Golding's Theory

[Dr.reid_16]

I've been studying William Golding's The Lord of the Flies for a while now, I've written an essay on his theory: "All humans are evil, or have the potential to be evil." I do think his theory is correct, as everyday, we see destruction, hate, greed, disloyalty, etc. The list goes on and on, I'm just curious about everyone's opinion (great to hear/read them lol)! So let me know what you think! :)

[PeterL]

"All humans are evil, or have the potential to be evil."

So what? There is nothing new or interesting in that, and it probably is a mischaracterization of most humans, because evil is something done by a minority. And saying that people have a potential for anything is like saying that humans engage in sexual intercourse.

It is my opinion that Golding went a little too far in that horrid book. People who ae stranded somewhere usually band together, becaues there is more potential in a group of people than in a single person, and the larger the group, the more potential there is. There are much better stories about people having worked together to save each other when stranded. The war thing only shows up when there are large groups that have some that could be useful.

[G L Wilson]

Original sin went out as a guide to human nature long ago. Was Golding Catholic by any chance?

[Dr.reid_16]

peter- i respect your opinion and value it, however if you analyze the book, and it's true meaning, you'll see the symbolism and the group of boys (who represented all of humanity) banded together at first, but created fears because human's have the need to do that, then they descended into anarchy and turned on each other because of the "beast". However the actual Lord of the flies (sows head) explains to Simon, that you cannot kill the beast, because the beast is within all humans! again i respect your opinion, and thanks for replying.

Wilson - It was said that Golding was actually an atheist. I tried to find a religious perspective of this book while reading it, but i never found one, and then i read he was an atheist.

[G L Wilson]

I have read the book too, and Golding strikes me as one weird hombre.

[Dr.reid_16]

weird but wise! Guy knows what he's talkin' about. . .nobel prize and all

[G L Wilson]

Pessimism is bourgeois.

[PeterL]

peter- i respect your opinion and value it, however if you analyze the book, and it's true meaning, you'll see the symbolism and the group of boys (who represented all of humanity) banded together at first, but created fears because human's have the need to do that, then they descended into anarchy and turned on each other because of the "beast". However the actual Lord of the flies (sows head) explains to Simon, that you cannot kill the beast, because the beast is within all humans! again i respect your opinion, and thanks for replying.


Perhaps you just don't know much about people. Golding chose a situation and went on from there. The situation probably was his mistake, because people don't act that way in situations of that sort. He would have done better, if he had set the story in a city.

While it is true that all humans have the potential to be nasty, that doesn't mean much, because all humans have many potentials. Such potentials only come to the surface when there are suitable circumstances, and Golding didn't create a suitable circumstance.

[Seasider]

[QUOTE=Dr.reid_16;1047138]peter- i respect your opinion and value it, however if you analyze the book, and it's true meaning, you'll see the symbolism and the group of boys (who represented all of humanity) banded together at first, but created fears because human's have the need to do that, then they descended into anarchy and turned on each other because of the "beast".

What of the other 50% of humanity? Are they represented in this story?

Golding was a teacher in an all boys' school for some time and maybe it was here that he developed his pessimistic view of males in groups. It must be said that not all the boys returned to savagery.

[endgame]

i think he's totally right. everyday something bad happens: it's because of man. Golding was against Rousseau's theory, according to which man was born good but because of society became bad. obviously it's not right at all. in fact society is made up by people!!!! i totally agree with him. i'm sorry but it's the truth. man is not good (someone is very good obviously :) )

[Dr.reid_16]

seasider, a group of young boys, represented humanity, but it shows if young innocent boys, can be evil. . . we all can be evil.

[endgame]

Dr.reid_16 is right. also young people can be bad .. why can't they? unfortunately it's right that we all can be evil.. it's not about young, old,men or women.. we're all the same at every age, unfortunately. Lord of the flies is one of the most meaningful work of all times. golding was strongly critized for it because he was a teacher and saw his students as bad people, but he was right.

[Perandorrrr]

I agree to some extent with just about everyones views. If you really trace Mans origins, we were food gatherers and farmers -- something happened along the way that changed us. I think there was a type of schism whether mentally, biologically or ecologically, there was something. Now, for a long time I would've gone along with the author's idea in "Lord of the Flies". It was until recently something changed my mind. It this video of a isolated tribe living in Papua New Guinea who saw a white man for the first time, could've easily killed him, but they did not. It made look at things much differently, especially my reaction if I saw something waved in my face (camera) never seeing one before. Anyway, that's my view: there will always be exceptions.

http://www.pbh2.com/astounding/amazon-tribe-meets-white-man-for-first-time/

[breathtest]

PeterL - I disagree that people wouldn't act that way. I think Lord of the Flies captures it exactly right. Within groups of people there is bound to be disagreements and fear, and these things would be what drive people apart in such a situation.

If you are a part of a group who is lead by one person, and you think that this leader is dealing with the whole thing wrongly, and your life is in his hands, you are going to want to do something to put it right. Starting your own group would be a way to do this, and thus a rivalry could form between groups, because you disagree with each other.

It can be applied more widely to whole nations.

[PeterL]

PeterL - I disagree that people wouldn't act that way. I think Lord of the Flies captures it exactly right. Within groups of people there is bound to be disagreements and fear, and these things would be what drive people apart in such a situation.

If you are a part of a group who is lead by one person, and you think that this leader is dealing with the whole thing wrongly, and your life is in his hands, you are going to want to do something to put it right. Starting your own group would be a way to do this, and thus a rivalry could form between groups, because you disagree with each other.

It can be applied more widely to whole nations.

I am happy that I don't run into many people of the sort depicted in Lord of the Flies. I will concede that there are people who are complete rotters, but most people are not.

