Lord of the Flies
discussion
Do you that children are really capable of such evil?
If they mixed Lord of the Rings with Lord of the Flies a bunch of short kids would wanna fight each other. Check out my webcomic: http://reddkaiman.blogspot.com/2013/0...
Redd wrote: "If they mixed Lord of the Rings with Lord of the Flies a bunch of short kids would wanna fight each other. Check out my webcomic: http://reddkaiman.blogspot.com/2013/0..."
LOL.
I believe it is a challenge between the argument of nature v. nurture. It is a hard concept to grapple with and it is not so much a case for evil or good / black or white; it speaks to a greater volume of where do the lines blur into each other? In what universe does evil creep into the ajar door of the innocence?
Josh wrote: "...Depending on their situation or background/upbringing. "I totally agree with you.
Maybe the author only wanted to make an allegory of a fatalist future using boys, how human can be more savage and more cruel than any other animal.
But if you want to think in a more psychological way, you can imagine each boys' background/upbringing.
Maybe Ralph's parents were people with solid values and knew how to deal with hard times. In Jack's case, he could have had a father who was very manipulative and violent if they didn't do what he wanted.
What? Do you really not remember how cruel kids could be back when you were in school?
Monty J wrote "These kids are from educated upper middle-class families who would have, one would expect, a firm grounding in values."First, I do not think being from "educated upper class families" would necessarily give the boys "a firm grounding in values", at least not the ones at issue in the book. Yes, family has a lot to do with ones values, but where the family falls in the social stratum does not.
Second, A grounding in values doesn't always make a difference.
Linda wrote: "First, I do not think being from "educated upper class families. Second, A grounding in values doesn't always make a difference. "A good points. I guess I'm giving an abundance of credit where it may not belong. In the US, H.L. Hunt, Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump would be examples. I withdraw my assumption that the upper class would have a firm grounding in values.
A grounding in values doesn't always make a difference, but in the eternal contest between good and "evil" values are all we have. In this looming era of scarcity, the strength of our values will be tested. And cults like Scientology and Randism are on the rise.
Has anyone read Blindness? (I'm sorry, I can't remember the author.) It was a movie a few years ago with Julianne Moore. It isn't about children, but it shows that when you take away only a few 'civilized' items (cleanliness, access to food) very quickly human beings will descend into horrific behaviour to ensure personal survival. There are countless stories during WW2 and the Holocaust that attest to this also. We need only look at Rwanda or Vietnam or any number of atrocities around the world.
It doesn't take any leap of the imagination for me to think that a LOTF situation is entirely plausible. Human beings are capable of amazing amounts of cruelty, and children even more so because they have less developed empathy.
The older I get the more troubled I am hearing about certain things that have happened. I read LOTF when I was a teenager and wasn't terribly affected by it, but I don't want to read it now.
At least I can console myself in thinking that though humans are capable of horrendous acts, they are also capable of amazing acts of love and selflessness.
Hayley wrote: "...The older I get the more troubled I am hearing about certain things that have happened. I read LOTF when I was a teenager and wasn't terribly affected by it, but I don't want to read it now..."I can understand you, if I know about the existence of the novel is because we only did a short analysis, and I didn't get very grossed till I did a deeper analysis.
That's why I prefered the version of the Simpsons, because it is lighter.
Have you seen Blood Diamond?, there it is seen how kids are turned in cold blood assassins. And one of the cruelest part is when the boy cannot recognize his own father.
Angie wrote: "Hayley wrote: "...The older I get the more troubled I am hearing about certain things that have happened. I read LOTF when I was a teenager and wasn't terribly affected by it, but I don't want to r..."I've had other recommendations to see Blood Diamond. I'll have to check it out, though I'm sure it will upset me. I once rented a movie called "Shooting Dogs", not having read the back (I thought the picture on the front was pretty). It was about Rwanda. An amazing movie, but it still haunts me.
Hayley wrote: "Has anyone read Blindness? (I'm sorry, I can't remember the author.) It was a movie a few years ago with Julianne Moore. It isn't about children, but it shows that when you take away only a few ..."Jose Saramago wrote Blindness. You are right in comparing it to Lord of the Flies - lots of similarities in what happened but with men rather than boys. And women were present.
