What is the major theme of this novel? Why is this theme important to a teenager living in 2008?
Many interpretations of what the major theme of The Lord of the Flies is have been made, some similar and some quite different from Golding’s own interpretation. According to Golding “the theme is an attempt to trace the defects of society back to the defects of human nature. The moral is that the shape of a society must depend on the ethical nature of the individual and not on any political system however apparently logical or respectful. The whole book is symbolic in nature except the rescue in the end where adult life appears, dignified and capable, but in reality enmeshed in the same evil as the symbolic life of the children on the island. The officer, having interrupted a man-hunt, prepares to take the children off the island in a cruiser which will presently be hunting its enemy in the same implacable way. And who will rescue the adult and his cruiser?”
My interpretation of the theme is quite similar, but some aspects may differ from Golding’s original suggestion. To put things simple, because of the nature of humanity, a utopian society is literally IMPOSSIBLE to create. One may be in existence for a short period of time, but eventually, all of the internal and external conflicts going on within the society between one or more opposing figures, will be enough to break the society's structure, leading it to chaos. Therefore, as a moral instead of a theme, one should not attempt to create a utopian society, for it will eventually break and end up worse than it started with.
Now you may start thinking, "They're children!! Of course they're going to have little unimportant conflicts!"
If that is, in fact, how you are thinking, then you are neglecting to realize the period that Golding was writing this novel, and also the time that The Lord of the Flies takes place. World War II. The ship that came and saved what remained of the savage schoolboys in Chapter 12 was a cruiser that was sent out too do work that was caused by a disagreement and conflict in society. Ironic, really. The ones that came and ended one society's conflict are the same ones that are creating a World War over theirs. World War is much more of an overreaction than a simple man-hunt. Unless, what Jack and his tribe was attempting to achieve was a genocide, a mass killing of anyone siding with Ralph? I don't know, but either way, it doesn't change the theme of this novel.
Though this may be the theme, another theme may be rooted from the novel's context. The loss of innocence. The boys from Chapter 12 are not the same boys that tried to build a society in Chapter 1. Without anyone to keep order, humanity roots to savagery. Savagery is overly used in this novel, and for a reason two. Golding isn't just using the word savagery as a metaphor, or as a neat word. He uses it to emphasize the importance in it, the importance in the theme that these conflicts do result to savagery. Even today. The government, the court, the law, etc. is the only thing keeping people from heading to the path of savagery, away from order and civilization. Everyone naturally has this "evil" within them that leads to savagery and these things are the only things that are keeping them held within, not letting them out to the world. Some say that rules were meant to be broken. Others say that they were made to keep from harm. But I say that they are made to keep order, to keep us safe from each other, from the Beast. We are the Beast.
-Tanner-
Many interpretations of what the major theme of The Lord of the Flies is have been made, some similar and some quite different from Golding’s own interpretation. According to Golding “the theme is an attempt to trace the defects of society back to the defects of human nature. The moral is that the shape of a society must depend on the ethical nature of the individual and not on any political system however apparently logical or respectful. The whole book is symbolic in nature except the rescue in the end where adult life appears, dignified and capable, but in reality enmeshed in the same evil as the symbolic life of the children on the island. The officer, having interrupted a man-hunt, prepares to take the children off the island in a cruiser which will presently be hunting its enemy in the same implacable way. And who will rescue the adult and his cruiser?”
My interpretation of the theme is quite similar, but some aspects may differ from Golding’s original suggestion. To put things simple, because of the nature of humanity, a utopian society is literally IMPOSSIBLE to create. One may be in existence for a short period of time, but eventually, all of the internal and external conflicts going on within the society between one or more opposing figures, will be enough to break the society's structure, leading it to chaos. Therefore, as a moral instead of a theme, one should not attempt to create a utopian society, for it will eventually break and end up worse than it started with.
Now you may start thinking, "They're children!! Of course they're going to have little unimportant conflicts!"
If that is, in fact, how you are thinking, then you are neglecting to realize the period that Golding was writing this novel, and also the time that The Lord of the Flies takes place. World War II. The ship that came and saved what remained of the savage schoolboys in Chapter 12 was a cruiser that was sent out too do work that was caused by a disagreement and conflict in society. Ironic, really. The ones that came and ended one society's conflict are the same ones that are creating a World War over theirs. World War is much more of an overreaction than a simple man-hunt. Unless, what Jack and his tribe was attempting to achieve was a genocide, a mass killing of anyone siding with Ralph? I don't know, but either way, it doesn't change the theme of this novel.Though this may be the theme, another theme may be rooted from the novel's context. The loss of innocence. The boys from Chapter 12 are not the same boys that tried to build a society in Chapter 1. Without anyone to keep order, humanity roots to savagery. Savagery is overly used in this novel, and for a reason two. Golding isn't just using the word savagery as a metaphor, or as a neat word. He uses it to emphasize the importance in it, the importance in the theme that these conflicts do result to savagery. Even today. The government, the court, the law, etc. is the only thing keeping people from heading to the path of savagery, away from order and civilization. Everyone naturally has this "evil" within them that leads to savagery and these things are the only things that are keeping them held within, not letting them out to the world. Some say that rules were meant to be broken. Others say that they were made to keep from harm. But I say that they are made to keep order, to keep us safe from each other, from the Beast. We are the Beast.
