Lord Of The Flies Literary Analysis Essay
Hannah Skidmore
Mrs. Dorman
Engl II Honors
15 February 2013
Lord of the Flies Literary Analysis
In Lord of the Flies, a group of English boys are marooned on a deserted island without any adults to control them. Initially, this freedom seems pleasing and exciting to the boys, but they soon turn into uncontrollable savages with no desire for order and no civility. In the last chapter of the novel after being on the island and seeing what lack of law and order can do, it says that “Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man’s heart…” (Golding 202). In Lord of the Flies, the innocence of children is lost when faced with total freedom. This is shown through the experiences on the island of Ralph, Roger, and Jack. Ralph …show more content…
shows his loss of innocence by taking responsibility and trying to lead the boys. The boys reveal their naïve nature by saying, “let him be chief with the trumpet-thing” (Golding 22). Ralph is not fit to be a leader, but because he looks like the stereotypical leader and holds the conch which symbolizes order, the boys gravitate toward him (Slayton 190). “The quest for this principle of legitimacy is the quest for authority” in that the boys want someone who seems genuine because those people are automatically looked to as authority figures like police officers and judges (Slayton 22). This unstable order soon fails completely for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that Ralph is just a child who is not wise and does not know how to properly lead a group. The second reason is that none of the boys want to work, nor will they get organized; they just want to have fun. Ralph is not effective because he “wants to rule by law derived from common consent” which is the consent of a group of young and immature schoolboys (Henningfeld 188). Another way Ralph loses his innocence by allowing his natural desires of savagery and sinfulness to come out. First, he helps in Simon’s murder dance ritual and joins in with the boys who have already let themselves go. This action shows the reader that Ralph is no longer a pure little English boy; he has now stooped to the level of the English boys who are already savages. Second, he is verbally violent toward Piggy. He makes fun of Piggy’s name which Piggy tells him in confidence. Overall, Ralph is an ineffective leader who cannot control the boys, and who becomes tainted with the blood of Simon when he decides to join the group of brutal children. Roger becomes an evil antagonist with no innocence by the end of Lord of the Flies. He wants total freedom, but he cannot handle it (Slayton 191). Roger starts out as just another one of the stranded boys, but he eventually becomes Jack’s second in command (Henningfeld 188). He loses all of his civility in the course of his time on the island. He becomes “an instrument of torture and terror released from conventional morality and thus capable of unspeakable cruelty” (Olsen 14). Roger helps in the killing of the sow, he kills Piggy, he joins in Simon’s murder, and he helps in the chase to kill Ralph. Roger enjoys killing, and the act thrills him. “…The reader readily forgets that this individual in the conflict is not an adult” and, because of his savagery and lack of innocence, he and the rest of the boys seem to be hardened adults (Slayton 190). Roger is not only physically violent, but verbally violent as well. He makes fun of Piggy, and he acts horribly toward the little boys. Roger turns into a malicious savage by the end of the novel who is only stopped by an adult who comes to rescue them from the island. His natural desires that include selfishness and violence cannot be quelled without law and order.
Roger also loses his innocence through his fear of the “beast” who presides on the island. This shows the reader two important things about Roger. First, it reminds the reader that, even though he is vicious and cruel on the island, he is still just like any other boys his age that has the fear of monsters. Second, it shows the reader that Roger needs an adult to rationalize his fear, and with no adults he cannot be comforted and has to face scary things that a parent or adult figure could otherwise dispel (Rosenfield 94). His fear makes him become increasingly mean and ruthless toward the little boys. Roger needs an authority figure to tame him wild imagination and to suppress his innate desires to be immoral and wicked. Jack’s innocence is absorbed by his experiences on the island. He argues with Ralph about whom the leader should be from the very beginning of their shipwreck, and he defies Ralph’s orders by becoming the leader of a group of hunters. Since he is the leader of the chorus, he thinks that he should automatically be the leader of the stranded boys. Jack achieves leadership status by being manipulative and giving immediate gratification to those who will follow him. He becomes an authoritarian who makes rules for others and then decides if he wants to follow those rules (Spitz 23). Paul Slayton says that Jack is the “prototype of a charismatic leader who gains adherents highlighting the fears and fulfilling the ephemeral needs and desires of followers” meaning that he knows how to make the boys want to follow him (191). He gives incentive to follow him like the opportunity to hunt and the reward of meat. Jack and his followers begin to act more and more like Nazis in their dress and their hatred of outsiders the longer that they are on the island (Crawford 51). Freedom makes leadership go to Jack’s head, and he becomes arrogant and a “naked ruthless power” (Niemeyer 194). Jack also becomes increasingly dehumanized as the story unfolds.
