Savagery In Lord Of The Flies

3491 Words14 Pages
Thomas Hobbes, a famous English philosopher once proclaimed that the natural state of human life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Hobbes believed that without government and order the evil nature of mankind will surface and present its true colours. Indeed, this very idea is developed in the novel “Lord of the Flies” (LF) by William Golding, a story of a group of English boys who are stranded on an inhabited island after their plane was attacked during WW2. Golding purposely places the boys in this situation to observe their changes, reactions and methods of overcoming challenges as well as conflicts. It becomes very clear that the boys move away from the civilization that has been bred into them and begin to decline into savagery.…show more content…
However, the boys did not realize that their savagery was the very thing that made the beast real. For example, because no one or no law could stop the boys from saying/doing as they pleased, they all mistreated Piggy and the littuns but this only breathed more life into the beast. Subsequently, the beast became the main topic in one of their meetings, but this time there was less laughter around the beast. By now many of the boys believed that the beast was real but Ralph, Jack and Piggy all attempted to dismiss the idea that the beast existed. Ralph wanted to “talk about this fear and decide there’s nothing really in it”, Jack agreed with Ralph and told the group that “there aren’t any beasts to be afraid of…I’ve been all over this island…there is no beast”. Piggy also agreed with them claiming “Life…is scientific…I know there’s no beast – not with claws and all that” (Golding 88-90). However, after all of this convincing Simon decided to speak his mind and his response to the existence of the beast confirmed that both sides were right. He remarked, “maybe there is a beast….What I mean is maybe it’s only us” (Golding 95-96). This was proof that he agreed with the littluns…show more content…
The other boy’s, not being as smart as Simon snicker at his proposal, yet his idea upholds Golding’s beliefs that evil is associated with mankind’s nature. This idea is enforced through Simon’s conversation with the “Lord of the Flies”, another symbol of evil. The “Lord of the Flies” is a mutilated head of a sow that Jack had skewered with a stick as an offering for the beat. Simon is able to converse with this head, through a hallucination and after his conversation is done it is quite clear that this is the most important symbol in the entire novel. The head reveals that it is “the beast” and it was “Fancy thinking the Beast was something you could hunt and kill…You knew, didn’t you? I’m a part of you? Close, close, close! I’m the reason why it’s no go? Why things are what they are?” (Golding 158). The impact of this statement is paramount, because it further enforce the message that the beast isn’t an external force, rather it is an internal force. The “Lord of the Flies” implies that it is a part of humans and it cannot be hunted and killed. The only way to constrain this beast is through rules. Another significant symbol that portrays the savagery within man is the

More about Savagery In Lord Of The Flies

Open Document