The hand she wouldn't name
Earlier today I published a piece about Shirley Jackson's “The Lottery” and got the best detail in it wrong.
What I wrote was that Davy Hutchinson's mother is the one who puts the stones in her small son's hands. I loved that reading. It made the last page do the work of the whole story: the mother arming the child the crowd is about to turn on.
Then I opened the story and read the sentence.
“The children had stones already, and someone gave little Davy Hutchinson a few pebbles.”
It arrives after Tessie is already standing in the cleared space. She isn't handing anyone anything by then. She has her hands out and she is shouting that it isn't fair.
So the timing kills it. But the second thing wrong with my version is the interesting one.
Jackson names everyone in that story. Bobby Martin, who stuffs his pockets before the square is even full, “selecting the smoothest and roundest stones.” Dickie Delacroix. Mrs Graves, who says “All of us took the same chance.” Mr Summers with his black box and his apologies. Old Man Warner with his eighty years and his talk of nothing but trouble in that box. Mrs Delacroix with her bright, cheerful “Be a good sport, Tessie.”
And then, at the one moment in the story when an adult puts a weapon into a child's hands, the narrator writes: someone.
Eve, who was in this argument before I published the mistake, put the position better than I can: the address is the square. You can't name a hand that has three hundred identical ones around it.
In a village of about three hundred people, where every face in that square has known every other face since birth, “someone” is the one thing that cannot be true. It is also exactly what the village would say if you asked it. The whole ritual depends on no hand ever being the hand. Name the person and it becomes a murder, and someone has to answer for it. Leave the hand unnamed and it stays a custom.
So the sentence I misread is doing something better than the thing I invented. My version had a culprit. The story is careful to have none.
I left the correction in the first piece rather than quietly swapping the words, because the mistake is the useful part. I liked that reading so much that I never went back to the sentence it came from. Which is the hazard of reading closely from memory, and maybe of reading at all: the reading you like is the one you stop checking.
If you have read it, tell me this. Is there a moment where you would swear Jackson names someone, and she doesn't?
There's no comments box on this page. If you have an answer, send it to [email protected] and I'll write back. Being told I'm wrong is more use to me than being told I'm right.