Today in class you had a chance to talk through some ideas with your Smart Squads about Piggy and the ending of the novel. Here, I'd like to give you an opportunity to share your thoughts in writing!
Respond to one of the following questions in depth and detail. Write in a 3E fashion (eloquent, effective, exhaustive) as you delve into the prompt like the awesome analyzer you've become!
1.) Why did Golding end the novel in the way that he did, with a deus ex machina? What does he achieve ending it this way that wouldn't have been achieved had he ended it differently?
OR
2.) Why do we never learn Piggy's real name? What point does Golding make by not including it? What about his death? How does it compare to Simon's, and what do the differences signify?
You have until WEDNESDAY at 9am to respond to this prompt! :)
Throughout the novel, Golding makes it quite clear that the most dominant characters will prosper. Ralph and Jack both begin the novel as leaders of their respective clans. Piggy on the other hand, is not a born leader like the other two characters. In fact, he continually gets manipulated, abused, and stepped on throughout the entirety of the novel. The boys torment him about his body and ideas, as well as only using him for his specs. The way that Piggy carries himself and gets treated by the other boys elucidates why the audience never gets to know his name.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of the novel, Piggy and Ralph meet each other right after the catastrophic plane crash. Piggy initiates the conversation, hoping he could make a new friend on the inhabited island. After Ralph appears uninterested, Piggy proceeds to tell him that his school friends used to call him Piggy. Ralph immediately catches interest, and taunts Piggy about his name. This should be the first sign as to why we never get to know Piggy’s real name. Almost immediately, Piggy gets verbally abused by a stranger who’s known him for about a minute. Another sign is when Ralph compares the names “Piggy” and “Fatty”, and tells Piggy that his name is better then being called “Fatty”. He basically manipulates Piggy by justifying that the name “Piggy” is better than other offensive names. In this way, Piggy does not defend himself anymore, and his rude nickname sticks throughout the duration of the novel. In the end, we realize that Piggy is the only erudite that thinks things through, but he can’t express his ideas since he continually gets mocked and shut down by the other boys. With that in mind, Golding is trying to express how although one may be scintillating, they will remain insignificant as long as they are overpowered by other people or forces. For that reason, we never get the opportunity to learn Piggy’s real name. This also connects to the Hobbesian point of view, since he believed that one person should have absolute power over all people, and everyone else is insignificant. No matter how bright an individual is, he must conform to the society that is being led by one monarch.
(1 of 2)
Both Piggy and Simon’s deaths are devastating yet poetic in their respective ways. Golding writes each death in a drastically different way. The first idea that can be compared is the length of both character’s deaths. Simon’s death seemed slow, climactic, and long. Golding writes 1.5 pages describing the death and the aftermath of it all. In Piggy’s death, Golding writes one paragraph explaining his brutal and short death, and then proceeds to shift the focus about Ralph. Next, Golding’s diction and imagery of the two deaths differ significantly. When Simon gets murdered, Golding puts great emphasis on how each of the boys lay lifeless on the ground. Referring to Simon, he says that “the beast lay huddled on the pale beach and the stains spread, inch by inch” (137). This quotation provides vivid imagery of the savage and brutal way that Simon has passed. Minute by minute and second by second the sand absorbs his blood. On the other hand, Piggy’s “head opened and stuff came out and turned red” (163). Golding’s description of Piggy is way more blunt and cold then that of Simon. Throughout the novel, Simon is almost described as an angelic and Christ-like figure. So his death is a tragedy, and the way his dead body “moved out towards the open sea” (137) almost represents a peaceful ending to such a cursed life on the island. On the contrary, Piggy’s body just disappears from the island. Golding provides no imagery on how his body floats into the ocean. These subtle differences can further signify the importance that the characters had on the novel.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between Piggy and Simon’s deaths are quite apparent, and also can have an underlying meaning to them. Simon and Piggy both stood for good, but in different ways. Simon’s death signifies the complete and total loss of innocence and the innate savagery that has ravaged the island. His death is the defining moment between civilization and savagery. Piggy’s death further reinforces that humankind is lost, and complete savagery has taken over the island. The idea that Simon’s death seemed so much more important in the novel signifies the descent into savagery. Golding makes this so significant because if the holiest and purest character can be brutally murdered, then all hope is lost for this society. Piggy’s death seemed less significant because it simply reinforced the theme that mankind is lost. Both innately good characters passed away cruelly, and now the boys society is in ruins.