-Tanner-
2 comments:
Sure, I really agree with the fact that utopian society can't be created and maintained by humans. Savagery is clearly rooted in a human's core, and it can't be ignored. In Stephen King's novel Cell, one character theorized that the very core code that exists within a person is murder. Or something similar to that statement.
Golding expresses the several different types of people exist within the world. Sure, everyone has a beast within them, but not all people follow that beast entirely. Simon, the one true good person, is the ultimate minority of good people in society. Ralph is also good, though not as entirely as Simon, and he considers moral values highly. Piggy is the intellectual, the one boy who pretty much thought like an adult. These three are the best examples of the boys who knew the savage instinct within them, and still tried to beat it down. These three, in a way, show that the 'beast' can be tied down, kept in a cage, and tamed.
What I'm trying to say is, the beast can be trapped. It can't be killed, but it can be shut in a cage if needed. Plus, do you really think we shouldn't try to build a society that works for the good of everyone? I think it would be okay. It won't be perfect, but humans aren't perfect anyway. JUst improving it, making the world better, I think that would be pretty reasonable. There is no actual proof in the story that the attempt to build a utopian world will create more chaos. I don't think the boys were actually aiming for Utopia in the first place.
Few more things I want to state. First of all, I think the last sentence of your third paragraph shouldn't be ignored. I do think that Jack and his tribe were to kill Ralph and anyone who followed him. Savagery isn't kept in a person; it is poured upon a victim or opponent. Ralph was Jack's opponent, and he was the enemy to Jack's tribe. They planned to kill Ralph, and after the enemy is dead, do you think they would be satified? Savagery is filled with bloodlust. After Ralph, more would be killed. It would be obvious that the first to go would be Ralph's side. Dictatorship isn't as sweet as it should be without anybody to victimize, you know.
Lastly, I am not sure whether I agree with what you said about the law. Sure, the law and court can be the limit line for most people. But do you really think so? It is people who have created those systems. Humans control the law and the court and the rules. Why would people abide by the rules if we can manipulate them, break them, and abuse them? Do you really think the island became a scene of chaos because there were no rules? Because no law was enforced? Not really. Ralph actually made rules: they created guidelines to follow. Jack simply broke them apart. Same follows for the adult society. Laws can be torn apart. Why do you think rebellions and war happens? Because there is no law? No. Law is useless. Then what keeps us from crossing the line? Power. We don't care about the law; we care about the punishments we can't escape from when you break the law. If there was no power behind those laws, no laws would work at all. What we need is somebody to spank us when we try to do something wrong, not a law that is written on paper that can be burned. In this way, people ruling over each over is inevitable.
P.S. I don't think you answered why this theme is important to a teenager living in modern society.
Well one thing I forgot to add is that to fully understand my understanding of this novel is to read ALL of my blog posts. You have commented saying things that I should have said, when I DID say it, just in a different post. My blog posts are interlocked. They work together and support each other. Reading one simple blog post will only give you a small fraction of the understanding needed to recieve the message I am trying to convey. I see this as something interesting, not as some boring English assignment where I have to answer these six to eight dumb questions. I wanted to do all eight, but I had no time. But I took this project seriously, and din't just try to finish the questions. That is why my blog posts are one, working together, not just simply answered in hope of getting an A.
That said, I would like to move on...
Just to be frank, I'll start with the PS note. I did answer that question, but what I failed to do was put it into this blog post. Sorry, my fault. But just for the record, I did, in fact, answer that question. But I did it in the "current situations" blog post. (you should actually read that one; I had fun with it^^).
You mentioned in your third paragraoh that it seemed as if I were trying to convey to not make a good society, but what I was REALLY trying to show was that attempting to build a utopian society is ruthless. If attempted, all the pressure will build up and eventually blow (I explained this much better in my "current situations" blog post). Going to geography class, look at Africa. Europe colonized it. The society was going smoothly after independance. However, they tried too hard and too fast to have a strong civil society. Ruthless. Did you get the worksheet that shows the leaders of African countries, and how many did good for the country freely? Most of them were assassinated, ousted by force, etc. Building a utopian society? Bad idea. That's what I was REALLY trying to convey. Sprry if I confused you, apple gum.
Secondly, this isn't TOTALLY a counter-attack on you. In my third paragraph, last sentence, I was confused. You answered my question, thankfully, and now I understand. Thank-you.
And sorry if my message wasn't clear, but by saying the law. I had assumed that people would realize that also meant the punishment that came along with it, and that is precisely why many di not follow the rules of the island, the rules that the leader had made. Now if you look at it from a different perspective, what if Jack was on Ralph's side? Don't you think the island would be in really good order. One to make the law, another to enforce it and create the punishments for those who had broken it. Also, some of your early-fourth-paragraph answers can be answered as well in my "current situations" blog post.
I totally agree with what you said in your late fourth paragraph. That is, in fact what I was attempting to convey, and I apologize, apple gum, if I failed at that attempt.
Post a Comment