In today's society many unfortunate events especially murders are kept "secret". In these cases the truth is afraid to be too overwhelming for people to know or think about.In some cases people can’t cope with a loss where as others can’t deal with what they have done or feel nothing at all.No matter what side a person is on the event is tried to be covered up.In Lord of The Flies, Piggy, Simon, and the pilot’s death were washed away into the sea and the boys tried to forget about Simon and Piggy where some didn't even care or realize it was wrong.Golding was trying to show that human nature is to just cover up the bad and move on.When we move on without punishment or remorse it leads to more death and destruction.Just as Jack and the Hunters were going to kill Ralph because they never felt remorse or received punishment.
Lord of the Flies is a very good book up until the end. This ending was very boring and abrupt. I think Golding got tired of writing and just ended it because it was so sudden. The naval officer arriving was a bummer to me because it was just getting good. They were now becoming more and more evil. They finally wanted to go kill the opposition and this was getting interesting. I would have liked to see how the ending was if they wouldn’t have met the naval officer. If I would have written the book I would have did something that nobody expected like Ralph killing them all and then the naval officer appearing. He made the last chapter very, very interesting until the officer came. This was the time I was paying the most attention in the entire book because it was action packed. Why would he end the book like this? It was to show his point that when someone came back from "the real world" and reality set in they were still humans and KIDS and were remorseful for what they did. This book was a great example and showed exactly what would have happened if a bunch of little kids got trapped on an island. Very good book but very bad ending.
In "The Lord of the Flies" we have main characters Ralph, Jack, Piggy, Simon, and Roger. They all start in good because society fed their good side making it strong but there is always the under current of dark that over lays every action. For example some people will help people because that person will owe them a favor or because it'll help them too. Jack's inner evil was pushed forward by being minimized when he wasn't chosen as leader proving how close to the surface his darkness was. Roger is darker than Jack in my opinion because he's seems more willing to hurt, he wants to embrace his evil but couldn't till the chains of society released him to his full potential. Piggy was sheltered and unprepared to face the world which even though people tried to protect him he was eventually killed. Finally we have Simon he was good natured and quiet but seemed to have the ability to understand things at least in his subconscious. All evil is differnet but all people have it in common even glorified Ralph showed he had an evil side when he was with Jack's hunters. Piggy had a dark side as well he wanted to stay behind the scences and have what he wanted done but without his help. Roger once he felt the veil lifted was almost pure evil because that's what he wanted to be. All this shows is that evil is in many forms and is the most dangerous form we posess and good in a persons heart can be snuffed out so easily by killing them or hiding behide a mask. Darkness in a person is the ultimate threat to life and we all contained the secret to each other's destruction.
As Golding said, scientists are very naive in some ways. The world and society as a whole are extremely complex levels and it is simply impossible to accurately predict the far future. People are constantly changing and doing things unexpectedly. Most scientists want to believe that there is a formula and a strict order in which things are happening. However, as we know there cannot be a scientific and mathematical formula used to explain why everything in the world happens and why everything happens whether it be good or bad. There is more that goes into things than just numbers and variables. Treating the world as if there is no complexity in it is simply an act of naiveness. It shows that they are either oblivious to this or chose to block it out of their heads that sometimes, whether the situation be good or bad, things happen that the scientific and mathematical worlds cannot come up with a precise reasoning for. This does not mean that the events are illogical; it just means that they are on such a complex level of life that it is impossible for humans to wrap their minds around why things happen or sometimes even how. There are still phenomenons that happen in our everyday life that i believe humans will never fully understand.
The Lord of the Flies so far has been a story about innate evil and its contrast to good. Simon and Ralph represent the good of humanity, but in two different ways. As we go through the story, I get the sense that their good doings stem from different places. Ralph's goodness stems from a learned behavior rather than an innate instinct. Like the other boys, he is susceptible to the darkness of humanity. He too participates in the hunting dance that ended in Simon's death. At one point, he even had the urge to kill something by himself. Simon, though, seems to be good from the heart rather than by the rules that have been previously placed upon him. He lives by the "rules" because they are natural to his temperament. He thrives in nature and seems to be at peace with himself. Does a difference in the stem of goodness affect the quality of the goodness? Does the stem affect the way good intentions are carried out? Well, Ralph understands the evil side because he has acted upon it. I think his ability so see the world from another view point helps him to see how wrong the other side actually was. This makes him a good leader. Simon, however, has a different fate altogether. He was killed essentially because the goodness in his heart wanted the boys to realize the truth about the beast and to make them not fearful. This is another great parallel in the story to our society. Usually the people trying to do the most good are the ones getting burned in the end. The ones that have the less-good urges are the ones who get all the glory. Why is that? Is it because people don't want to see the truth in their mistakes? What kind of goodness is the good kind?