(2 of 2)
In the Lord of the Flies, extensive characterization and subtle symbolism is implemented in order to convey specific messages about humanity. Piggy, the “fat” boy who is often bullied by the other boys on the island is a lucid example of the symbolic portrayal of the defaults of humanity. He is given the nickname of “Piggy” by Ralph in the very first few moments that they are introduced, thus the reader never finds out what his real name is. Ralph cuts Piggy off before he is able to inform him of his true name because he is so distracted by the fact that Piggy’s nickname used to be “Piggy”. The primary reason that William Golding intentionally chose not to provide Piggy’s real name displays the idea that humans can be negligent of their surroundings. Ralph displays an early stage of cruelty by paying no attention to the factors that will eventually help him in the future. Throughout the novel, Piggy is the informative and logical thinker of all the boys on the island, thus he should have a significant presence in discussions, however, he is treated quite the opposite. By not giving Piggy a name, Golding illuminates that the boys (whom represent society in general) will shun and deny the logical thinking and perspective of surviving on the island.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the significance of the namelessness of Piggy, he partakes in a crucial point about society because of his tragic death. Towards the final chapters of the novel, Piggy is killed by Roger (with support from Jack and his boys) because Roger purposely pushes a large boulder off a cliff in order to hit Piggy on his head. This is an absolutely horrifying way to die because Piggy did not even realize that he is about to die-- it is almost like slaughtering an animal. Just like an animal does not know that it is about to be slaughtered for its meat, Piggy is not aware of the boulder about to land on top of him. Piggy’s name may also symbolize the fact that Jack and his boys are obsessed with killing pigs which thus foreshadows Piggy’s death. However, Simon, who was also brutally murdered by the boys is killed in a different manner. THe boys danced around a fire, chanting and dancing, when Simon appears from a distance and is perceived by the boys as the “beastie”. Due to this misconception, the boys slaughter Simon and “bash him in”. Simon’s death is described by the boys to be an accident because it was a pure misconception, but Piggy’s death was completely intentional. The transition from the “accidental” murder to a purposeful murder highlights the fatal descent into complete savagery by the boys. In fact, Piggy even reassures that Simon’s death was simply an accident. Simon was a holy-like figure, who provided for the littluns and helped Ralph build shelters--he truly cared for the lives of the others and wanted to be rescued. Similar to Simon, Piggy wishes to leave the treacherous island and utilizes his knowledge in order to aid the issues at hand. However, their deaths portray that even though people have good intentions, society cuts down to the root of all people, making the other boys lose all humanity and civilization.
Deus ex machina, a latin term literally meaning "a god from a machine", was used in ancient Greek and Roman dramas to decide the final outcome. The concept has evolved over time, but has kept the same basic meaning, a person or thing suddenly appears to resolve seemingly unsolvable issues.
ReplyDeleteThe idea is incorporated by Golding in his novel "The Lord of the Flies". A hopeless Ralph is saved from the pursuing boys by a naval officer that appeared seemingly out of nowhere. To some this may seem like a weak ending to an otherwise strong novel, why let Ralph live when others, like Simon and Piggy faced brutal deaths? However, there may be more to this surprising ending than meets the eye.
What's important to consider is Goulding's philosophy and his ideas he incorporated into the story. We all know Goulding's central thoughts were inspired by Thomas Hobbes, an English Philosopher who stressed the importance of the conflict between social and political order. He believed an all-powerful ruler is necessary to avoid civil war. He viewed humans and innately evil, and it's clear to see that Goulding agrees. When put in a lawless environment, humans will naturally take advantage of others and create anarchy. Goulding demonstrates this by creating a setting where civilized English boys crash land on a deserted island, where things quickly turn south. The primal instincts within each boy slowly creeps out and they descent into madness, stomping out the last remains of civilization. Then, as all hope seems to be lost, the monarch figure the kids needed, the adult naval officer rescues them, and they quickly revert to their normal English child persona. This should peak the readers interest, if the righteous officer did not appear, what would have happened to the kids? Would they have viciously murdered Ralph, and in the end kill each other in fear of the beast? Would they have all starved to death from overhunting? Goulding makes the reader aware of the seemingly delicate balance between order and anarchy, as if kids can become such monsters in such a short span, what would happen in an entire nation, full of both children and adults alike.
