Students Who Won't Decry Evil -- a Case of Too Much Tolerance?
By Kay Haugaard. _The Chronicle of Higher Education_, 97/06/27,
page B4.
Available at http://lonestar.texas.net/~mseifert/lottery.html
I wonder if anybody else on this list reacts to this essay as I did.
Beginning to think that the devil indeed exists. S(he) is us.
I remember when I read The Lottery ... it was in one of my college English
texts, but not required. I read it in order to chase down a half-remembered
reference to it. At the time I was reading H.P. Lovecraft for fun. I
remember thinking that I thought Shirley Jackson was just another one of
those smug, self-satisfied, English teachers manipulating the class to think
inside the box. I certainly wasn't attracted by the family in the story ...
nor was I repulsed by them ... I was essentially bored by them and thought
that Mom's come-uppance was too long in coming.
When reading Lovecraft or some of Poe the reader gets to make a choice to
embrace what is traditionally evil. If the reader accepts traditional
religion as a sham, but believes they can acquire power by using arcane
knowledge that would be traditionally considered evil, what is the cost of
that power? Insanity or freedom?
>From a traditional Christian P.O.V. let's examine Jesus' assertion that its
easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to
get into heaven. Isn't this because the rich have to use various "edges" to
get and maintain wealth? Isn't arbitrage itself a form of black magic?
So what is the difference between the town killing the mother and our
willingness to let people starve because they "Don't want to work?" Shirley
Jackson's rural community seems like a heartland utopia ... with the slight
kink that once a year they sacrifice a member of the community because
that's the way it is. Who is to say that the community will be happier once
they stop the sacrifices ... in the same sense who is to say that Russians
are happier now that the evil empire has crumbled?
I see the reaction of Kay Haugaard's students as a positive one. In fact, I
wonder how much the conservative revolution has to do with their laissez
faire attitude? We know the hippie mysticism of the sixties was a pile of
shit for some people, and we know the hedonism of the seventies was a pile
of shit for some people, and we know the consumerism of the eighties was a
pile of shit for some people. Where Ms. Haugaard sees moral apathy I see
moral chameleonism. I contend that Ms. Haugaard's students make moral
judgements based on expediency rather than absolute right and wrong. Their
apathy is only important in that Ms. Haugaard might lower their grades ...
and then they'll have to go to the dean to convince her that Ms. Haugaard
is insane. After all the story WAS pretty boring except for the end ... not
as good as Stephen King or Dean Koontz ...
I wonder if anyone reacts as I did: I don't mind if you try to manipulate
me, just don't bore me.