Maybe it's just me, and maybe I'm a little biased, but it seems that every time I read books that have terrible not happy endings, such as The Lord of the Flies, the main characters always seem to have a Y chromosome. It makes me wonder, what if girls had been stranded on that little island? In my opinion, if there had been a little more estrogen present on the island, "society" wouldn't have met its match quite so easily. This isn't true for all of the female human population, but in general, most girls are a little more level headed and don't jump strait to violence as soon as they can. Once the boys reached the island in Golding's book, they immediately fight and end up in a giant power struggle. As a member of the "girls' team" myself, I know that the first thing I would have done on the island is get organized, much in the way Piggy tried to do. Girls don't care about power until after all other, more immediate, worries are taken care of. It's in our very nature to make sure that all the small children are accounted for and fed, all the older ones have jobs making shelters and finding food for the group, and to make sure the environment in general is made stable and livable. I haven't ever been in a situation as extreme as the one in the book, but I just can't imagine ever giving up my morals, even if I could do whatever I like with impunity. Girls pay close attention to our consciences and we feel guilty about the littlest things. In light of all the differences between the chicks and the fellas, I believe that society and rational thought wouldn't have been so easily forgotten if the boys left on the island were actually girls. Throughout history, women are said to be the mild ones; the ones with the level heads and the even tempers. Sometimes this is a little demeaning, but not having the constant craving for power can be seen as a strength. Having a the strong will not to resort to violence and to resist chaos is a leading quality that comes out in females, especially when normalcy is scarce. So girls, here's our chance to show those boys what's up. Would you be able to kill another human who is completely innocent? Would you be able to kill someone who wasn't? Would you be able to kill a pig with your bare hands, even if it was just for meat? You have other options. There's plenty of fruit on the island. The boys didn't think about any of these things. They just went out and acted on instinct and the result was gruesome and ugly. I don't think girls would do that, even in the worst of circumstances.
Golding: "It seems to be the dilemma we are faced with that, on the whole, the politician is likely to be a Jack, and, at best, a Ralph--never a Simon."
Do you agree with this quote? Evaluate the leadership qualities of these characters and/or compare/contrast them with past or current political figures.
Golding: "Piggy understand society less than almost anyone there. He's a scientist. He is naive, short-sighted, and rationalist, like most scientists."
Think about Piggy's death and how much he valued the conch. How might it illustrate this quote?
There are many ethical issues in science facing us today where "naive" or "short-sighted" decisions could have serious consequences. Your thoughts?
In your opinion, have there been time in the past when scientific advancements, inventions, and technology should have been prevented?
As we all know, Jack and his hunters have lost all sense of humanity. I believe this happened because they are all little boys, and their knowledge of history is very basic. The point of learning history is so we can't repeat our mistakes. As we see, Jack turns into this communistic, controlling person who only cares about hunting and power. I see a great parallel with Jack and Adolph Hitler. Jack believes that only important people should have a voice, and he tries to silence the littluns. This is similar to Hitler and the Jews. Hitler believed that the Jews weren't important, so he completely silenced them. I believe that history and knowledge is very important. If the boys knew the importance of this, they wouldn't face such savegry. Age also plays a big role in why the boys revolt. In conclusion, if the boys were older and smarter they would be okay. I think Golding may be trying to point out the importance of knowledge. Without knowledge, we're basically savages, and thats what happened with most of the boys. -Miranda Rickard (:
At a certain point in the book, Jack and his hunter's chant changes from "Kill the pig! Cut her throat! Bash her in!" to "Kill the pig! Cut his throat! Kill the pig! Bash him in!" At first they were referring to it as a female which is usually done to address an animal. I'm not saying that this chant is ok or normal in anyway but the fact that they're referring to it as an animal is better than changing it to a male, which can be taken to the fact that if it were a human they'd do the same because using "his" and "him" seems as if they're referring to any living thing, such as a human. This just shows the boys savagary even more as they don't care for killing humans which is proven even further by the death of Simon and Piggy. -Nathan Knodel
Obviously, the biggest conflict throughout this book is the struggle between Ralph and Jack, or good against evil. Ralph, or good, could arguably win. In the end, the naval officer asks who is in charge, and Jack backs down when Ralph steps up. This shows that even though Jack started his own tribe, he recognizes that Ralph can take care of the group better than he can. However, I think that Jack, or in this case evil, wins overall on the island. By the end of the book, Ralph is literally alone. Sam and Eric, his last living companions, are forced to join Jack's group, and they're tortured until they give Roger all the information he wants. They even give his hiding spot away when he tells them in private. Ralph is forced to run across the island alone while being chased by the savages. By the time the officer gets there, evil is chasing good off of the island with the use of fire. So, in general, I feel that Golding's point in Lord Of The Flies is that all of us have the capacity for evil, and if unchecked, evil will win.
