Lord of the Flies
discussion
Do you that children are really capable of such evil?
I see your point, Monty, and I agree. There's no predicting where or when the dark side of human nature will emerge.
Monty J wrote: "It's absurd to think that teenagers from a civilized nation would revert to savagery under any but the most extreme circumstances."Yes it's fiction, and yes time is compressed to several weeks for narrative purposes, but I'm not so sure it's absurd ... look at the Stanford Prison experiment of 1971. These were educated individuals from a "civilized" nation, and it took only six days to bring out the beasts in them.
Stephen, you're exactly right and there have been many versions of that experiment that prove it over and over again like people used in an 'educational' experiment that uses shock treatment to inspire learning. Participants really thought they were administering shocks for incorrect answers and even when they heard someone screaming on the other side of the curtain, they still administered the shocks though some asked the overseer to basically insist that they do so. Once relieved of responsibility, however, no one refused to administer the shocks.
That was the Millgram experiment which was designed to show how ordinary people could take the word of authoritarian figures to justify participating in unspeakable acts ergo the final solution. We would all like to think we would have had the courage to say no. I hope we never have to put it to the test.
That's right. If you want to understand how unthinkable things can happen, just watch footage of those tests. In Lord of the Flies, it just takes Jack assuming the role of the authoritarian figure to give the other children someone to follow.
I grew up in Oakland and the answer is a resounding yes.
Stephen wrote: "These were educated individuals from a "civilized" nation, and it took only six days to bring out the beasts in them."Sample results can only apply to a population represented by the sample, which I presume is heavily skewed toward those wealthy enough to attend Standford. It's questionable to draw universal conclusions from a sample drawn from such a narrow demographic, although it is pretty damning of the population the sample does represent.
This book was shocking because it was about a priviledged group of children , if it had been about a group of orphans being transported to Australia it would never have been as sucessful . This book shows how close we all are to , not evil , but some base instinct of survival.
The child soldiers of the numerous african wars but especially in the Congo & Rwanda region are proof of how any (often God fearing Christian) children can be traumatized, brainwashed or otherwise intoxicated into committing acts of severe brutality. 'Beasts of No Nation' is worth reading for this perspective (although the profanity is rather gratuitous.) Along with this, there are the grisly slaughters of children by children in Cambodia under Pol Pot and his lunatics, in the mid to late 1970s. Virtually every region on Earth is seeped in sanguinary violence at some point or another and the young are often forced into these dreadful bloodbaths. I just re-read Lord of the Flies and didn't feel it was beyond the realms of possibility from a modern perspective ; I've read infinitely worse in hisotry books.
Yes, when they are so far away from home, they are going crazzy.
Paul wrote: "The child soldiers of the numerous African wars but especially in the Congo & Rwanda region are proof of how any (often God fearing Christian) children can be traumatized, brainwashed or otherwise ..."The Nazi Holocaust and the Rape of Nanking proved that anything is possible during war.
LOTF was not about war. It was about how a sociopath, Jack, was able to gain influence over other boys by exploiting their fear. As written, the story is grossly pessimistic, an exaggerated view of possibility in order to illustrate a point that can be made in a single sentence: Men are capable of savagery under extreme circumstances. Which is why I'm suspicious that Golding was sending a deeper message, a warning that savagery lurks among the descendants of the British nobility responsible for slavery and other British atrocities.
What is the inherent nature of mankind? If, like me, you think it's essentially good, then you'll understand how hard I hated this book. Would never have read it if not required for a class a long time ago.
Yes they are capable of such evil especially if they have no guidance.
I was bullied most of my life so I actually know that children can be extremely evil.Just so we're clear, I'm talking about from kindergarten until I graduated from school in 2007. That's more than half of my lifetime.
What about the famous psychology experiment where students were given roles as prisoners and guards, and took part in most appalling acts of bullying and violence although they were educated, 'civilised' people? I have a nasty feeling that many people can sink to this level in conducive circumstances, and children are potentially as badly-behaved as adults.