Piggy, through the entirety of LotF, was never given a name by his peers. This fact is strange and worrying, due to the fact that he acts, until his very last moments, as the knowledgeable part of society and the very last thread holding it together. Regardless, his lack of a name functions as evidence of the fact that he is seen as lesser among his fellow citizens, and that intelligence and reason itself, according to humanity, pales in the face of charisma. This is indicated in many circumstances throughout the novel, tracing all the way back into when Ralph first met Piggy. Piggy only asks of Ralph that he will not call him by what his classmates called him, "Piggy". Not only does Ralph not follow through on the request, but he immediately begins to make fun of him by mentioning the word a myriad of times. This indicates how even Ralph, the seemingly righteous and strong leader of the civilization, finds it quite easy to prey on the weak. This also indicates, by extension, how the entire society in LotF dehumanizes and devalues the ideas of the individual, not only by making fun of him, but also by calling him "Piggy". Pigs, the primary food source on the island for the boys, become increasingly more disposable in each chapter. This is likened to intelligence, represented by Piggy, which is the true foundation of society, but is easily cast aside over time by those who do not understand or respect its importance. Also important regarding Piggy throughout the novel is his death, particularly in contrast with Simon's. Piggy's death is sudden, quick, fleeting; it is over almost more quickly than it began. It symbolizes how, since Piggy is seen as so disposable, as no more than a tool, it has simply become second nature for the society to rid of its "used-up tool". Conversely, Simon's death is long, flowing, and dramatic, taking place while the members of the are dancing in delirium. In order for the boys to kill such an object of purity and saintliness, they must disconnect themselves from their humanity and allow their mob mentality to overcome them. When contrasting these two deaths, the reader finds that, in society, it is easy to dehumanize the cerebral, while it is hard to devalue the true righteous man. Overall, by not giving a name to Piggy and executing his death as quick and minor, Golding makes evident to the audience that, although the smart and rational are absolutely instrumental in society and act as the string that holds it together, people do not seem to understand the importance of these figures and dispose of them as mere tools.
ReplyDeleteGolding wrote Lord of the Flies as an allegory to allow the reader to explore the Hobbesian view on life and human nature. In the novel a group of young English boys are marooned on an island due to their plane crashing. At first they attempt to create a democracy through the election of their “chief” Ralph but eventually descent into chaos and revert back to their primordial instincts as human beings. However, Golding makes an interesting stylistic choice to end the novel with a deus ex machina or when character is brought into the story in order to make the conflict in the story pleasantly resolve. The entrance of the naval officer who rescues the boys provides much deeper meaning and in a way concludes Golding’s exploration of the Hobbesian point of view.
ReplyDeleteHe particularly chooses to end their experience on the island with the rescue of a naval officer due to the fact there is currently a war being waged in the “outside world.” This shows that even the mature and supposedly civilized adults can descend into savagery similarly to the boys. Golding tries to make the point that no matter the circumstances or demographic any group’s morals can turn malevolent. This illustrates the Hobbesian view of life which believes that humans are by nature hostile and brutish.
This ending can also be seen as contributing to the theme of positivity and goodness can emerge from the darkest of places. When the boys first reach the island it is described as such a raw and pure form of beauty. Throughout the boys stay on the island, however, the beauty begins to drain from it and is eventually set ablaze by Jack and his tribe. Golding establishes that Jack represents humans in their true, evil form so fact that he set the island on fire gives the island a newfound dark precedence. Since the book ends with the boys being miraculously saved amidst the now corrupted island the ending conveys the theme of hope can be found amidst the evilest of places. Additionally, the island is deliberately described as symbol of purity and peace that transitions into madness and flames. Golding tries to display the damage humans can cause to the purest of places when faced with certain situations through the contrast of what the island was with what it became.
Although there were many ways Golding could have chosen to end Lord of the Flies he decided to use a deus ex machina. The literary choice allows the reader to ruminate over the morals of humans and explore Thomas Hobbes’ views. This ending is very telling about the hidden darkness within all people but still leaves a glimmer of hope for us to see that positivity can arise from any situation no matter the severity.