I believe that since Ralph is that only one that is left in "his tribe" then he will eventually be murdered by Jack's tribe because of the fact that he has no one beside him anymore; all of his friends are dead. I cannot even imagine what is going through Ralph's mind as he takes off running into the forest. He is probably terrified. I would be too if I were him in that type of situation. He knows that Jack is going to come after him sometime; just the fact that Jack has the element of surprise of his side would make me even more scared. I also think that Ralph is an extremely brave boy for his age; also Jack is extremely savage like for his age. This type of situation with all these boys being stuck on this island without and adults just terrifies me to death. If there were adults on the island then I would hope that things would be completely different.
*ps. I have not read chapter 12 yet.. So I have no idea what has happened yet.
So yippee they got rescued, right? And oh boy! Here's a naval officer, he'll help us... oh wait. He's embarrassed and turns away so these boys can pull themselves together. There're young! They don't "pull themselves together," adults help them through that process. If you were a boy (or a girl) on a island, for a good amount of time, with no adults, would you want the person that rescues you to feel embarrassed turn away when they finally come? Probably not. You probably just want to get the heck out of there and back to your family. Yes, you are being rescued and obviously that was Ralph's goal, but get them the heck outta there! Not to sound like I don't care about the boys feelings, but they can cry on their way home for goodness sakes. As I read the last paragraph I got a little upset at Mr. Officer. Was that Golding's goal? When he first got there he was surprised that a group of British boys would end up like this and he really doesn't seem very caring towards these boys. I think maybe it was Golding's goal to let us see that even when they get saved(which is a very good thing), it was just someone getting the job done. Which pulls back to his ultimate goal, that people are bad at heart. -Brittany Jurczyk
Anybody who has analyzed The Lord of the Flies can tell you that Simon is a Christ figure. However, the biblical themes don't end there. Throughout this novel I have noticed several allusions to the Bible other than Simon's character and, as you all know from my Fahrenheit 451 post, I am a total sucker for biblical imagery.
In chapter eight, when Simon was all delirious, stumbling through the forest, and talking to the pig's head, I thought of the story of when Christ in the wilderness. In this story, Christ fasts for fourty days in the desert. During that time he was approached by the devil and tempted and ridiculed. This is similar to Simon's situation in his conversation with the Lord of the Flies. Which, leads me to my second biblical theme.
As we discussed before, The Lord of the Flies is translated from the Hebrew word meaning Beelzebub. The beast, however is also mentioned often in the bible and is used in referrence to the antichrist. In the book of Revelation, the Bible mentions two beasts. One arises from the seaand the otherfrom the earth. From there, humanity begin to worship the beast and kill anyone who refuses. The antichrist is the adversary of Christ and the beast on the island - the manifestation of the boys' evil - is also Simon's adversary and eventually leads to his death.
Finally, the last bit of biblical imagery isn't exactly biblical. Deus ex machina -a Greek phrase meaning "God from the machine" - is a literary device in which an impossible problem is solved abruptly by the intervention of a new character, object etc. In The Lord of the Flies, the arrival of the naval officer is a perfect example of deus ex machina. The boys hunting Jack almost immediately stop their pursuit as soon as they see the naval officer, a figure of authority, on their island. Although I personally believe that this ending is about as anti-climactic as they come, it gives us readers the oppurtunity to come up with our own conclusions as to what happends to the boys after they are rescued.
The boys have completely lost it. When Jack starts being consumed with the thought of hunting and gets the some of the other boys to go along with it the boys start falling. These are boys that grew up to never hit or steal or let alone kill, but when they are alone and are able to do whatever they want with no one telling them differently they go crazy. Anyone can fall to this inner evil. It happens to "perfect" little children and adults that have grown up around violence. I do think that people are born good, but they have an evil part of them. Like Britany has been saying, whether you feed that side or not is up to you. Many people, like Ralph when he hits the pigs nose with his spear, feel the rush but they don't let it consume them. Though some people do let it take them over and thus ruin their lives. It comes down to whether you want to be a good person and push it back or if you want to let it come forward.
