The Lord Of The Flies Rhetorical Analysis

1186 Words 5 Pages
Mistreating the Situation

In William Golding’s Lord of The Flies he demonstrates how the boys put themselves in a situation where they act childish, when they should be very serious. D. David Wilson’s criticism “A Study of ‘Game Metaphor’ in Golding’s Lord of The Flies”, gives a new way to look at Golding’s book, of how the children act like they are in a game. Wilson mentions how the boy’s minds don’t focus on surviving and escaping the island, but trying to impress each other to gain leadership and power. Wilson says that the boys hunt, and abuse each other and animals for joy and excitement. He also says that they hunt and do other activities as a legitimate outlet of their aggression. Wilson is correct with his claim
…show more content…
Wilson says “hunting is still only talked about in terms of a game, and when Jack describes his first kill; it takes the form of a game” (Wilson). Wilson took Jack and his first kill and used him as a perfect example of how a hunter must not act. Hunting is not meant to be barbaric, but it’s meant to satisfy a necessary need of food, which the boys need food, but they don’t hunt for the right reason. Once again Golding takes advantage of the boy’s imagination. “Ralph danced out into the hot air of the beach and then returned as a fighter plane” (11). This adds so much support to Wilson’s argument, it shows the abuse that Ralph was giving to Piggy, just so Ralph could have a good laugh. It also shows the immature, and childish imagination that Ralph and the other boys carry throughout the novel. The boys were addicted to hunting, so much that they made Robert pretend to be a pig so that they could hunt him down. “That was a good game” (115). This is after they caught Robert and they were poking him, and hurting him, then all they had to say was that it was a harmless game. Wilson understands Golding’s messages, and he uses Golding’s words to fight for his metaphor of a

Related Documents