-Ananya Chaudhari
ReplyDeleteSince Lord of the Flies is a take on society, it is no mistake that Golding never reveals Piggy’s real name. This is primarily done in order to ridicule what Piggy stands for, logic and reason. Throughout the novel, Piggy always contributes the most logical solutions. However, not only is Piggy criticized for his physical appearance and ailments he is also ridiculed for his contributions to the boys. Golding utilizes this scene in attempt to show how without the constraints of society, humanity collapses to savagery. Goulding then shows what a society like this would look like when he shows that savagery ridicules intelligence. In the society, Goulding indicates how logic and reason comes secondary to one’s primal instincts. So on the island, no-one sees the need to learn piggy’s name since he only contributes things like logic and reason.
Furthermore, Piggy’s death represents an important shift in the storyline of the novel. First, this is important as the boulder not only kills Piggy but also destroys the conch, a symbol of society and civility. This shows how the island has completely shifted to a state of savagery because absent Ralph, logic and civility has been eliminated from the island. Further, Goulding makes Piggy’s death scene much shorter than Simon’s to symbolize how the boy’s mentality has changed. Simon is the first substantial character to have died so the narrative is much longer. The overall scene is long and is detailed. However, when Piggy dies, the mentality has shifted when Piggy dies. Now, the boys have embraced savagery and not only are comfortable with killing but they embrace it. So when Piggy dies, it is seen as nothing new. When considering how much death has considered on the island now, Piggy’s death is insignificant. This is further indicated when the ocean quickly washes away Piggy’s body. Even though a significant death has occurred, it is almost as if nothing has happened.
William Golding’s allegorical novel, The Lord of the Flies ends with a naval officer, or the deus ex machina, coming to the island, and saving the remaining kids. He arrives after seeing the fire and smoke coming from the forest, that Jack caused. The purpose of using this irrelevant character in such a pivotal moment in the book is to show how society cannot escape the basic rules that it is centered around. The navy officer symbolizes the laws and rules of society; it is what saves, and brings civilization together. No single person can escape it, and if they do, such as the boys landing on the island, you will descend into savagery. This is the idea that Golding is trying to show, by using the deus ex machina. Deus ex machina’s are unexpected or unknown powers that arise in unexpected situations. The laws and rules were unknown in this chaotic society that eventually led the boys into savagery. The navy officer, or the symbol of hope, and laws come to save them from this abysmal society they have created. This message the author illustrates couldn’t have been shown as effectively if this method of using a deus ex machina wasn’t used. It catches the readers off guard and forces them to analyze the situation, and why this character is being brought in.
ReplyDeleteDeus ex machina is a literary device where a conflict is resolved by an unexpected character, object or event. The goal of the device is to bring resolution. Some people are critical of the use of deus ex machina. They feel the author is being lazy and has a weak plot. They also may argue that it makes a novel unrealistic and more of a fantasy than reality. But on the other hand, this device can be used intentionally and appropriately to convey the author's storyline.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Golding uses deus ex machina to end his novel Lord of the Flies. The group of boys were marooned on a deserted island and have fallen into violence, savagery and chaos. When the novel's protagonist, Ralph, is going to be killed by the hunters, a naval officer appears. He is the deus ex machina in this situation and will bring the boys home. One reason the deus ex machina works in this novel is because it is not a plot driven story but more of an allegory for Hobbes' point of view on human nature. While the saving of Ralph is somewhat surprising, it is not a bad resolution because the reader still experienced their descent into chaos, which was the point of the story. The use of a deus ex machina is also not unforeseen. Throughout the novel, Golding foreshadows that the boys could be saved. In the beginning, they built a signal fire, which indicates how they were hoping to be rescued. Later they watch a ship pass by, but the signal fire was out. Golding intentionally uses this device. He never wanted the ending to be realistic but he rather used irony to show an end to the social experiment.
If the boys hadn't been rescued, presumably, most of them would have died in the fire, died hunting or starving. They may even have killed each other as "The Beast" took over. This society of boys would have been wiped out and that wasn't Golding's point. He wanted to show the evil of society isn't limited to a deserted island, but exists throughout the whole world. These boys represent a small piece of the society they left.
By using deus ex machina, Ralph thinks about everything that has happened to him on the island. He releases his frustration and anger and cries for regret. Golding summed it up by stating "Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man's heart, and the fall through the air of the true, wise friend called Piggy." (182). This displays Ralph's realization of how savage all of the boys have become and how evil can invade people's hearts. It also suggests the beginning of a new life for him where he can be redeemed. The boys aren't saved, but the ending showed hope for their healing and salvation.
