Why was "The Lottery" controversial?

Shirley Jackson’s short story “The Lottery” was first published by The New Yorker in 1948. The magazine received an unprecedented response when it ran the short story, including many negative letters from readers who were disturbed by its subject matter and themes.

Jackson’s story critiques the concept of blindly following tradition or a group ideology, and the blatant yet accepted violence in the story warns of the deadly consequences of such blind conformity. Jackson wrote this story during a time in which American nationalism was on the rise in response to the American government’s worries about communism. Many readers were upset because they felt that this depiction of the dangers of communal solidarity was outrageous and was an unfair response to rising patriotism. Some were so offended that they vowed never again to read from The New Yorker, calling the story "perverted" and saying that the editorial staff had become "tools of Stalin."

Many readers were also upset at the way Jackson suggested that everyday people could potentially engage in vicious acts. Americans have historically prided themselves on small-town, suburban moral values and unique cultural traditions. This story suggests that even picturesque small towns in America are not always peaceful, and it questions the potential negative impacts of adhering unquestioningly to traditions. This sparked anger in many readers who saw it as and insult and a challenge to their own values.

Today “The Lottery” is much less controversial and is often assigned to students around the country, but the initial controversy that surrounded it is a part of its importance. Jackson critiqued the way that Americans blindly follow traditions, and the backlash from Americans readers who were determined to cling to conformity ultimately served to further illustrate her point.

Why do you think "The Lottery" by Jackson caused controversy?

When "The Lottery" was first published in 1948, it received a huge amount of criticism for its themes depicting violent mob mentality and humankind's capacity to harm each other. In fact, the New Yorker received a massive amount of angry letters after its initial publication in that magazine.

In some ways, this was the response that Shirley Jackson hoped for. She wanted to illustrate the consequences of groupthink and blind obedience to tradition by depicting an ancient rite in a modern setting. This struck a nerve with many readers. Many criticized it for its seemingly pessimistic message. People were shocked by its violent ending. Many called it hideous, grisly, and futile. This was not the feel-good story many readers had come to expect in the New Yorker.

Part of the fuss comes from what happens when an artist holds a mirror to society. Many readers were able to identify with the townspeople in the story. Since the characters in the story so nonchalantly commit an act of violence, these readers were left with the disturbing question as to whether or not they would take part in the same rite of murder. Naturally, these questions were disturbing to many.

Many of the readers were left bewildered by the story. They were unsure exactly what point Jackson was trying to make. Some accused Jackson and the New Yorker of being anti-capitalistic and un-American. Others found it simply traumatizing.

This is not to say that all its reception was critical. Many readers and critics lauded the story upon its publication. They felt that it unabashedly addressed important aspects of human behavior that needed to be examined in the years after the unprecedented violence of World War II.