[MystyrMystyry]

It's been a long time since I read it, the main character (whom Piggy describes as sensible) is perhaps a symbol for Golding himself as teacher?

It's been known for a long time that boys/men left to their own devices sooner or later turn on each other - co-ed schooling wasn't an accident, it was a realisation that male behavior generally moderates when females are present, to the point that they calm down and are actually able to learn something.

Now as for his true purpose, was it a cautionary tale? Doesn't really caution against much - more amateur anthropology and a what would happen if?

[breathtest]

PeterL -
I am happy that I don't run into many people of the sort depicted in Lord of the Flies. I will conced that there are people who are complete rotters, but most people are not.

I agree that most people are not 'complete rotters', but in a situation such as one where your life and your future is at risk, being stranded on an island for example, people will act differently. It is hard to imagine how they would react, since the society we live in requires no real survival techniques as living from your own resources would, hunting for food, building shelter etc. But the fact is that people would have to react differently in order to survive. In our society we are given everything on a plate more or less, and so we can afford to be better people.

[Paulclem]

I heard in a lecture once that Golding had a read a worthy Victorian novel about a group of boys being stranded on an island. In Enid Blyton fashion they organised themselves into a co-operating group who solved all the problems in a civilised way. Unfortunately, I couldn't tell you the title of the book.

Golding's take on this was to compare his experience as a teacher and apply what he knew of young boys to the book. His conclusion was that boys don't behave in a worthy Victorian fashion, but conflicts and rivalries arise. (Think reality TV rivalries for a start when people are left to their own devices).

The religious aspect seems to support his stance as an atheist. I think he was demonstrating how he thinks religions are formed.

[m2vihand]

I think the theory is not true. But it's true to a degree (some of us could be made evil). For example Lord Jesus didn't have the potential to become evil.
You see, even in Golding's novel (i think that novel is exaggerated), there were good boys (well, not good but not evil boys), for example the fat kid with glasses, the former leader of the children, and a few more.

[Seasider]

The Victorian novel was Coral Island by RM Ballantyne. Golding even used some of the names of the characters, Jack and Ralph for example.

I still think that the boys are not a representative group of humanity. If Golding had chosen to include girls in the party the group dynamics would have been very different. This isn't to say that girls are not capable of wrongdoing, they are, but their presence in a group would result in a different story. Not as exciting probably.

[Paulclem]

[QUOTE=Seasider;1047544]The Victorian novel was Coral Island by RM Ballantyne. Golding even used some of the names of the characters, Jack and Ralph for example.

I still think that the boys are not a representative group of humanity. If Golding had chosen to include girls in the party the group dynamics would have been very different. This isn't to say that girls are not capable of wrongdoing, they are, but their presence in a group would result in a different story. Not as exciting probably.[/QUOTE

Thanks Seasider. That rings a bell.

The group dynamics would no doubt have been different. If he was parodying the book specifically, and the Victorian's view of children specifically, then that may have been why he stuck with boys. The Victorian view of girls was different to their conception of boys.

Alternatively, perhaps, with the descent into anarchy, he didn't want to exlore the dark side of boys in their relationship to girls as well. You say girls would have had a civilising effect. Possibly, or they may well have become victims producing a darker book.

Perhaps also, he just felt more comfortable writing about boys.

[Dr.reid_16]

paulclem - considering he taught in an all boys school, he was probably more educated on how boys act in certain circumstances than girls since he only taught boys.

[dwdean]

the idea presented in Lord of The Flies can be seen to defiantly contrast Shelley's Frankenstein. Golding shows that mankind, without society to govern its actions, will resort to basic evil behaviors because mankind is naturally wretched. Shelley, on the other hand, shows in Frankenstein that mankind (the creature) is naturally "benevolent" and due to a judgmental society we become evil.

i know, i know, i know... i go on and on about Frankenstein and Dracula, but since those two works comprise most of my study, thats what i go on.

[Paulclem]

paulclem - considering he taught in an all boys school, he was probably more educated on how boys act in certain circumstances than girls since he only taught boys.

Thanks - I thought that might have been the case, but I was too lazy to look it up.:biggrin5:

[Paulclem]

the idea presented in Lord of The Flies can be seen to defiantly contrast Shelley's Frankenstein. Golding shows that mankind, without society to govern its actions, will resort to basic evil behaviors because mankind is naturally wretched. Shelley, on the other hand, shows in Frankenstein that mankind (the creature) is naturally "benevolent" and due to a judgmental society we become evil.

i know, i know, i know... i go on and on about Frankenstein and Dracula, but since those two works comprise most of my study, thats what i go on.

I'm not sure it's about good v evil so much as power. The pseudo-religion is a focus for power too. That fits with Golding's atheism - as someone claimed earlier.

[G L Wilson]

the idea presented in Lord of The Flies can be seen to defiantly contrast Shelley's Frankenstein. Golding shows that mankind, without society to govern its actions, will resort to basic evil behaviors because mankind is naturally wretched. Shelley, on the other hand, shows in Frankenstein that mankind (the creature) is naturally "benevolent" and due to a judgmental society we become evil.

i know, i know, i know... i go on and on about Frankenstein and Dracula, but since those two works comprise most of my study, thats what i go on.

It is a very good comparison, I think.

[Paulclem]

I think Golding's premise - to debunk Victorian notions of children as smaller sdults who will act in much the same way as their elders is his point. The actions of the kids reminded me of an extreme exampe of what goes on in playgrounds - or rather the playgrounds I inhabited - filled with gangs and preferences and exclusion and bullying and irrationality.

We too had a pig's head that we worshipped in the bike sheds... and we sacrificed one of the weedier kids to it one long dinner time...that was before we decided to play psycho - a game of tig with imaginary knives...(Only the psycho tig game is true... but you knew that surely...).