Lord of the Flies by William Golding - Book Report/Review Example

 Lord of the Flies by William Golding “What makes things break up like they do?” wonders Ralph, the protagonist of Lord of the Flies, William Golding’s novel of 1954. This ever relevant work touches upon the eternal question of human nature – whether people are good or evil, inclined to civilization or savagery. The major themes of the novel are the opposition of civilization and brutality, reason and impulse, order and chaos, loss of innocence and desire for aggression and power. Golding himself believed that man is inherently evil, and the beast inside him cannot be permanently contained by any laws and governments. The novel, with its structure, symbols, motifs and allegories, serves the purpose of showing the innate evil of man. In his lecture of 1962 given at the University of California at Los Angeles Golding explained that the breakdown of civilization in his novel resulted from nothing but the inborn evil of man: “So the boys try to construct a civilization on the island; but it breaks down in blood and terror because the boys are suffering from the terrible disease of being human” (In Burris 1999). Golding does not justify this evil by the structure of the society, but quite the contrary, explains the defects of the society by the traits of the humanity. The writer stated that the shape of the society created by the boys on the island is “conditioned by their diseased, their fallen nature”. Intentionally, he avoided any elements that could make us think that it was the society rather than the human nature responsible for the breakdown: “The boys were below the age of overt sex, for I did not want to complicate the issue with that relative triviality. They did not have to fight for survival, for I did not want a Marxist exegesis. If disaster came, it was not to come through the exploitation of one class by another. It was to rise, simply and solely out of the nature of the brute” (Golding, In Burris 1999). Though it is possible to suggest that in circumstances different the events would develop differently, the author insisted that the tragedy occurred “simply and solely out of the nature of the brute” (in Burris 1999). As the result of his views, Golding builds his novel around the central conflict between two opposite impulses existing within human beings: the tendency to live according to rules and moral commands, in peace and for the good of the group against the desire to satisfy one’s immediate desires and impulses, act aggressively to achieve supremacy over other people, and impose one’s will. For Golding good is represented by civilization, while evil is associated with the instinct of savagery. This conflict serves as the driving force of the novel, exploring the transformation occurring to a group of civilized and disciplined English boys into brutal and violent savages. Lord of the Flies is an allegorical novel, so that the conflict is conveyed with the help of symbolic characters and objects. First of all it is revealed in the conflict between the two major characters – Ralph, the protagonist, representing order and democratic values, and Jack, the antagonist, going the way of brutality and savagery. As the plot develops the author traces the impact of the savage instincts on the personages, showing how the boys degrade and sink into primitive beliefs and behavioral patterns. Golding demonstrates that the brutality is a fundamental and primal instinct of the humans, while moral behavior is forced upon people by the civilization. That is why his characters revert to barbarism and cruelty as soon as they are isolated from the civilization imposing its restrictions on the individuals. The idea of the innate evil of man is symbolized by the beast and Lord of the Flies, which is the sow’s head impaled on the stake. Golding shows that all men are prone to evil. Brutality is an intrinsic trait of people. Even Ralph and Piggy are prone to it. They happily participate in hunting and in the crazy dances of Jack’s tribe. They become the accomplices of Simon’s murder. However, the layer of civilization is thicker on these characters. Ralph is shocked by his actions, and sincerely suffers the event, while Piggy tries to hide behind the shutters of logic. Ralph clutches at the last symbol of civilization – the conch shell – and uses the word “murder” which is sooner from the juridical lexicon of the civilization they are separated from. The rest of the boys continue sticking to the version that they have killed the beast, which can disguise itself. Ralph possesses the innate evil and desire for power just like Jack does. So as he summons the first meeting and blows on the conch, “his face is dark with the violent pleasure of making this stupendous noise”. As Ralph participates in the ritual reenactment of a pig killing, more attention is paid to his feelings than to those of Jack: “Ralph too was fighting to get near, to get a handful of that brown, vulnerable flesh. The desire to squeeze and hurt was over-mastering”. On the other hand, Jack cannot be treated as merely a representative of the world of chaos and savagery. Let us remember that Jack was the leader of the choir. Jack possesses much reason. As soon as the boys find themselves on the island, he explores it to see where they are. Further, he suggests hunting as the solution of the nutrition problem, while fruit cause diarrhea. It is Jack who realizes that Piggy’s glasses can