Children are just as evil as adults. Human nature is scary.
The main reason that I find the book so unbelievable is that it is so foreign to everything I was taught, believed in and experienced as a child growing up. As a fable for illustrating a theoretical concept it's acceptable, but beyond that, absolutely not. The children were not in a state of panic. They were, for the most part, having fun.I spent the last nine years of my childhood in a Texas orphanage in the 1950-60s. Most of us had been beaten, neglected and malnourished by our parents. Some of us were even molested and/or tortured at the hands of orphanage staff. But we later had caretakers who were as good as the others were bad.
We were from the dregs of society--the poorest of the American poor. Never did any of the kids around me exhibit tendencies remotely like what Golding describes in this novel. Sure there were fights and bullying, but we were self-governing when we were unsupervised on the playground and on camping trips with minimal supervision. An older kid would step in if the bullying was too extreme or went on too long, and that almost never happened. There was one who came along after I left who became a serial killer, Curtis Brown. But he was the extreme exception.
Sure savagery exists, but it's the social deviants who end up incarcerated, not the mainstream as Golding postulated in the book.
This is why,in another post I've theorized that Golding's story might be accusatory toward the nobility, that there's a strain of antisocial behavior passed from the generations that were responsible for the savagery of slavery, the Boer atrocities, the Opium Wars and such.
Savagery might have been a trait Golding observed or sensed among his upper-middle class students, who were descended from those responsible for atrocities. It certainly was not a trait that I observed among the poor and working class among whom I was raised.
(Coincidentally, in The Catcher in the Rye JD Salinger touches on this theme when he describes the suicide of Jame Castle due to bullying in an upper-middle class boarding school.)
The message I'm getting from Golding is it's the ruling elite we need to be wary of.
Monty J wrote: "The main reason that I find the book so unbelievable is that it is so foreign to everything I was taught, believed in and experienced as a child growing up. As a fable for illustrating a theoretica..."The more I read your opinion on the topic, the more I understand and agree with it. I can understand what you're saying in terms of the pure savageness of the children and how it might be unrealistic to the extent that Golding has expressed.
I think under certain stressful circumstances, especially where mob mentality is a factor, we are all capable of such things, even children.
Candice wrote: "I think under certain stressful circumstances, especially where mob mentality is a factor, we are all capable of such things, even children."Yes, I accept this as the premise of the book. Most of us, within boundaries, are capable of being driven, driven, to savagery by extreme circumstances, like California's Donner party.
But the case for it in the book wasn't well made. No one was starving. There was no panic. The boys were having fun most of the time. There was just one psychotic boy with antisocial tendencies who manipulated and coerced the rest to descend into savagery. Among my childhood peers in similar circumstances, this boy Jack would have gotten his butt kicked between his ears.
This is why I wondered if Golding was making a subtle statement about the British nobility, for whom greed and control of the masses are paramount.
Yes. I saw a child of 6 coldbloodedly beat another 6 yr old so badly that he had bruises even on his privates, with a stick. Just because an 8 yr old told him to. (there was no anger involved and he was from a good family).Who knows why some people are like that? I suspect that kind of behavior happens because of missing chemicals or bad mixes of them, in their brains. I don't know if it'll ever be treated. After all, the drugs that are given out far too freely for "ADHD" behavior is causing great harm (it's being tied to teenage suicide).
Nature does not care about age. That being said, I feel that no matter our age, if we are able, we can exhibit savagery. The Kids in LOF got pushed to a certain point, an dehumanized point where they became savages. As they became more primal, the idea of them being children began to evade themselves. Deep down we're all staring down that same valley, we just need the right push to fall off the edge.
Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilisation is un-natural. It is the whim of circumstance. And barbarism must ultimately triumph."— Robert E. Howard
Monty J wrote: "Candice wrote: "I think under certain stressful circumstances, especially where mob mentality is a factor, we are all capable of such things, even children."Yes, I accept this as the premise of t..."