I think mankind started out neutrally, like animals (I shall leave the theories on complicated animal behavior due to emotions aside; those animals must have been neutral at some point). Civilization, a concept that is generally "good" became the standard, leaving wild or barbaric activity considered as "evil". So I believe it's normal, even common that childeren are "evil", unless an adult is around to supervise or reprimand.However, the parents and teachers of the children in Lord of the Flies were a bad influence. As Piggy said,"After all, we're not savages. We're English, and the English are best at everything." This shows how biased they were, and this was probably inherited from their parents or teachers. Also, Ralph takes pride in the fact that his father is in the Navy. For an adult to have a completely positive influence, he or she must be absolutely nonracist, which is nearly impossible. Of course, it is not the adults' influence but the children's sense of responsibility and priority that factors the most. Ralph and Piggy had the most of these, so they were the most civilized.
As a child myself, I know that children can be very evil. However, I have noticed that in many cases, the children do this to show power or leadership, and many of them clearly enjoy being evil. So I believe some brutality is necessary for children to show power, since most cannot do this otherwise. Nevertheless, parents and teachers should have more control over children's actions.
Bottom line: children can be evil, but that is because of bad influence by adults. Savagery among children is normal, if being civilized is standard.
The aspect of war isn't inportant - the comparison is the extreme circunstances that can elicit atavistic violence, in adults or children. All are capable of this reversion to violence but thankfully not all are placed in such extreme positions to test this thesis. LOTR will be read a cebtury from now and still have resonance. Where would be a good source to elucidate on Golding's intent ? Did he write about the allegory you alluded to?
Monty J wrote: "I'm suspicious that Golding was sending a deeper message, a warning that savagery lurks among the descendants of the British nobility responsible for slavery and other British atrocities."Interesting suggestion, Monty. I've not read any biographies of or interviews by Golding, so I have no idea whether the indictment of class is any implicit (or explicit) theme in his books. I have read other works than LOFT, though, e.g. The Inheritors, so I suspect that his pessimism is applied to humanity in general.
It's interesting that there are two "camps," if you will, among readers of LOFT. I'm among those who rather relish the whole dark descent into barbarity, and see reflected in it a vindicating truth, if you will (one of the good things about fiction is that one can go to terrible places, but no one really gets hurt). On the other side are those who find it tendentious, even exploitative, in its pessimism, and are offended by it.
It seems to boil down to how we confront evil in human nature; there's those of us like myself who "accept" evil as inherent in all human nature, and those who resist this assumption and seek to relegate it to the extraordinary. I call Jack a garden-variety bully (albeit in a Standford-like situation); you call him a sociopath. I read about Stanford and see universality, whereas you see class privilege or social status that separates those subjects from the rest of "us." I'm not troubled by the "pessimism" of seeing barbarity anywhere (whether the colonial savagery of Jaillanwala, or that of the Tutsis against the Hutus), whereas I give a skeptical scowl at comments about the inherent barbarity of the rich or privileged (are they a separate species? Am I twice as "evil" as my neighbor if I earn twice as much as they do?).
One thing I think we can agree on is that civilization is a precious but fragile veneer that can be stripped away under circumstances of duress, such as warfare. I suspect this is one of Golding's main points. And for all of our discussion of evil and Jack, Golding's protagonist, the character with whom we (and Golding) most identifies, is Ralph.
On a completely different topic, this is all great stuff. It's terrific that all of us, residing wherever we are, can get enjoy engaging discussion about the thing we love most, literature. Bravo for Goodreads.
"LOTF was not about war. It was about how a sociopath, Jack, was able to gain influence over other boys by exploiting their fear."
That's right. It's a study in fascism. LOTF is a capsule look at an isolated population that comes under the influence of a charismatic sociopath. This isn't a new story. There are lots of examples in history, however, what I find brilliant in this novel is the use of proper prep school boys who reduce themselves to savages which only Ralph and Piggy resist. I suppose if you believe people don't have this in them, it's a hard book to read, but people do have this in them and it's a very worthwhile book to read for that reason.
That's right. It's a study in fascism. LOTF is a capsule look at an isolated population that comes under the influence of a charismatic sociopath. This isn't a new story. There are lots of examples in history, however, what I find brilliant in this novel is the use of proper prep school boys who reduce themselves to savages which only Ralph and Piggy resist. I suppose if you believe people don't have this in them, it's a hard book to read, but people do have this in them and it's a very worthwhile book to read for that reason.
Carole wrote: "What about the famous psychology experiment where students were given roles as prisoners and guards, and took part in most appalling acts of bullying and violence although they were educated, 'civi..."The Standford Prison Study was discussed above, and as I mentioned, a small unrepresentative sample is a weak foundation for drawing sweeping conclusions about mankind. A study can only apply to the population represented in the sample--wealthy, educated, predominately white and virtually all male (one female observer.)
