Lord of the Flies essay. Discuss.

[chief]

Well if you ever read the book im sure you remember it. Either way I had to read for class. For the final essay on it we had to choose a topic. I choose, are humans in the lord of the flies generally good or evil?
Well heres my essay. Id like anybody and everybody to tell me what you think. Voice you're opinion and or start a argument with you're own thoughts. Ill let you know to that every thing written is my true opinion and I will stick behind it. Well here it is. Enjoy...... or despise.:D
_______________________________________________________________


In the Lord of the Flies humans are portrayed in general as beings of evil. They hunt like savages, stabbing, slashing, killing with no mercy, no will. Only death can fill them. Only chaos can water them. Only evil can be them

Only evil can feel that our cover up of being a good natured species is impossibly wrong. “ ‘Which is better - to have rules and agree, or to hunt and kill?’ ” again the clamor rose. Who could say this in the face of humanity? This is not how humans act. We will not kill for blood, for fun, for game. NO this is the call of evil. This is what happens when we commonly let our selves become one united soul under one king, The Lord of the Flies.

Humanity is good, it is educated, it is responsible. But humans are twisted. We do things with out thought, just words. Words that as portrayed in this book are a chant. A chant that will shoot through the soul and consume us in a paralyzing fear. “ ‘Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!’ ” The boys say this, they say it thinking in fun. But no not really fun bu entertainment. But look at the big picture, this fun is wrong so wrong. In fact its really fun of not them but it. Evil.

War, it’s a nasty thing we could say. Its lets say a kind of perhaps food for our mind ok. Well what happened on the island? The boys ate. They were stranded and they wanted to eat. In fact once they had a little action they just had to go and blow it out of proportion. But this war was different. You see humanity has wars for gain, for survival. But humans, the boys they had a war for nothing. They killed and walked that’s all. This isn’t right though. No this isn’t the way of war we know. This is the way of war that evil knows. This is what they did. This is what they are.

Killing, laughing, singing, ha this is what it is. It is what we are. What humans in general are. What we do, what we believe, what we try to conceal. Evil:twisted:

[InfinityMax]

First off, your essay is going to take a couple good licks for punctuation and grammar. You might consider reading it over again to catch your errors before you turn it in. On the other hand, maybe academic standards have dropped a long ways since I was in high school, and this is OK.

Your essay is interesting, but I believe that you may have missed the point of the book. When you say that the boys in the book are evil, and that humanity does not act the way the boys on the island act, you overlook the fact that the author uses the island as a microscopic cross-section of humanity. When the ship pulls up at the end to rescue the boys, the question that should remain in the mind of the astute reader is, 'who saves the rest of us?'

The book was written in the early 1950s, as the world was still reeling from the largest and most devastating war it had ever seen. News of the treatment of Jews by the Nazi regime was just starting to be known back home, and Stalin's purges were making headlines - not to mention national politics. We had just dropped the first atomic bomb. Communism was rearing its head as a huge threat to the free world. The author, an Englishman, had very likely survived a very serious threat against his country and routine air raids. In short, anyone who bothered to take a look at the atrocities of which humanity was capable was bound to be a little pessimistic about the capability of humankind to govern itself.

Consider also that not all the boys were inherently evil. Even starting out, Jack himself might not have been altogether a bad seed. He just wanted to have fun. But he was charismatic and powerful, and when he said, 'hey, let's go hunt and get some yummy food' the weaker boys thought that sounded like a good idea. Eventually he built himself a cult of personality and the boys whipped themselves into a frenzy. They may not have been evil by intent, rather just easily swayed by both a mob mentality and a charismatic leader into doing horrible things and justifying them as necessary.

Roger, on the other hand, epitomizes a rotten kid. Notice that he is not able to truly show how bad he is until he attaches himself to a leader willing to turn a blind eye to his nature because he literally brings home the bacon. Jack is a crazed leader who can't stand to be challenged; Roger is a willing lieutenant who loves his position of power and the option to be revel in his own dark nature.

Comparisons to modern society are plentiful and easy to find. To call Hitler evil is easy, but it does not explain why he had so many incredibly loyal followers. So many of Hitler's followers were very bad men who had to hide their darkness before he set them loose. Once freed from the constraints of a society that frowned on their evil deeds, they committed unthinkable atrocities.

You could easily draw the same comparisons to Stalin. He led through a force of personality. He initially had very lofty goals for his country, but the rush of power consumed him. He may not have started out intentionally bad, but he sure did get there. And many of his followers may have been nothing but the most idealistic and optimistic, but because they attached themselves to him, they blinded themselves to the horrors he inflicted on his own people.

A particularly astute reader might extrapolate farther than the biggest bogeymen of the 20th century. When taken as an object lesson, the book warns us against the trap of falling for the charms of a cult of personality. It warns us of the dangers of accepting lesser evils for immediate comforts. Of course, the author also betrays a complete lack of faith in humanity, and if his message is to be believed, points to the eventual destruction of the human race at its own blood-soaked hands.