I definitely see your point. I can only speak for girls, all girl groups seem to have the "Queen Bee", but I don't think even she would have been able to talk the other girls in to such extremes. That kind of manipulation of others seems more common in adults, with people like Manson and cult leaders. I agree that there was probably more of a symbolic/political agenda.
David wrote: "I think the term 'Evil' itself is a loaded word. For me the word has a religious connotation and only exists where organised religion is prevalent and considered the arbiter of moral correctness. A..."Agreed, completely. And very well put.
I was bullied as a child, yes children are capable of as much or more evil than adults.
There is a child inside every adult. The fact that adults can be cruel and inhumane is proof that children can.In real life children who have been mistreated often either commit crimes as children or grow up to commit one.
Trapped in that situation and with the loss of hope, just imagine what that can do to a child. The things we see little kids do when they fight, bully, stressed and caged was just amplified in this book.
Every person in the world is "capable" of doing evil. Evil arises out of hate and fear. Without adults on the island to keep the rules enforced the civilized attitude slipped away. They became complete savages when the conch broke. The conch symbolizing order and law.
I feel the subject of Eugenics is present in this book. If not Eugenics, most definetly Darwinism.
I felt like there was most definitely Darwinism in the book.
Yes. It's a matter of circumstances and opportunity.
They definitely have the potential so yes, they can.
I've read this book several times with enormous admiration for the author and I own two films made about it. I find its premise completely believable in that people do possess a level of savagery they tend to paper over with the veneer of civilized life. The idea here is that removed of civilization's constraints, the savagery comes out.
The mob mentality is frightening as well. A group might do things an individual would not.
That's right, AJ. Mobs act in ways individuals wouldn't all the time. The safety of the crowd can bring out all sorts of negativity. A recent death resulting from fraternity hazing has finally forced some universities to study that practice which has been responsible for many instances of ugly activity.
Of course, children can be and are, sometimes, evil. Where do evil adults come from? If you look at the background of a serial killer, you'll find a child who was tearing the wings off of flies, trapping animals and torturing them, etc. The capacity for cruelty doesn't suddenly emerge when a person reaches their majority, it can express itself in a child's bad behavior which is often likely to be dismissed as 'childish behavior' they'll grow out of, especially if they come from privileged backgrounds. Golding's novel is brilliant precisely because he uses upper crust children from fine homes where wealth can be covering extreme neglect, where children might be raised by nannies and never see their parents. What are the values of these children? Success? Leadership? They can expect these things due to their backgrounds, but their personal values are as unformed as they are. They start off wearing their uniforms after the plane crash. These are emblems of their society, but what do those uniforms also cover up?
Toni wrote: "..where children might be raised by nannies and never see their parents"An insightful post, Toni.
It reminded me that of all the children, Piggy is the only one who is an orphan. His parents are dead and he was raised by an "auntie." Isn't it interesting that the character who's the most reasonable, mature and advanced in intellect and maturity is the one without the influence of genetic parenting.
That's right. I forgot Piggy was an orphan which would make him more sensitive to the harshness of life and feelings of vulnerability than the others who were raised in more secure situations.
Ralph who is a very reasonable character starts off by proposing an element of law - the conch - which is initially accepted and Ralph is elected leader. At first, Ralph and Jack appear to like each other as natural leaders. However, very quickly, Jack displays ambitions that are competitive with Ralph. Jack is already the leader of the choir and he wants to be the leader of all the kids. Is this really a surprise? Look at politics. How many politicians really want to improve the lives of their constituents and how many just want to keep and build their power? Ralph is the first type. Jack is the second.
What the book explores is how people often follow leadership that isn't in their best interests. Instead of questioning Jack's policies which embrace partying over being responsible and keeping the fire lit, the children enjoy his political message of 'we're here to satisfy our inner cravings' and 'we'll justify our barbarism by being the best source of food'. Nothing surprising about this. Adults behave this way all the time. Why would children be any different?
Ralph who is a very reasonable character starts off by proposing an element of law - the conch - which is initially accepted and Ralph is elected leader. At first, Ralph and Jack appear to like each other as natural leaders. However, very quickly, Jack displays ambitions that are competitive with Ralph. Jack is already the leader of the choir and he wants to be the leader of all the kids. Is this really a surprise? Look at politics. How many politicians really want to improve the lives of their constituents and how many just want to keep and build their power? Ralph is the first type. Jack is the second.