Years later in an interview tiha reporter from the New York World-Telegram and Sun (1963), Golding insisted that the novel’s primary purpose is to serve as a warning of man’s potential for brutality to his fellow man. He said, “I learned during World War II just how brutal people can be to each other. Not just Germans or Japanese, but everyone. I tried to point that out…Some have said that the brutality of the novel is impossible. It’s not. Look at any newspaper.”
What do you think? Do you agree with Golding's theme? Offer evidence one way or another.
...get your brain going! Here are some discussion prompts you could use for your posting if you don't have another idea. It could make for some good discussion.
Golding has referred to himself as a pessimist intellectually and emotionally an optimist. Discuss _Lord of the Flies_ in light of this.
...get your brain going! Here are some discussion prompts you could use for your posting if you don't have another idea. It could make for some good discussion.
1. The conclusion of the _Lord of the Flies_ has been criticized on the grounds that Golding sacrificed artistic excellence for the sake of a "happy ending." What do you think?
Throughout the book we've seen the beasts to be the boys, and we said the pig's head represented the beast in the conversation with Simon. As i keep reading, I keep thinking about that head, and I believe there is another meaning to it. We always talk about the clothing or glasses as sybols of civilization. As we see them less, there isn't as much order and more savagery. The pigs head is also another sybol of this. The head decayes more and more as the days go on the same way civilization is decaying within the boys. Also, to tie this in with our beast conversation, the beast becomes more and more of a fear within the boys day by day. This feels like to me when the head says "I'll be down there"to Simon, the more it decayes the more he is with the boys causeing fear and chaos. This is something i'd like people to think about and possibly talk about in class. -Austin Reichert
I think it was a little funny, when Jack tried to kill Ralph with the fire. Then they get saved by the navy, and so over all, Jack saved the kids from the island, although he was the one who wanted to stay on the island. The fire can symbolize Jack's hatred for Ralph, and as the book goes on, his hatred gets bigger until it takes over the whole island. As Ralph tried to hide from Jack, he coundn't because the fire follows him like Jack. Jsohau Hill
The boys on the island have completely gone mad. They murder a pig (brutally and in a very disturbing manner), kill Simon who has done absolutely nothing wrong but try to keep some kind of sanity on the island, and are after to kill one another. I slowly see Ralph, the boy who we looked to for some civilization, slipping into the violent person that Jack is. I believe that the author is showing how no matter how civilized and composed a person can stay in desperate times, we all have inner evil that can take the best of us in taking desperate measures. This is showing that Jack decided it would be easier to feed his inner evil and become violent in hunting for the "beast" and having dominance over the boys. At this point in the book, I think Ralph is fighting the urge to giving in to his inner evil and is giving up on the hope of survival and rescue. Ralph seems like when he acts like a savage he doesn't realize it, but when he looks back on it he questions and looks for excuses on why he acted the way he did. Everything was taken to a next level when Simon was murdered. The boys were so preoccupied and caught up in the thought of killing and being blood thirsty, that I think that some of them knew it was Simon while in the process but still didn't say anything because they were desperate for that rush of killing. They are all concentrated on killing this beast, that is not even real, that the boy who actually knew the truth about it was murdered by themselves! Can they not see that they are the beast themselves! According to www.dictionary.com, a beast is a cruel, coarse, filthy, or otherwise inhuman like person. This definition perfectly describes Jack and his little followers. Ready to kill at any moment and does not have any guilt for it. They are the beast. Not the man trapped in a parachute. This book has gotten me quite worked up! I am furious as Jack and am dreading the death of Piggy :(! I still believe that Jack will kill off everyone off on the island due to paranoia or command of the Lord of the Flies. I can't wait to see what will happen! Sydney:)
I think that Othello does truly love Desdimona, she is not just a way for his status and ego to grow. Though the murder of Desdimona was an evil thing for Othello to do, deep down he honestly felt that he had no choice, because she had gone behind his back and cheated him. You can see Othello’s true feelings for Desdimona by many ways, one way was nearing the end of the play after he commits the murder he says that he loved her much, but he did not love her wisley. This meant that he really loved her but once he became suspicious and jealous of her affair with Cassio, he let it get to him so much that he felt there was nothing else to do other than the murder. Aonther way that you can see that he does love Desdimona, and that it is not just an act, is when he and Iago are trying to find ways of killing Desdimona. Othello wanted to do it quick, to get it over with. However, Iago knows that Othello deeply loves his wife and having to kill her slwly and painfully would, in a way, kill him too.