He is less and less an innocent little English boy and more and more a savage animal. With every hunt and kill, he and the boys get more wild because “each time they reenact the same event,… they become more frenzied, more cruel, [and] less like representation than identification” (Rosenfield 95). Murder becomes natural to Jack. He delights in killing, and he feels more empowered when he does. He shows no restraint in his rule and has the only sane boys on the island, Simon and Piggy, murdered because of his evil desires (Niemeyer 192). Jack’s dehumanization makes him a narcissist as well. He does not care about anyone but himself. He wants all of the power and does not want Ralph to be in his way. When Jack finally has enough of Ralph and his directive he decides to kill him, and “the final hunt,… is the pursuit of the figure representing law and order…” (Rosenfield 97). Jack wants his competition out of the way. He wants complete control of the boys on the island and will do anything to get it. Man is naturally evil, greedy, and selfish. It is not the island that corrupts Jack; it is the problems that ensue when given total freedom that corrupts him (Spitz 24). The only thing that stops Jack’s terrible reign is the man who comes to the island and saves the group of boys. The reader is reminded here that Jack is still a little kid because he cries when he sees the adult who represents authority …show more content…
(Niemeyer 194). Even though Jack thinks he wants power, he cannot handle complete power and freedom because he is not wise enough nor mature enough to make decisions that are not selfish and greedy. The boys in Lord of the Flies are the perfect examples of what happens when absolute freedom is given to innocent children. They cannot manage it even though they think they can. With all of the chaos and disorder on the island, the boys need structure so much so that the moment an adult appears he creates order, and the boys seem like innocent little kids again (Golding 199-202). The freedom that the English boys experience only brings damaging results that cause the children to lose their virtue and innocence. It brings violence, chaos, fear, savagery, selfishness, and death (Slayton 189). Children cannot manage complete freedom. Just like the boys in Lord of the Flies, any child who looks to social and political institutions for authority only pushes down their natural desires, but those desires can come out just as easily as they are stifled (Spitz 24). Overall, Children need law and order, not total freedom, to stay innocent and civilized.
Works Cited
Crawford, Paul.
Politics and History in William Golding: The World Turned Upside Down.
Columbia: University of Missouri, 2002. Questiaschool.com. Web. 12 Jan. 2013.
Golding, William. Lord of the Flies. New York: Perigee Book, 2006. Print.
Henningfeld, Diane Andrews. Topics for Further Study. Gale: 1997. 187-89. Print.
Niemeyer, Carl. “The Coral Island Revisited.” College English 22.4 (1961): 241-245. Print.
Olsen, Kirstin. Understanding Lord of the Flies: A Student Casebook to Issues, Sources, and
Historical Documents. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2000. Questiaschool.com. Web. 12 Jan. 2013.
Rosenfield, Claire. “‘Men of a Smaller Growth’: A Psychological Analysis of William
Golding’s Lord of the Flies.” Literature and Psychology 11.4 (1961): 93-101. Wed. 12 Jan. 2013.
Slayton, Paul. “Teachings Rationale for William Golding’s Lord of the Flies,” Censored
Books: Critical Viewpoints, Nicholas J. Karolides, lee Burress, John M. Kean, eds., The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1998. 189-192. Print.
Spitz, David. “Power and Authority: An Interpretation of Golding 's 'Lord of the Flies. '” The Antioch Review 30.1 (1970): 21-33. Web. 12 Jan.