What the book explores is how people often follow leadership that isn't in their best interests. Instead of questioning Jack's policies which embrace partying over being responsible and keeping the fire lit, the children enjoy his political message of 'we're here to satisfy our inner cravings' and 'we'll justify our barbarism by being the best source of food'. Nothing surprising about this. Adults behave this way all the time. Why would children be any different?
Toni wrote: "Look at politics. How many politicians really want to improve the lives of their constituents and how many just want to keep and build their power? Ralph is the first type. Jack is the second. What the book explores is how people often follow leadership that isn't in their best interests.
"
Well said again. This could be the premise of the book.
Piggy also illustrates the Evolutionary principle of Competition, which has a corollary that a species (or individual) will react to stressors by getting stronger (as in bodybuilding.) Being an orphan, Piggy was forced to think independently and become more self-reliant. Even his physical handicaps forced him to rely more heavily on intellect and be more sensitive to others' needs. Piggy was the strongest boy, mentally, but the most vulnerable. And he knew it.
Piggy's vulnerabilities make him a perfect target for being scapegoated. He's the only orphan as you noted. He's the only character wearing glasses. He's the only one who's overweight. Piggy is different, so it's easy for Jack to target him and isolate him as an object of contempt. Piggy is also Ralph's biggest supporter because he can see that Ralph is obviously a more responsible leader than Jack, but being different, Piggy's support has the effect of adding to Ralph's isolation.
Ralph is offering a win-win solution. All of us should pitch in, keep the fire going and work toward getting rescued. Jack is offering win-lose. I'm a winner because I'm having more fun, so come with me and you'll be a winner too. Further, if you don't come with me, you'll be a loser. You won't get any meat and you won't have any fun and you'll be stuck with Piggy. Which sounds better?
I do believe that how quickly the children follow Jack is at the heart of the book.
Ralph is offering a win-win solution. All of us should pitch in, keep the fire going and work toward getting rescued. Jack is offering win-lose. I'm a winner because I'm having more fun, so come with me and you'll be a winner too. Further, if you don't come with me, you'll be a loser. You won't get any meat and you won't have any fun and you'll be stuck with Piggy. Which sounds better?
I do believe that how quickly the children follow Jack is at the heart of the book.
Humans in general do repulsive things all the time especially when put in difficult situations.
I agree with that. Stressful situations bring out the best and the worst and both are reflected here.
Toni wrote: "I agree with that. Stressful situations bring out the best and the worst and both are reflected here."Of course, it was an stressful situation the crash of the plane and being stranded in an island. However, the island had everything for the basic needs.
The problematic begins when the power struggle starts: one leader thinks for real what is the best for all while the other only thinks in himself disguising it as if he only wants to give everyone the fulfillment of his needs in a more "enjoyable and fantastical" way.
There we could see how the majority was convinced to join the "savage" cause: from words to torture.
In our society, is common that we prefer a leader who can give us "bread and circus", making us forget the reality and what it should be really done. In another words, the best thing for a society is that we don't complain and have our minds in other shallow things.
It's like saying "don't worry about the situation, I'll take care of it, meanwhile, have a piece of cake and enjoy the party." or "Please, don't cry. Here, have this candy."
If the powerful groups see someone who could be dangerous to them, they will try to make him/her join to their cause of make him/her disappear.
Maybe Piggy was very reasonable, but at some point of the story, he is also hypocritical because of fear(like Ralph). Inducing fear and guilty is one of the best weapons for someone who wants power for oneself.
There is also another character, who may not be as remarkable as him, but he was very brave, more conscious and was "respected" in both groups: Simon.
I think any of us who can actually remember our childhoods can remember wonderful acts of kindness as well as shocking acts of brutality from our peers (if at a smaller scale than in the Lord of the Flies). We are all taught empathy as well as limits, rules, and norms, right along with how to be a good friend, and an accepted member of society. If you were to take away that society, take away all the known rules and limits, it's not such a stretch to imagine how other norms would alter themselves to fit the new situations.