And yet, just because (according to Golding), we are apt to destroy ourselves in a rabid frenzy, does that make us evil? That depends - does the desire for instant gratification over rational thought and the conscience make us evil? Are we evil because we are willing to accept small evils in favor of our comfort and security? Here's a difficult question: Would you buy products if you knew they had been made by children younger than 10 years old who were forced to work 14 hour days and sleep under their desks? How about food - would you willingly eat meat that came from animals that were forced to live in horrible conditions until they were tortured to death? If you can accept Chinese toys and MacDonald's cheeseburgers, does that make you evil?

If you were starving on an island, and your choices were to either join a powerful group of people who brought home food every night, or follow the one stick-in-the-mud kid who let you go to bed hungry, which would you choose? Which would most people choose? And does that choice make you evil?

One more note: this essay is just this side of silly. You must know you're not a presidential speechwriter. Just make your argument, and if you're not capable of effective melodrama, don't use it. It looks like you're trying to cover a lack of insight with a movie commercial voice-over, and it feels dishonest and forced. No offense intended, I swear. If you hate me for saying it and you still become a better writer because of it, well, that's a trade-off I can live with.

Last note, I swear: if you copy this post and turn it in as your paper, I will find you and commit unprintable misdeeds against your person.

[Nooblar]

I think it is important to point out that, while many of the boys had good intentions (thinking specifically of Jack's leadership), look how quickly they fell into sick and twisted behavior. I have seen many groups get whipped into a frenzy, but the end result depends on the intentions of those who got the crowd riled up. Protestors turn into rioters, and the kids at the Bible conference turn into enthusiastic followers (sometimes ;) ).

You raise some great discussion points, Imax, but that's all i've got for tonight!

[Onacara]

Wow IMax's post was longer than the essay but it is spot on.

(Add 2 points to the Level I am looking forward to meeting IMax at GenCon scale)

[Ormus]

I can truly say... :withimax:

A book published when Golding was a boy called 'Coral Island', told a similar story frame of 'boys abandoned on a deserted island. Except in 'CI' everything turned out okay; to Golding it wasn't realistic. Golding understood the true nature of man. Evil has absolutely nothing to do with it. One of the most prevalent themes throughout the book(your essay should probably have a long section about this): Mans fear is an internal struggle...'the beastie' is nothing more than the boys actve imagination at work...'the lord of the flies' himself appears only as an hallucination experienced by Simon(Jesus).

Man is inherently chaotic, I think you should redefine your views on the idea of "Evil".

[Finrod]

Pfft. This is the most basic of Lord of the Flies' themes.

Come see me when you've been required to write an essay on the significance and symbolism of Piggy's glasses or the color green.

[Ormus]

Pfft. This is the most basic of Lord of the Flies' themes.

Come see me when you've been required to write an essay on the significance and symbolism of Piggy's glasses or the color green.


Excuse me, are you talking to me....or are you talking to him(Ormus points at Chief) because if you are talking to me, we can do some philosiphising on Piggy's glasses, I am merely trying to explain to Chief exactly that, "the most basic theme" that seems to have elluded him.

[Gomolka]

I read LotF last year, and had to write an essay about it. There were many themes and topics in the book that I could have written about. Instead, I wrote about the scene in the book where Ralph encounters the Pig's head on the stick. He then becomes almost mesmorized by the smile of the Pig, and the flies flying around it's presence. Ralph then knocks the Pig's head off of the stick, and when the pig's skull hits the ground, the skull cracks, but the smile becomes even larger than it was before. I'm not sure exactly what I wrote, but it was something along the lines that the Pig's head represented an evil presence, and the natural behavior of human beings that is evil. When Ralph decided to try to ignore it by releasing anger on it, the smile became bigger. In this sense, the true winner of this "face off" between Ralph and the Pig's head was the Pig, because Ralph's sudden realization during his encounter with the Pig's head only made the situation more severe.

It was a pretty good essay. I got an A on it. If I can find it somewhere in my pile of old school papers, or on a file in my computer, I will try to bring it up and make some more points.

By the way, what I just wrote may have been a little off, in the sense of what is actually happening. I haven't even discussed this book in over a year, and I have read so many more books and done so many more reports since, that my familiarity with a certain book becomes vague.

[chief]

Well I can also say that Imax is correct in many points. But none the less to other I do understand the other points of the book. For instance Piggys glasses. They are survival. They provide fire and in such make fighting result for that survival. They also seem to show what humanities "mood" is. By this I mean piggy. He's always the care taker and thinker of knowledge and the youth. This is the reflection of the good will people we can be. But he also shows hatred, remorse, and fear. These are through out the book accordingly shown through his glasses.
The conch. This shows order. It starts off by bringing all the boys together. It gives each person that has it the ability to speak. But also when ever its around humanity is around. For instance they have their discussion on the hunt. They decide that they should go out and find the pigs. Get them, eat them. This is for survival. But when the hunters leave behind the presence of the conch they become humans. They start off slowly though because it is at the beginning of the book. This particular section is really the authors chance when he shows the cross over. Humanity starts with order and survival. But when order or otherwise the conch is left they slowly leave their identities as people. They slowly turn into animals. No remorse no thoughts. Then the final set up comes into play. On the other side of the island they are completely away form any humanity. This is when the chant starts. This is when they make the transfer that ive constantly talked about. Humanity to humans.
Their are also many other things that can be talked about but I will leave those untouched. But I want to touch on some other topics.