Stephen wrote: "...the inherent barbarity of the rich or privileged (are they a separate species? Am I twice as "evil" as my neighbor if I earn twice as much as they do?)..."Let's just say that my personal experience has run the opposite of noblesse oblige.
Many of the worst atrocities of mankind are the consequence of a wealthy ruling elite seeking ever more power. Or resisting them, as in the and the atomic bomb and the Hutu/Tutsi conflict in Burundi and Rwanda. Pictures of "sword practice" beheadings of innocent civilians during the Rape of Nanking were celebrated in the Japanese press until Japanese embassies around the world were deluged with condemnation. It was the British aristocracy who were responsible for slavery, the Boer extermination camps and ethnic cleansing. British intelligence about the yellowcake lie also figured heavily in the invasion of Iraq. And today, a wealthy elite in America promulgates Randism, an elitist philosophy that undermines democratic principles.
I'm suspicious of a power elite (represented by the current Republican Party) intent on weakening democratic government by dismantling regulatory controls designed to protect consumers by ensuring fair competition and preventing undue influence over commerce. The same party supports the ownership of military style assault weapons and expanded ammunition clips and resists background checks.
Fascism is around the corner. I don't know what Golding intended, other than a rebuttal to the novel Coral Island, but for me The Lord of the Flies is a warning about the threat of fascism.
Paul wrote: "LOTR will be read a cebtury from now and still have resonance."Agreed. It's timeless.
Toni wrote: "It's a study in fascism"I'm chuckling because you literally stole my line. I was composing a similar comment, but you posted first.
Amen and kudos for your entire post. It's right on the mark.
Monty J wrote: "The worst atrocities of mankind are the consequence of a wealthy ruling elite seeking ever more power."To my mind, 'power' and 'rule' are the common factors in these atrocities. Wealth may be a means of obtaining and exercising that power, but by no means is the only or even necessarily the primary motivator. To mention again the genocide of the Hutus, there's also the Khmer Rouge, the French Terror after the revolution, the atrocities committed during the partition of India and Pakistan, all the nastiness committed in the Balkans in the '90s, etc ... these people weren't wealthy or motivated by greed, they were common people fired up by dogma, ideology, or just plain old-fashioned hatred.
The most dangerous thing isn't a corrupt politician or some venal Wall Street banker, IMO -- these guys seek to preserve the status quo, after all, and abhor chaos and instability. The most dangerous beast has the body of the common mob and the head of a demagogue ... which seems to go to Golding's point, and yours and Toni's as well re. fascism.
I'll step back, now ... I've given my dead horse its last whack. :)
Thanks Monty and Stephen for fleshing this out. (no pun intended or maybe just a little). There are always new ways to display horror, it seems, but the story is the same wherever it occurs. It was actually the Tutsis, in 1994, who were murdered by the Hutus, but that confusion only proves the point because I could never tell these tribes apart. There's a certain level of senseless slaughter that repeatedly rears its ugly head when a mob is whipped up by calculated fear. In the case of Rwanda, the Hutus were told to fear the minority Tutsis because they were planning to enslave them. Neighbor literally turned against neighbor in a rampage that ultimately killed as many as a million people.
Some years ago, I was writing a book about global trade and I interviewed someone who had traveled all over the world investigating seaweed. He said wherever he went, in the most remote parts of the globe, he saw the majority suppressing the minority, again and again. LOTF also captures this dynamic because Jack doesn't show his savage nature until he's sure he's stolen all of Ralph's support, so that he is isolated with Piggy. Good old fashioned bullying plays a big role in fascist power takeovers as well.
Some years ago, I was writing a book about global trade and I interviewed someone who had traveled all over the world investigating seaweed. He said wherever he went, in the most remote parts of the globe, he saw the majority suppressing the minority, again and again. LOTF also captures this dynamic because Jack doesn't show his savage nature until he's sure he's stolen all of Ralph's support, so that he is isolated with Piggy. Good old fashioned bullying plays a big role in fascist power takeovers as well.
Stephen wrote: "Monty J wrote: "The worst atrocities of mankind are the consequence of a wealthy ruling elite seeking ever more power."To my mind, 'power' and 'rule' are the common factors in these atrocities. ..."
The Hutu-Tutsi conflict actually goes back much farther than '94. In 1972 the Tutsi's, a majority, rebelled against the minority Hutus, who had been placed in positions of dominance over them by the British, who saw Hutus as superior because of their much larger, taller, physique.