Piggy appears as a symbol of rationality and intellect throughout the Lord of the Flies. He is constantly reminding other characters in the novel of mature ways and diligently attempts to prevent the other boys from descending into a state of savagery. He is therefore analogous to the voice inside our heads which constantly guides and perseveres to make us continue on a healthy path. However, we often ignore that voice of rationality and maturity and choose to pursue a path of ease rather than one of benevolence and good-will. The idea of Piggy appearing as an idea rather than a person is further strengthened by the fact that Piggy never undertook physical tasks on the island and his contribution to their society was limited to him offering his opinion during their meetings or as somebody who the rest of the boys constantly ridiculed and made fun of. Considering that Piggy's influence was highly dependent on voicing his opinions, Piggy's keen intent of maintaining the power of the Conch is justified which was in turn directly related to his own role on the island. Consequently, as the Conch's power fades, so does Piggy's. Nonetheless, even in violent environments such as Ralph and Jack's fight, Piggy intervenes by invoking the power of the Conch, rather than adopting physical means himself. Therefore, his entire role in the novel is that of an embodiment of ideas rather than that of a person. Thus, Piggy's murder represents the killing of rationality and maturity rather than homicide and since he was not considered as a person the other boys found no purpose in giving him a name.
ReplyDeletePiggy's death differs from Simon's death in that Simon's death was unintentional and caused during a stage of savagery, whereas, Piggy's death was completely purposeful and represented the loss of rationality in their society. Furthermore, although Simon's death was slow and gradual, Piggy's death was short and quick. This demonstrates that although the boys had respect for goodness and purity which Simon represented, they had no appreciation of intellectuality and maturity that Piggy represented. Moreover, the order of deaths is significant as well. Simon's death symbolized the death of purity and virtue
and after his death, the boys descended into a path of darkness and evil. By making Piggy's death follow Simon's Golding, therefore, demonstrates that loss of rationality is a symptom of losing morality and implies that rationality is required to be benevolent.
Piggy appears as one of the most unique and memorable characters in Lord of The Flies. His intellectuality, although often criticized by others, demonstrates that even in extreme darkness forms of hope would still be present. By purposefully, not giving revealing Piggy's real name Golding implies that as long as kind-hearted ideas exist in society, it is unnecessary for them to be manifested in a person as an idea transcends much farther than a human lifespan.
Lord of the Flies, written by William Golding ends in an anticlimactic manner when compared to the action that exponentially grows throughout the novel. Golding uses deus ex machina in the ending of Lord of the Flies which creates a “happy” ending in the eyes of some readers. When examining the ending closer, the naval officer coming in could be seen as the deus ex machina that calms and saves the boys but, in reality, this naval officer exposes the readers to the hypocrisy of the macroworld when the island is seen as the microworld. When reading the book, the reader only sees the microworld and the chaos and horrors occurring there when really the true horrors are occurring in the outside world. This leads one to believe that the surrounding macroworld is in peace and harmony. By introducing the naval officer, it gives the end of the novel a look on reality and shows how nothing is really okay and peaceful.
ReplyDeleteIf Golding would have used a different ending such as killing ralph or having the whole island burn it would not have the same effect that his ending has. As the naval officer approaches the island it seems that everything becomes still, and it gives the readers a realization that the boys are not monsters or savages but young children that got stripped from civilization and love. With this ending one is able to remember how the boys are still children and that the macroworld is in chaos and struggling too. The ending of Lord of the Flies brings us back to the beginning of the book when everyone was young and innocent except now the boys have wounds that will never be healed.
Piggy is a name given to a fat boy riddled with asthma and other limitations. However, this is not his actual name, and his true name is never revealed throughout the entire book. Much like many of the nameless “littleuns” on the island, the fat boy’s name is never revealed in order to convey the message that he and his beliefs are not important, at least to the other boys on the island. Thus Golding does not reveal Piggy’s real name in order to foreshadow the eventual loss of rationality and practicality among the boys that only he represents as they spend more time on the island and slowly start to come in contact with their “wild side”. Piggy is not give a proper English name, precisely because he represents a ‘type’ and an ‘idea’--the idea that rational thought goes hand in hand with rational decisions and actions--and, simultaneously, this foreshadows how he will function as a reminder of civilization that slowly slips away.
