I have to write a 5 page argumentative research paper on "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson and "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" by Ursula K. Le Guin and I need to use 2 scholarly articles. I need help in coming up with a thesis statement because i have no idea what to write about for this paper.
Both of these stories are based on a tradition that demands that someone is hurt or die for the good of the community. In "The Lottery," much like the current "Hunger Games" stories, someone has to be sacrificed in order for the world to continue as it is. The question becomes what happens if this does not happen. Who has established the rule? Does the community override the good of the individual? Why do people stay where this kind of practice goes on? Just because something has been a tradtion, does not necessitate the existence of the tradition.
The other story "The Ones Who Walk Away from the Omelas" continues on in its oppulence based on the torture of a child. In addition, those that have walked away are never seen again. There is an ominous connotation about what happens to those who can no longer stand to live under the conditions of the child torture.
The point with both stories is that is it wrong for the group to benefit from the torture or death of other human beings. The people who participate are like sheep being led to the slaughter. Why do they not stand up against the tradition? Refuse to take part. If someone is going to die, it would be better to stand up against the societal infringement than to support it by doing nothing.
Both stories make this point: Society continues on as long as the individual's well-being is sacrified for the good of the many.
I'm not sure what the articles are supposed to be about, but I would suggest that you focus on the main difference between the two stories. In "The Lottery" no one really objects except those about to die and their loved ones. Does anyone walk away from the village?
They walk away from the village of omelas and they are both about sacrifice