be used to start the fire. It is Jack who is excited with the idea of building a kind of civilization on the island “We’ll have rules…Lots of rules!”, he cries. “I agree with Ralph. We've got to have rules and obey them. After all, we're not savages. We're English, and the English are best at everything. So we’ve got to do the right things” says he later. Jack’s intellect helps him to gain the control over the boys, convincing them that the beast does exist and that only he is able to protect them. In reality, he does not believe in the beast. “Ralph’s right of course. There isn’t a snake-thing. But if there was a snake, we’d hunt it and kill it”, says Jack. “But there isn’t a beast!” responds Ralph. Moreover, Jack sets strict rules in his tribe, so that, all in all, it is impossible to speak of him as the embodiment of chaos and anarchy. After all we come to a conclusion that it is not right to view Ralph and Jack as the opposites. Vice versa it turns out that the clashes between the boys are conditioned by their similarity – the beast inherent in both of them. John F. Fitzgerald and John R. Kayser (1992) stated that the innate evil of man is his pride, making us commit the greatest crimes (In Burris 1999). The beast murmurs inside Ralph from the very beginning as soon as the clash arises: “Something he had not known was there rose in him and compelled him to make the point, loudly and again”. Later, during the argumentation, Ralph agrees to go to look for the beast, and “something deep” within him speaks for him as he says: “I’m chief. I’ll go. Don’t argue.” As the clash continues growing, Ralph feels “the rising antagonism, understanding that this was how Jack felt as soon as he ceased to lead”. These evidences draw us to the conclusions that both Ralph and Jack are “rational, well-intentioned, and desire law and order, but the beast within both leads them to an inevitable and horrifying clash. “Things are breaking up,” Ralph says, I don't understand why. We began well; we were happy. And then… “. And then the beast drew them apart,” writes Burris (1999). The only personage, whose nature is good, is Simon. What distinguishes him among the other characters is his highly developed intuition and connection with the nature. He is able to see the beauty of the nature surrounding him. His moral principles are not conditioned by civilization, but are his inborn traits. Simon is the only boy helping Ralph to build the huts. He never offends the littluns, treating them kindly, and he is the only person able to penetrate the essence of the events. “What I mean is . . . Maybe it’s only us…” expresses Simon his obscure guess in Chapter 5, as one of the littleuns shares his fear that the beast may hide in the ocean, emerging only at night. Simon expresses the central point of the novel – the beast, which is the innate evil, is within all of us. Later in Chapter 8, when Simon finds the bleeding sow’s head in his favorite glade and has the vision, the beast speaks to him, revealing the truth, the boy has felt already: “There isn’t anyone to help you. Only me. And I’m the Beast . . . Fancy thinking the Beast was something you could hunt and kill! . . . You knew, didn’t you? I’m part of you? Close, close, close! I’m the reason why it’s no go? Why things are the way they are?” The beast also promises to have “fun” with Simon. It is Simon who discovers the truth of the dead parachutist. However, he is unable to report it to the rest, while he perishes killed by the boys. Golding uses a number of symbols to convey his ideas. The conch shell is the symbol of civilization, while Piggy’s glasses represent the power of intellectual heritage of the society. When the glasses are stolen by Jack’s hunters and the conch shell is crushed by the stone, we perceive it as the triumph of the evil. The beast and the sow’s head on the stake embody savagery and chaos. The signal fire and the glade in the forest indicate the stage of the boys’ transformation into brutal savages and the spread of the evil in their hearts. Even the end of the novel serves the same purpose: to underline the power of the innate evil of man. As Ralph runs into the naval officer on the shore, he starts crying. Those are tears of grief and not joy. Ralph has lost his innocence and he knows now the nature of people. “Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man’s heart, and the fall through the air of a true, wise friend called Piggy”. The officer is shocked by the fact that a group of English boys could reach such a state of degradation, forgetting that he himself takes part in a brutal and illogical war, launched by the grownups, creatures embodying order and civilization for Ralph and Piggy. Lord of the Flies is an allegorical novel having its purpose to prove that evil is a fundamental innate trait of human beings causing the defects of the society. The whole structure of the novel, its symbolic characters and objects serve the author’s purpose – to demonstrate that the evil has more chances for the triumph than the good within the humanity. References: Burris, Skylar Hamilton. “What makes things break up like they do?” Alternative Explanations For the Societal Breakdown in William Golding's Lord of the Flies. 1999. William Golding Lord of the Flies Literary Criticism. The Internet Public Library. URL: http://www.literatureclassics.com/AncientPaths/lord.html (04.11.07.) Golding, William. Lord of the Flies. Perigee Books. 1959. 208 pages Read More