ReplyDeleteThroughout Lord of the Flies, Golding uses repeated symbols to represent and emphasize certain parts of society and Hobbes’ theory about it and human nature. Hobbes argued that the only way to create peace and to correctly govern a society is by using an absolute monarchy. By portraying Jack as the monarch over the boys, Golding also uses Piggy to symbolize the rational side of society that citizens throw aside to blindly follow a ruler.
In addition, using the name Piggy on an island that seems to be inhabited by pigs might seem like a coincidence, but it is quite the contrary because the pigs being slaughtered also hints to the fact that Piggy may also be slaughtered. Calling the boy by a nickname like Piggy presents him to the group of boys as something that can killed and there won’t be any ramifications. Because the boys are able to kill the baby pigs so fast, it could also make sense that they are also able to kill Piggy without a second thought. Finally, using a name that closely resembles that of an animal paint a picture that Piggy is nothing more than a stupid animal that can be disposed of at any time.
Reading farther along into the novel, the first death among the boys occurs: the passing of Simon. Simon was a boy on the island who often helped Ralph and backed up Ralph’s ideas. He can be seen as an allusion to Jesus, as he is kind to the littleuns and a peacemaker. However, Simon’s death is the least bit peaceful. Brutally murdered by the boys in what at first seems to be a fun dance that represents the killing of the pig, Simon’s passing is actually accidental. The boys, now led by Jack, do not realize what they have done until after the deed has been committed.This killing can be seen as the first stage of the boys’ descent into savagery, as it is accidental and sudden.
ReplyDeleteHowever, towards the end of the novel comes the second death which is that of Piggy’s. Brutally murdered by Roger, who rolls a boulder onto him, Piggy’s passing represents the second stage in which the boys have finally become total savages. Yet this is another gruesome and violent killing, there is one main differences between the killing of Piggy and that of Simon. First, while Simon’s death is an accident, Piggy’s is an intentional murder. This further shows the group’s descent into savagery, as boys will intentionally torture and murder people from their own pack. Comparing this with a death caused by the excitement of a crowd and Simon’s unfortunate presence in the wrong place at the wrong time, Simon’s death is used more so to convey the idea that the boys are very excited about hunting and killing creatures rather than the actual killing of Simon himself. Although the reader is presented with this stark dichotomy of Piggy’s death vs. Simon’s, there is also a similarity. This being that both of these deaths symbolize the plunge of the group further into almost primordial savagery that could have only been seen in animals. So, although the deaths differ based on the premise on which the boys were killed, they are both quite similar when facing the prominent fact that these deaths are only furthering the once civilized group’s descent into savagery.
What’s a name? A name, in a general sense, is a label that’s given to a person. Something that is used to recognize a person and give that person a sense of identity. Identity is a major idea that is touched upon often in William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. The concept of identity is something that many characters struggle with as they slowly descended into savagery. None, however, as a “wise friend called Piggy” (182). Throughout the story, Golding purposely doesn’t state this child's name, which evidently explains much about how the other characters view Piggy and that view supports their acts of prejudice towards Piggy.
ReplyDeleteGolding, throughout the novel, never illuminated to the readers the name of the intelligent Piggy. “Piggy” was a cruel nickname given to this child back when he was living in civilization. It was name given to him to taunt him because of his size and physical disadvantages. When the characters were being introduced after they land on the island, Piggy explicitly asked not to be called Piggy, however because of the characters youth and immaturity, they decide to continue the legacy of this name and never asked for his real name. One can analyze the many different reasons why Golding chose not to shed light upon this character's name and the impact it had on the novel. One reason why the author didn’t disclose that information was to show the irrelevancy Piggy is to the other boys. The other boys see this character as physically unhealthy and an outsider in their society. So, they automatically disregard him and simply look at him as they would a pig. He is useful in brains but not much else. Golding almost foreshadows how the other characters will treat Piggy unfairly and with cruelty; that will ultimately lead to a horrid and gruesome end. This irrelevance that the other characters give to Piggy, can directly relate to how Golding chose to describe his death in contrast to other characters.