Othello is a honorable man, but he needs to work on what he does with life. He says that he killed Desdemona with honor and I do not believe him, because he "loved" her with everything that he had. Othello should have thought about what he was thinking and then he would have realized that Desdemona was telling the truth and he would have changed his mind about killing her. Desdemona was completely in love with Othello, she would have never cheated on Othello. Iago needed to stay out of their business. I believe that if Othello thought everything through he would have saw that Desdemona loved him and that she was faithful.
This person's opinion about Othello's true character are very critical. While I understand a little bit of where he is coming from, I can't bring myself to agree whole-heartedly. For starters, I do believe that Othello loved Desdemona with all his heart. Shakespeare introduces his readers to Othello in the way that a tragic hero should be presented: full of all things good and pure like honor and compassion and a certain "soft center" that makes anyone who meets him take an immediate liking to him. He's a great warrior; fully committed to his country. He sees the best in people, as is clearly demonstrated by his perverse love for the villain, Iago. Finally, He's in a relationship that is bursting at the seams with boundless love. Being in love with Desdemona is just one of those things that makes the reader like him that much more.
True to the form of a tragic hero, as the story progresses, we see Othello's good personality start to slip a little. I don't think it's because he's becoming less of a good person; I'm sure he is still quite as honorable and heroic as he was in the beginning of the story. However, his pure heart has developed a blemish: Iago. Iago planted ideas of awful doubt into Othello's head. Doubt about his own insecurities and flaws and at the center, the catalyst for bringing out these fears about himself was Desdemona. Iago's lies wove a story around chance and circumstance that made Othello truly doubt Desdemona's faithfulness and his own "worthiness" of her love.
It is proven that human nature leads us to cover our fear with rage and anger. I think when Othello finally gets around to disposing of his wife, this is kind of what he's doing. Othello is afraid that he's not good enough, so he covers it up with anger and jealousy. This is the part where I kind of agree with the article. Othello killed Desdemona simply because of what she was accused of to "save face" so to speak. He felt he needed to protect his own reputation and the only way to do that was to get rid of what he thought was destroying it. He was scared of looking bad and he reveals that he already had some deep-set uncertainties with his own likability and a combination of those two would bring out the worst in anyone, I think. With all his anger in the way, Othello couldn't even think strait. So, at the end, when he kills Desdemona, she was not a person to him until after she was dead; she was simply a crack in his well-built protection around his insecurities. Unfortunately, that's what happens when a person like Othello with deep down uncertainties about himself.
In conclusion, this article brings up some good points about Othello and his actions, but I don't really think it's all that accurate. Othello was in love, and that is what ultimately killed Desdemona.
---Taylor
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
This different view on Othello is very interesting and something to think about. However, I do not believe in this prospect. Othello is showing so much remorse in Desdemonas death that he goes as far as to kill hismelf for the wrong he's done. Some of Othello's last words were "Of one that loved not wisely but too well." He's talking about how they should talk of him when he dies. I interpert this as that he loved Desdemona so much that he over reacts when he hears she may be sneaking around him. He loved too well in the sense that he may think he loved her so much that he was blinded by the "signs" she had been showing unintentionally. I honestly believe Othello and Desdemona loved each other with all of their hearts and neither of them were in the wrong until Iago started in with his evil. The term "trophy wife" is used when you can tel the husband doesn't really care about his wife, only to show her off. The way Othello wants Desdemona to go to Cyprus with him and that he had Emilia go with her so she had female company shows he cares. Personally I find no evidence in this mans assumption of Desdemona and Othellos relationship and do not agree.
In a story by Salman Rushdie (The New Yorker, July 2001), a character makes sthe following remarks about Othello:
"Othello doesn't love Desdemona....He says he does, but it can't be true. If he loves her, the murder makes no sense. For me, Desdemona is Othello's trophy wife, his most valuable and status-giving possession, the physical proof of his risen standing in a white-man's world. You see? He loves that about her, but not her. Desdemona's death is an "honor killing." She didn't have to be guilty; the accusation was enough. The attack on her virtue was incompatible with Othello's honor. She's not even a person to him. She's his Oscar-Barbie statuette. His doll."
Do you think this is a valuable commentary on the character? Why or why not? Support your thoughts with evidence from the text. The text is our best support for dealing with controversial topics like this.
Answer by Friday, April 16, 2010. Remember to sign your name so I know who earned credit for your post.
