In Lord of the Flies by William Golding, the comparative lack of civilization makes way for the turn of our characters to savagery, the truest characteristic of humanity. After their plane crashes on an uninhabited and uncharted island, we see a group of boys turn from a democratic, civilized group into a dictatorial, savage group. In the end all is put to rest with the arrival of society in the form of a Navy officer, but the deeper issues are never truly fixed, only postponed and forgotten. The turn to savagery we see is consistent with the theory of Hobbes, which I also support, that being that humans themselves are naturally vicious.
Now, even though one could argue that the boys are inherently good and instead are ruined by their attempts …show more content…
“Roger’s arm was conditioned by a civilization that knew nothing of him and was in ruins”(62) - think of that for a minute! In the prior establishment of such a line, we see a “bigun”, Roger, throwing stones at a “littlun”, Henry (little and big-un refer to comparative sizes and ages). Even though there is no society present on the island, at least reminiscent that of our highly complex and amazingly intricate one of today - hence “and was in ruins” - Roger still can’t hit Henry with a rock. He has spent his whole life with this conditioning that such things go hand in hand with punishment and due retribution. Yet there is, over the course of Lord of the Flies, a break from this behavioural conditioning. The quote is from the 4th chapter, only 4 chapters later do we see Jack and his gang of hunters kill a sow (page 135) in an overtly sexual and grotesque manner, even concluding with a line remarking the spear’s entry into the pig’s anus. Not exactly acceptable stuff by any standards today, such a group activity would land any of them mental conditioning for years and years! Hobbes is emerging victorious at the very least in being pictured in Lord of the Flies, for society is gone and replaced by the innate need for things like the killing of the sow. Such masterful implementation only encourages my innate belief, knowing that society is often all I have to hold me back, and the understanding I have acquired of the same holding for
Now, even though one could argue that the boys are inherently good and instead are ruined by their attempts …show more content…
“Roger’s arm was conditioned by a civilization that knew nothing of him and was in ruins”(62) - think of that for a minute! In the prior establishment of such a line, we see a “bigun”, Roger, throwing stones at a “littlun”, Henry (little and big-un refer to comparative sizes and ages). Even though there is no society present on the island, at least reminiscent that of our highly complex and amazingly intricate one of today - hence “and was in ruins” - Roger still can’t hit Henry with a rock. He has spent his whole life with this conditioning that such things go hand in hand with punishment and due retribution. Yet there is, over the course of Lord of the Flies, a break from this behavioural conditioning. The quote is from the 4th chapter, only 4 chapters later do we see Jack and his gang of hunters kill a sow (page 135) in an overtly sexual and grotesque manner, even concluding with a line remarking the spear’s entry into the pig’s anus. Not exactly acceptable stuff by any standards today, such a group activity would land any of them mental conditioning for years and years! Hobbes is emerging victorious at the very least in being pictured in Lord of the Flies, for society is gone and replaced by the innate need for things like the killing of the sow. Such masterful implementation only encourages my innate belief, knowing that society is often all I have to hold me back, and the understanding I have acquired of the same holding for