote passionate love poetry for her.
Analysis of The Lottery by Shirley Jackson Essay
The engagement lasted seven years, during which he finished his studies, and they rarely saw each other. The relationship was mainly epistolary. Sperber believes that they had premarital sex. I certainly hope so. The one possible flaw in the domestic idyll has to do with a child born to their servant, Helene Demuth.
Almost all women in nineteenth-century Britain who could manage to retain a servant did so. Engels claimed paternity. This was not implausible. Engels was unmarried and had a taste for working-class women; his longtime lover, Mary Burns, worked in a Manchester factory. It is sympathy for Marx that leads Sperber and Stedman Jones to insist that we read him in his nineteenth-century context, because they hope to distance him from the interpretation of his work made after his death by people like Karl Kautsky, who was his chief German-language exponent; Georgi Plekhanov, his chief Russian exponent; and, most influentially, Engels.
The word the twentieth century coined for that was totalitarianism. His faith. But it was. Marx was an Enlightenment thinker: he wanted a world that is rational and transparent, and in which human beings have been liberated from the control of external forces.