Ignorance in Harrison Bergeron, The Lottery, and The Yellow Wallpaper - Essay Example

Ignorance in “Harrison Bergeron,” “The Lottery,” and “The Yellow Wallpaper” In every short story, the author attempts to give all of his or her characters a personality. Sometimes, this personality is fully developed and results in a round character, but sometimes, this personality is minimally developed and results in a flat character. “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson, “The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut all contain characters of varying degrees of development. Though each author creates his or her own characters with their own personalities, one character trait that the characters of Mr. Summers in “The Lottery,” John in “The Yellow Wallpaper,” and Hazel Bergeron in “Harrison Bergeron” share is ignorance. In “The Lottery,” Mr. Summers portrays ignorance as leader of the lottery ritual. His ignorance is an integral part of his personality and the plot of the story. Throughout the tale, Mr. Summers controls every aspect of the lottery that leads to the stoning of Tessie Hutchinson. He controls the black box from which the villagers draw, he commands the assembly gathered for the lottery, and he clarifies the rules of the ritual. However, Mr. Summers is ignorant of any reason for the lottery. He is able to make changes to the process by “having slips of paper substituted for the chips of wood that had been used for generations . . . because so much of the ritual had been forgotten or discarded” (Jackson 201). The changes he is able to make indicate that he is unaware of the nature of the lottery or its original purpose. Mr. Summers’ ignorance does not concern him. He is happy to have a role in the village. He runs “the square dances, the teen club, the Halloween program . . . and people [are] sorry for him because he [has] no children and his wife [is] a scold” (201). However, Mr. Summers’ ignorance makes the story more effective. Jackson relies on his ignorance to give the reader a shock at the end of the story. Since Mr. Summers does not understand the ritual behind the lottery, the killing of Tessie Hutchinson becomes meaningless. His ignorance is harmful in the context of the story because it allows the brutality of the lottery to continue. If Mr. Summers has been capable of changing the wooden chips into slips of paper, he is likely able to change what happens when someone is selected in the lottery. However, his willful ignorance about the ritual allows for the death of Tessie. There are suggestions within the story to indicate that the stoning is a ritual to insure crops for the next year or for some other purpose, but it is ultimately the ignorance of everyone involved that makes the death at the end so shocking. The ignorance of John in “The Yellow Wallpaper” is not essential to the plot structure of the story as it is with Mr. Summers in “The Lottery,” but it is essential for the development of the theme. As the husband to the narrator of “The Yellow Wallpaper,” John is ignorant of his wife’s life. He is a physician, but as his wife notes, “perhaps that is the reason I do not get well faster” (Gilman 171). In order to treat his wife’s mental illness, he removes her from her children and friends. This isolation is what eventually drives her deeper into her illness. John is not a complete villain in the story. He wants what is best for his wife, but he is ignorant of the needs of his wife. His ignorance is harmful to her because of the toll it takes upon her mentally. If John was more insightful about his wife’s condition, she likely would not have descended so deeply into her sickness. Also, John is unable to understand why his wife needs to write. The entire story is a journal that his wife keeps without his knowledge. The ending of the story proves his ignorance of his wife’s need to write. She completes her journal and describes crawling over John as she follows the pattern in the wallpaper. Throughout the course of the story, he has been unable to understand that her writing might be the key to alleviating her mental illness. Additionally, John cannot understand his wife’s need to be with others. She asks to visit her cousin Henry and his wife Julia, but John denies her request. In his role as both her husband and physician, he is ignorant of what is best for his wife. His ignorance of his wife’s creative nature and needs creates the theme of the story. Men, despite all the love they have for their wives, often suffocate their wives by exerting control over them and denying them outlets for their desires. The ignorance of Hazel Bergeron in “Harrison Bergeron” is important for both plot and theme. Hazel is an ignorant woman in the general sense that she lacks knowledge and the ability to acquire it. As the narrator states, “Hazel [has] a perfectly average intelligence, which [means] she [can’t] think about anything except in short bursts” (Vonnegut 310). Her ignorance is important for the plot because she cannot remember her son. Her lack of knowledge about her son makes his appearance later in the story more shocking. Her ignorance is not harmful except that the reader can assume that it has left her unable to create real relationships. She certainly does not understand her son, and she is unable to understand her husband, George, and the suffering he feels from his handicaps. More importantly, Hazel’s ignorance is important thematically. Through Hazel, Vonnegut seems to be criticizing most average citizens. Since she is of average intelligence, her ability to only think of topics in short bursts is similar to others around her. The theme is that most individuals in society do not want to think. They are happy as long as they do not have to dwell upon anything that is depressing. Also, they have short attention spans that prevent them from thinking about important topics for any period of time. Additionally, the real tragedy of the story is that Hazel cannot remember her son. She watches him die on the television and then immediately forgets what she has viewed. Each character in the short stories shares the trait of ignorance. The ignorance that these characters harbor is harmful in each circumstance. Mr. Summers’ ignorance allows Tessie Hutchinson to die at the hands of the villagers, John’s ignorance allows his wife to descend into her illness, and Hazel Bergeron’s ignorance prevents her from having any real relationship with her son or husband. However tragic the ignorance is in each story, all of the authors depend upon their characters’ ignorance to create suspense and theme within the story. Without Mr. Summers’ ignorance of the lottery, Mrs. Hutchinson’s death would not be shocking, and it would not force the reader to confront all the needless deaths that occur in his world. Without John’s ignorance of his wife’s condition and needs, the reader would not be lead to consider the man’s role as a husband and the importance of allowing his wife to have a life outside of the marriage. Without Hazel Bergeron’s ignorance of her entire world, the reader would not have to face the ignorance that he endures and accepts as part of his society. In short, the trait of ignorance makes each story more effective. Work Cited Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. "The Yellow Wallpaper." Backpack Literature. Ed. X.J. Kennedy, Ed. Dana Gioia and Ed. Joe Kennedy. 3rd. New York: Pearson Longman, 2010. 170-183. Print. Jackson, Shirley. "The Lottery." Backpack Literature. Ed. X.J. Kennedy, Ed. Dana Gioia and Ed. Joe Kennedy. 3rd. New York: Pearson Longman, 2010. 199-206. Print. Vonnegut, Kurt. "Harrison Bergeron." Backpack Literature. Ed. X.J. Kennedy, Ed. Dana Gioia and Ed. Joe Kennedy. 3rd. New York: Pearson Longman, 2010. 309-13. Print. Read More