2013.
Mrs. Dorman
Engl II Honors
15 February 2013
Lord of the Flies Literary Analysis
In Lord of the Flies, a group of English boys are marooned on a deserted island without any adults to control them. Initially, this freedom seems pleasing and exciting to the boys, but they soon turn into uncontrollable savages with no desire for order and no civility. In the last chapter of the novel after being on the island and seeing what lack of law and order can do, it says that “Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man’s heart…” (Golding 202). In Lord of the Flies, the innocence of children is lost when faced with total freedom. This is shown through the experiences on the island of Ralph, Roger, and Jack. Ralph …show more content…
shows his loss of innocence by taking responsibility and trying to lead the boys. The boys reveal their naïve nature by saying, “let him be chief with the trumpet-thing” (Golding 22). Ralph is not fit to be a leader, but because he looks like the stereotypical leader and holds the conch which symbolizes order, the boys gravitate toward him (Slayton 190). “The quest for this principle of legitimacy is the quest for authority” in that the boys want someone who seems genuine because those people are automatically looked to as authority figures like police officers and judges (Slayton 22). This unstable order soon fails completely for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that Ralph is just a child who is not wise and does not know how to properly lead a group. The second reason is that none of the boys want to work, nor will they get organized; they just want to have fun. Ralph is not effective because he “wants to rule by law derived from common consent” which is the consent of a group of young and immature schoolboys (Henningfeld 188). Another way Ralph loses his innocence by allowing his natural desires of savagery and sinfulness to come out. First, he helps in Simon’s murder dance ritual and joins in with the boys who have already let themselves go. This action shows the reader that Ralph is no longer a pure little English boy; he has now stooped to the level of the English boys who are already savages. Second, he is verbally violent toward Piggy. He makes fun of Piggy’s name which Piggy tells him in confidence. Overall, Ralph is an ineffective leader who cannot control the boys, and who becomes tainted with the blood of Simon when he decides to join the group of brutal children. Roger becomes an evil antagonist with no innocence by the end of Lord of the Flies. He wants total freedom, but he cannot handle it (Slayton 191). Roger starts out as just another one of the stranded boys, but he eventually becomes Jack’s second in command (Henningfeld 188). He loses all of his civility in the course of his time on the island. He becomes “an instrument of torture and terror released from conventional morality and thus capable of unspeakable cruelty” (Olsen 14). Roger helps in the killing of the sow, he kills Piggy, he joins in Simon’s murder, and he helps in the chase to kill Ralph. Roger enjoys killing, and the act thrills him. “…The reader readily forgets that this individual in the conflict is not an adult” and, because of his savagery and lack of innocence, he and the rest of the boys seem to be hardened adults (Slayton 190). Roger is not only physically violent, but verbally violent as well. He makes fun of Piggy, and he acts horribly toward the little boys. Roger turns into a malicious savage by the end of the novel who is only stopped by an adult who comes to rescue them from the island. His natural desires that include selfishness and violence cannot be quelled without law and order.
Roger also loses his innocence through his fear of the “beast” who presides on the island. This shows the reader two important things about Roger. First, it reminds the reader that, even though he is vicious and cruel on the island, he is still just like any other boys his age that has the fear of monsters. Second, it shows the reader that Roger needs an adult to rationalize his fear, and with no adults he cannot be comforted and has to face scary things that a parent or adult figure could otherwise dispel (Rosenfield 94). His fear makes him become increasingly mean and ruthless toward the little boys. Roger needs an authority figure to tame him wild imagination and to suppress his innate desires to be immoral and wicked. Jack’s innocence is absorbed by his experiences on the island. He argues with Ralph about whom the leader should be from the very beginning of their shipwreck, and he defies Ralph’s orders by becoming the leader of a group of hunters. Since he is the leader of the chorus, he thinks that he should automatically be the leader of the stranded boys. Jack achieves leadership status by being manipulative and giving immediate gratification to those who will follow him. He becomes an authoritarian who makes rules for others and then decides if he wants to follow those rules (Spitz 23). Paul Slayton says that Jack is the “prototype of a charismatic leader who gains adherents highlighting the fears and fulfilling the ephemeral needs and desires of followers” meaning that he knows how to make the boys want to follow him (191). He gives incentive to follow him like the opportunity to hunt and the reward of meat. Jack and his followers begin to act more and more like Nazis in their dress and their hatred of outsiders the longer that they are on the island (Crawford 51). Freedom makes leadership go to Jack’s head, and he becomes arrogant and a “naked ruthless power” (Niemeyer 194). Jack also becomes increasingly dehumanized as the story unfolds.