Sound familiar to Shah Pahlavi in Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq?
British imperialism leaves a nasty trail.
I agree, but I wasn't suggesting that we draw sweeping conclusions from the Stanford prison experiment, merely that it does raise another interesting point for consideration along with other evidence. (And I have only just latched on to this discussion, which is why I didn't see the previous posts about Stanford though I might have guessed that others would have mentioned it before me.) The trouble is, there are so many instances of this kind of cruel behaviour that one does tend towards the conclusion that humans are capable of anything, child or adult. I think along with Stephen above, I'll leave this particular deceased horse to rest in peace now...
It was actually german and belgian imperialism that was responsible for intensifying enmities in the regions of Hutu/Tutsi cohabitation. All Empire has its sanguinary history, whether its denied, apoligized for or glorified in some cases.
Paul wrote: "It was actually german and belgian imperialism that was responsible for intensifying enmities in the regions of Hutu/Tutsi cohabitation. All Empire has its sanguinary history, whether its denied, a..."Agreed. Thanks for the correction. My data is decades old. Just a shard of memory from a news program.
Paul - true! No former imperialist power had better shout too loudly about the sins of others. There's also the adage that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe Golding had something like that in mind too.Dead horse apparently resurrected. Is now lying down again...
Everyone has to committee a crime if they have to. E.g. if you and your friend are kidnapped by a murderer and the killer say to stay alive you have to kill each other than you have to kill.
Dead horse now carted off to Findus Foods ; from where, no horse has returned ( until the Tesco freezer section of course)
"No former imperialist power had better shout too loudly about the sins of others. There's also the adage that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe Golding had something like that in mind too."
Carole, I agree with this and I do think Golding had this scope in mind which is why he used young people; fresh, young sharp looking young men in uniforms. As these societal layers come off, so does their connection to civilization which is little more than a veneer over the many dangers in our society.
As for the Santayana quote: "Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them." What better way to illustrate this than with the young who normally symbolize the hope of the future.
Carole, I agree with this and I do think Golding had this scope in mind which is why he used young people; fresh, young sharp looking young men in uniforms. As these societal layers come off, so does their connection to civilization which is little more than a veneer over the many dangers in our society.
As for the Santayana quote: "Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them." What better way to illustrate this than with the young who normally symbolize the hope of the future.
Yes. I think they are more capable than adults are because they don't always think about the effects of their actions. I'm sure you've heard someone say "Children can be so cruel." or something to that effect. They can bully somebody without realizing how much they really hurt this person, and in an extreme situation like the one in this book, I think they would resort to some of the things the children in the story did and not realize what a horrible thing they've done, and as they grow older, they would realize how horrible they were and start to feel guilty about it.
i'd rather not think so but at the end of the day the realization will seep in that this is indeed possible. Considering that childhood is when the child is at his most fragile stage and childhood can either make or break the kind of person he'll become. And since the factors are very clear - we have the presence of an insecure character who also wanted to be chief, a sadist, and the thought of ever getting saved. Maybe the story would have had ended another way if it's just one person trying to survive but in this case, they were many and so conflicts started to build up among them. And now we also have a considerable amount of time involved which was not really specified but was obviously a lot. So, as time goes by they needed to have another system because they thought that the previous one didn't work well. Another thing is the trauma the plane crash brought to all of them amplified by the terror of the beast -- which in the end turned out to be them.
ha! if anything I thought Golding was too mild. Children are capable of much worse! :^D
Obviously, in the book the children were only meant to serve as symbols for "human nature". Perhaps this means that the children were symbolizing the adults and society. The book was based off the philosophy that all of mankind was actually born evil, with a savage desire for blood. Personally, I do believe that children are capable of such evil. Children are really just grownups that haven't grown up yet. The only difference is that an adult has the intelligence and experience to know not to hurt people, whereas a kid has none of that. Every person has both a good and dark side, and whereas adults could just ignore their dark side, a kid may not make the same decision.
The children of that novel are more mature than today's children of same chronological age. They are from almost teenagers to little babies and there are two leaders: one is based in brute force and instict and another in reasoning. I think history , until now, demonstrates evil wins at beginning as happened with Hitler. This is symbolized by the extintion of the bonfire, a fact that represents the extintion of the reason. If you read popular novels of XIX cnetury, these are these two classes of undesrtandin adventures. Jules Verne believed in reason and faith in sciencia, while Emilio Salgari wrote about darkness and instinct, so, his "Sandokan" is a true savage. The two had some truth.The background we must have in count is a supossed nuclear war.