It's interesting to look at Simon and Piggy because both of them die in the course of the novel, but Simon's death is an accident while Piggy's is clearly murder.
yes they are. terrible things happen everyday at the hand of children.
Yes I think they can. I work with kids and their unthinking cruelty is amazing. They just don't think long term about consequences of their actions.
캐서린 wrote: "Teenagers commit crimes all the time.Your thoughts?"
Not just teenagers. That's very unfair and untrue.
All human beings are capable of acting like animals because, under the surface and not very deep, we Are animals.
I think we have a dangerous tendency to forget that.
Jules wrote: "...We are all taught empathy as well as limits, rules, and norms, right along with how to be a good friend, and an accepted member of society...."Empathy, that's a key word.
When I was a child, I did hurt some people and some animals but unintentionally, without thinking that I was doing something bad. I was only thinking in myself and experimenting with what was around me in a high degree and didn't think that I was hurting others with my actions.
As I grew older and I matured, I started to understood it and I have been feeling guilty about it. I have become more conscious of my actions, although there are moments when I do it because I am absent-minded like saying something that I shouldn't, in that case I don't know it until someone tells me.
Maybe that's that, children are doing things which can see normal to them until someone, eg. parents, teachers, etc. makes them conscious about them, that hurting living things is bad and terrible and something not to be proud about.
Also part of the human being is to be afraid of stay alone. This fear can make us do also the unthinkable even we can lose empathy with others.
Children normally are very honest with what they think and feel. If Adults don't have empathy, they can disguise it like other faults they have.
Interesting comments here. I wonder is there a reason for the phrase kid are cruel. It is a fact that they can be, although possibly because they don't know they are being cruel.
If we do look at Nazi Germany though, it is a fact that kids were encouraged to and did inform on their parents. This was the norm though and so possibly to them, not such a horrid thing.
I don't think kids are basically evil, but susceptible to the conditions around them. In this sort of situation, one bad egg could infect the rest so to speak.
Just look at who didn't move "tribes". Ralph with the military family background, Simon, who was a bit of a loner, Samneric, who relied on each other, and Piggy, the outcast.
If we do look at Nazi Germany though, it is a fact that kids were encouraged to and did inform on their parents. This was the norm though and so possibly to them, not such a horrid thing.
I don't think kids are basically evil, but susceptible to the conditions around them. In this sort of situation, one bad egg could infect the rest so to speak.
Just look at who didn't move "tribes". Ralph with the military family background, Simon, who was a bit of a loner, Samneric, who relied on each other, and Piggy, the outcast.
Cheryl wrote: " and Piggy, the outcast."Note also that Piggy was an orphan, being raised by an aunt.
Piggy was the most intelligent and most considerate of them all, raising the issue of parenting and its effect on behavior.
"I wonder is there a reason for the phrase kid are cruel."
This phrase baffles me. It runs entirely counter to my experience. Some kids can be, but they're a tiny minority in my experience. It makes me wonder what kind of company these posters kept, to have such a negative opinion of children.
I don't have a negative opinion of children, but I recognize that they're capable of cruelty and the point of this book is that, given the opportunity, it will emerge.
Piggy is the most sensitive and it's because he's had a tougher time of it than the others.
Piggy is the most sensitive and it's because he's had a tougher time of it than the others.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Blindness (other topics)
Gone (other topics)
Gone (other topics)
Lord of the Flies (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Lord of the Flies (other topics)Blindness (other topics)
Gone (other topics)
Gone (other topics)
Lord of the Flies (other topics)
Children are sincere (and very sincere) about what they think, feel and want. Adults are more hypocritical so they hide it because society makes them to be more participative and expecting them to be "good" role models.
Normally children do what adults around them do, and there you can see the adults' contradictions or solid beliefs and values.
Eg. Since little they tell you that smoking and drinking is bad for your health, however you see that your father or mother is smoking/drinking very often, when they explain you why they do it, either to justify themselves or not, to which conclusion you can come?
Another example: Prejudice and attacking someone due to its gender, age, religion, race and sexual preferences is a bad thing, but why are some children continue attacking the people whom they seem different after they already told them it is bad?