He is less and less an innocent little English boy and more and more a savage animal. With every hunt and kill, he and the boys get more wild because “each time they reenact the same event,… they become more frenzied, more cruel, [and] less like representation than identification” (Rosenfield 95). Murder becomes natural to Jack. He delights in killing, and he feels more empowered when he does. He shows no restraint in his rule and has the only sane boys on the island, Simon and Piggy, murdered because of his evil desires (Niemeyer 192). Jack’s dehumanization makes him a narcissist as well. He does not care about anyone but himself. He wants all of the power and does not want Ralph to be in his way. When Jack finally has enough of Ralph and his directive he decides to kill him, and “the final hunt,… is the pursuit of the figure representing law and order…” (Rosenfield 97). Jack wants his competition out of the way. He wants complete control of the boys on the island and will do anything to get it. Man is naturally evil, greedy, and selfish. It is not the island that corrupts Jack; it is the problems that ensue when given total freedom that corrupts him (Spitz 24). The only thing that stops Jack’s terrible reign is the man who comes to the island and saves the group of boys. The reader is reminded here that Jack is still a little kid because he cries when he sees the adult who represents authority …show more content…
(Niemeyer 194). Even though Jack thinks he wants power, he cannot handle complete power and freedom because he is not wise enough nor mature enough to make decisions that are not selfish and greedy. The boys in Lord of the Flies are the perfect examples of what happens when absolute freedom is given to innocent children. They cannot manage it even though they think they can. With all of the chaos and disorder on the island, the boys need structure so much so that the moment an adult appears he creates order, and the boys seem like innocent little kids again (Golding 199-202). The freedom that the English boys experience only brings damaging results that cause the children to lose their virtue and innocence. It brings violence, chaos, fear, savagery, selfishness, and death (Slayton 189). Children cannot manage complete freedom. Just like the boys in Lord of the Flies, any child who looks to social and political institutions for authority only pushes down their natural desires, but those desires can come out just as easily as they are stifled (Spitz 24). Overall, Children need law and order, not total freedom, to stay innocent and civilized.
Works Cited
Crawford, Paul.
Politics and History in William Golding: The World Turned Upside Down.
Columbia: University of Missouri, 2002. Questiaschool.com. Web. 12 Jan. 2013.
Golding, William. Lord of the Flies. New York: Perigee Book, 2006. Print.
Henningfeld, Diane Andrews. Topics for Further Study. Gale: 1997. 187-89. Print.
Niemeyer, Carl. “The Coral Island Revisited.” College English 22.4 (1961): 241-245. Print.
Olsen, Kirstin. Understanding Lord of the Flies: A Student Casebook to Issues, Sources, and
Historical Documents. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2000. Questiaschool.com. Web. 12 Jan. 2013.
Rosenfield, Claire. “‘Men of a Smaller Growth’: A Psychological Analysis of William
Golding’s Lord of the Flies.” Literature and Psychology 11.4 (1961): 93-101. Wed. 12 Jan. 2013.
Slayton, Paul. “Teachings Rationale for William Golding’s Lord of the Flies,” Censored
Books: Critical Viewpoints, Nicholas J. Karolides, lee Burress, John M. Kean, eds., The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1998. 189-192. Print.
Spitz, David. “Power and Authority: An Interpretation of Golding 's 'Lord of the Flies. '” The Antioch Review 30.1 (1970): 21-33. Web. 12 Jan.
2013.