Register to read the introduction…
It illustrates the increasing loss of innocence by manifesting only after an act of true evil was committed- the “raping” of the sow. When Simon first discovers it, it “speaks” to him by way of a hallucination caused by his epilepsy, and introduces itself as the "Beastie" (Elliott, Joyce, Shorvon, “Delusions”). This is ironic as the Lord of the Flies is composed of a truly innocent creature- the murdered sow. That the boys are determined to kill it suggests that they are intent on destroying innocence as opposed to evil, which is what they believe they are hunting. Simon still retains his innocence due to his isolated behavior and epilepsy. His distinct behavior does not go unnoticed by the others and many know him to be “cracked” (Golding 132).His isolation while on the island prevents him from being influenced by Jack and allows him to maintain his idea that the “beastie” is not a corporeal creature. Simon, understanding that the “beastie” is the innate evil of mankind, is the first to realize that the fear and bloodlust are getting out of hand. The boys, determined to kill the “beastie”, do not realize that they are doing the opposite by sinning and strengthening its hold over them. The more innocence is sacrificed to succor evil, the stronger the “beastie”
…show more content…
The death of the sow, an innocent creature, was an unnecessary sacrifice that the boys made to the “beastie”, in an attempt to draw it out to kill it. The irony in this action is that there was no need to kill it in the first place- it did not exist in the real world, but rather in their subconscious. The death of the sow helped to sustain the “beastie”, corrupting the boys even further. As the boys are unaware of what the “beastie” truly is, they believe everything they are doing is helping to defeat it, when in reality it is only causing them to do what the “beastie” desires them to do- succumb to evil. As Simon is the first to recognize what the “beastie” is, it seems fitting that he should be the first boy to die by its hands. The boys, who believe the beastie to be a corporeal creature, mistake Simon to be it and murder him with their teeth and hands, illustrating that savage changes they have undergone and sacrificing what little innocence is they have left. The next sacrifice is the death of piggy, who is killed to appease Roger’s bloodlust. Piggy’s glasses are needed to light a fire, but rather than civilly ask Piggy for his glasses, Jack’s followers bind him then tear his glasses from his face, attempting to institute fear and vulnerability into him. They feed off of his fearful cries for help, because it makes the boys feel
The death of the sow, an innocent creature, was an unnecessary sacrifice that the boys made to the “beastie”, in an attempt to draw it out to kill it. The irony in this action is that there was no need to kill it in the first place- it did not exist in the real world, but rather in their subconscious. The death of the sow helped to sustain the “beastie”, corrupting the boys even further. As the boys are unaware of what the “beastie” truly is, they believe everything they are doing is helping to defeat it, when in reality it is only causing them to do what the “beastie” desires them to do- succumb to evil. As Simon is the first to recognize what the “beastie” is, it seems fitting that he should be the first boy to die by its hands. The boys, who believe the beastie to be a corporeal creature, mistake Simon to be it and murder him with their teeth and hands, illustrating that savage changes they have undergone and sacrificing what little innocence is they have left. The next sacrifice is the death of piggy, who is killed to appease Roger’s bloodlust. Piggy’s glasses are needed to light a fire, but rather than civilly ask Piggy for his glasses, Jack’s followers bind him then tear his glasses from his face, attempting to institute fear and vulnerability into him. They feed off of his fearful cries for help, because it makes the boys feel