And remember. Lord of the Flies is equivalent to Belcebu, one of the firts names of Satan or. In its origin was Baal- Ze -Bu, bein the god Baal one of the most popular in the Bible after Yave. I don't know Aramaic but this was something similar. Golding, without doubt, had a vast culture.
at their age, children are possibly the most selfish, so yes.
Yes, children are capable of more cold-bloodedness and cruelty than adults because they have a different set of values more bent towards selfishness. I don't really believe children are like lambs or whatever. But of course it depends on the kind of values they have already acquired....
I repeat, in "God of the flies", the children have a very varied age, from older children as Jack Merridew, the hard leader, to only babies almost still unable to walk.
I think (and I hope I'm not repeating anything previously said, I haven't gone through every comment ) the point of having child protagonists in the novel is to bring across the duality of innocence and instinct that are often speculated to be the most abundant traits in children. So yes, I do think children could be that cruel. But I also think that, in this novel, they are meant to be a metaphor for an adult society. If a bunch of adults were stranded on the island, similar violence could possibly ensue. Society tends towards lawlessness, and this is portrayed brilliantly by a bunch of children with a burning desire for freedom from "rules"
The fact that violence to be a matter of conditioning is driven home because you don't expect viciousness from a group of (as many have put it) "well brought up" children.
Anwesha, I totally agree with how you have expressed it. Children can be that cruel, but in this case, they are a metaphor for adult behavior. The seeds of those adults are in these children.
This post is completed for a school assignment. I agree with most of the members of the discussion that children can commit terrible atrocities and crimes if they are not taught about morals or cultural values. Lord of the Flies is a allegory describing how a formerly kind group of children turned into superstitious, violent animals when they had no adult to govern them and they believed that they are in danger from the hidden beast when indeed the only menace results from their own barbarism. They symbolize the fear humans have for things they do not know and with this fear, they turn on each other, in hunger for power. This book was written at the beginning of the nuclear war between the Soviet Union and America. I do believe that all children are capable of evil because it does not serve them any purpose to act for the betterment of other when they do not see any benefit of altruism. For example, because Jack Merridew did not believe that keeping a fire serves any purpose and he see that he is stronger than all the other boys and he must rule. In the midst of anarchy, the boys took actions according to their impulse and this mindset can make children as foul as adults who have killed and abused others. Jack killed Piggy because the latter had what he needed and he forced Ralph’s friends to joice him under pains of death.
Samantha The Escapist wrote: "I'm confused, are you answering your own question here?
I think the simple answer is absolutely. I don't think childhood innocence is all it's cracked up to be - it's my firm belief that it's actu..."
The concept of 'childhood' has only appeared in the last half-century, but its really taken hold in the last twenty years. Throughout history before then, children were treated (within reason) like little adults.
I think the simple answer is absolutely. I don't think childhood innocence is all it's cracked up to be - it's my firm belief that it's actu..."
The concept of 'childhood' has only appeared in the last half-century, but its really taken hold in the last twenty years. Throughout history before then, children were treated (within reason) like little adults.
That's a very good point, Samantha. You can see it in period paintings. The children of nobility who were painted were dressed and posed like little adults.
Of course they are, children are always cruel to one another, put them in an environment where they don't have any contact with adults and they'll turn into little pests and start creating a cult around a person, and the ones that don't agree are put aside... Everyone does that, regardless of the age, we always tend to look up to someone and then be mistreated.
André wrote: "children are always cruel to one another.."Perhaps in your culture this is true, but not in mine. It's the mean kids who get ostracized. I'm sure this varies by location, but children who have been taught Christian values where I live do not act this way.
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)
Sorry, I worded that wrong. But, parsing your words, you said, "...given the opportunity it WILL emerge." The word WILL telegraphs a sweeping judgement that you may not have intended, implying that, without exception, children will act as savages "given the opportunity," as if they're little powder kegs waiting to blow as soon as adults aren't around.
Instead of WILL, if you had said, MAY, then I'd agree.
When we were small, my sister and I were left alone hundreds of times for hours by our alcoholic mother and only once did we have a bad fight and very rarely did anything malicious. We explored and played make believe and played games like feeding ants to doodle bugs and playing cards and dominoes.