Your essay is interesting, but I believe that you may have missed the point of the book. When you say that the boys in the book are evil, and that humanity does not act the way the boys on the island act, you overlook the fact that the author uses the island as a microscopic cross-section of humanity. When the ship pulls up at the end to rescue the boys, the question that should remain in the mind of the astute reader is, 'who saves the rest of us?'

The book was written in the early 1950s, as the world was still reeling from the largest and most devastating war it had ever seen. News of the treatment of Jews by the Nazi regime was just starting to be known back home, and Stalin's purges were making headlines - not to mention national politics. We had just dropped the first atomic bomb. Communism was rearing its head as a huge threat to the free world. The author, an Englishman, had very likely survived a very serious threat against his country and routine air raids. In short, anyone who bothered to take a look at the atrocities of which humanity was capable was bound to be a little pessimistic about the capability of humankind to govern itself.
First paragraph I see where you're coming from. I can truly see what you're point is and I agree. Its just that leave that behind. Look at all the facts ive presented and and will present and you will also see my point. At the ending as well though i have a counter argument. One of the last things of the story said is this. Ralph wept for the innocence of the darkness of mans heart. (Not sure if those are exact words.) Anyway this just supports my opinion. Hes been saved now with the other boys. Humanity has now come back to him. However they will forever have the knowledge now of what they truly are. This will always be with them too. For humanity might be strong but it can never beat its creators.
Second paragraph no comment, you're completely right.

Consider also that not all the boys were inherently evil. Even starting out, Jack himself might not have been altogether a bad seed. He just wanted to have fun. But he was charismatic and powerful, and when he said, 'hey, let's go hunt and get some yummy food' the weaker boys thought that sounded like a good idea. Eventually he built himself a cult of personality and the boys whipped themselves into a frenzy. They may not have been evil by intent, rather just easily swayed by both a mob mentality and a charismatic leader into doing horrible things and justifying them as necessary.
This is almost a whole other beast. But none the less ill appoint it. What say about jack is true. He wasn't a bad seed. No one who in humanity is a bad seed. But when he left the others and got power and followers he took that power and just used it to his own personal gain. His survival. His evil purposes against the humanity of the other boys on the island.
The point you made of a mob however is kind of taking it a different way. Its almost like they were in a sense one mind. They all had the same thoughts, the same ideas. But it was only because Jack told them that. Its almost like the boys were a weaker version of humanity and Jack had taken them over with his charm. This charm however was really just a a bribe indirectly from the Lord of the Flies, and they took it. After that they had given in and excepted the ways of evil and that eventually didn't rule them but was them.


Roger, on the other hand, epitomizes a rotten kid. Notice that he is not able to truly show how bad he is until he attaches himself to a leader willing to turn a blind eye to his nature because he literally brings home the bacon. Jack is a crazed leader who can't stand to be challenged; Roger is a willing lieutenant who loves his position of power and the option to be revel in his own dark nature.
This can be easily dissected.Roger had a strong sense of humanity. But when given the chance he took the opportunity be a baby. This baby is willingly making people fill his needs. This service however is repayed with total betrayal to humanity.

The only thing that im going to touch right now is you're reference to Hitler. He is evil.
None the less I hope you see my points. I will be posting later. I will show you what evil and innocence are. I will be saying that in some cases its evil and in some cases its just a bunch of animals. I will make myself more clear. But for now I eat dinner.

[dragonfire]

LOL. Im doing that too! But my project is, I have to right a story about me on an island. Basically, Im gonna go all Lost and have a black smoke monster:D

Saddly, it cant be unrealistic.

[HSisforcoolkids]

I read that book during my senior English class. At the end of the year we had to get in groups and do a video project on something we read in class. Our group did Lord of the Flies: Girls Gone Wild. It was hilarious at the time (but probably embarrassing now).

[Finrod]

Pfft. This is the most basic of Lord of the Flies' themes.

Come see me when you've been required to write an essay on the significance and symbolism of Piggy's glasses or the color green.

Excuse me, are you talking to me....or are you talking to him(Ormus points at Chief) because if you are talking to me, we can do some philosiphising on Piggy's glasses, I am merely trying to explain to Chief exactly that, "the most basic theme" that seems to have elluded him.

I was talking mainly to Chief. No offense meant to anyone.

I often wondered, when the professor was handing out essay assignments on LotF, whether Golding intended even HALF of all the symbolism that people find in his book.