Ema Straser
part 2:
ReplyDeletePiggy dies a gruesome and sudden death towards the end of the novel. When Piggy and Ralph go to confront Jack and his new tribe, it ultimately leads to Roger pushing a boulder which knocks down Piggy of the cliff and into the rocks at the bottom. The whole passage was written in a rather short and understated manner. Unlike Piggy's death, Simon’s death was written in a much more angelic and elongated manner. Simon was portrayed in the novel as being an almost saint-like person who had a peaceful and harmonic aurora. During Simon’s death, the character was going to notify the other boys about his discovery. However, right before confronting them, lightning and confusion was occurring at Jack’s camp site. So, when Simon shows up in the midst of this erratic and uncivil behavior, the boys attack him, being driven by their fear. When Golding is describing his death, it can almost relate to a character being sent to heaven. It was almost poetic, describing how the sea animals help lead his body into the water ever so carefully and how the water slowly took him with the current. However unwholesome his murder was, it can be boiled down to an accident. After his death, you can even see remorse among the boys. The characters were trying to find excuses for what they committed. They blamed their fear that they claimed took over their actions. However, Piggy's death was written in a short passage unlike Simon who got a whole page. Piggy was described to have fallen to his death, and when he hit the rocks a bunch of red and white stuff came out of his head. Then the water washed over him, and he was gone. Unlike Simon's death, his was short and unimportant. Also, after his death, the characters didn't even try to find an excuse. They knew they committed murder and they didn’t feel remorse for him. This can all lead back to how Piggy is seen as irrelevant to the other boys.
Piggy is truly a unique yet understated character. He represents the end effect of cruelty from children. He is shown as irrelevant and not thought worthy. Golding is able to show how this immaterial character is disrespected through his use of contrast and metaphors. Piggy is a character with a very sad ending but also someone that every reader can relate to: an underdog. The inability of Golding to tell the readers Piggy’s name can show just how unwanted and unrelatable he is to the other boys.
Ema Straser
Names are often one of the first forms of identification attached to a person. Nicknames in particular, often arise from an event in the past or characterize an individual. In the Lord of the Flies, Golding characterizes the dear character of Piggy by giving him a name directly relating to the food source on the island. This connection is further strengthened by Piggy’s appearance which resembles the pigs’ appearance as “bloated bags of fat,” (119). Piggy’s real name is never revealed as it maintains the strong connection the reader forms between Piggy and the pigs on the island. If the reader was to learn Piggy’s real name, it would severe this connection between Piggy would no longer fully represent the pigs. His dual identity would characterize Piggy as a clear member of the boys community.
ReplyDeletePiggy and his name foreshadow the boys’ treatment of the wild boars on the island as well as separating him from the other boys. When the boys first meet Piggy, they are immediately dismissive and openly rude towards him, as seen when Ralph makes fun of Piggy’s name. This highlights how Piggy as a person is seen as inferior to the other boys. Piggy’s low status in this social hierarchy is solidified when, instead of being respected for his intelligence or kind character, Piggy is seen as someone to be used which correlates to the boys’ abuse of the pigs. The boy’s show no regard for Piggy’s feelings as they snatch his glasses in order to start a fire or pay any little attention to most of the words he says. The horrific killing of the sow in this novel relates to the boys’ awful treatment of Piggy and shows how instead of respecting the living creatures on the island, the boys view themselves as so superior to the pigs that they feel justified in hunting for sport. Using Piggy’s name and treatment, Golding foreshadows that the pigs on the island will be treated in the same way as Piggy.
The awful treatment of Piggy intensifies as the boys become more and more savage, eventually resulting in his death. Before Roger pushes the boulder which knocks Piggy over the cliff, Roger had dropped countless stones over Piggy and Ralph’s heads, elucidating Roger’s awareness of the progressive fatality of his actions. When Piggy falls to his death, the sea washes him away fairly quickly compared to Simon’s death. While Piggy’s death is glossed over and made to seem unimportant, Simon is surrounded by an enchanted sea with streaks of bright life surrounding him as he is carried out by the sea. The contrast between the descriptions of Simon and Piggy’s death emphasize how desensitized the boys have become to death. Death is no longer thought of as a weighted event where a life has been lost. Instead, Piggy’s death is described as a trivial event that simply interrupts the everyday lives of savages. The supposed insignificance of Piggy’s death is made clear as Jack immediately launches into a tirade about how he is the chief and charges towards Ralph following Piggy’s gruesome death. Normally, the death of any individual is an event filled with mourning and grief. It often takes people extended periods of time before they are able to fully return to their daily routine. The boys’ murder of Piggy in addition to their effortless return to ordinary savagery highlights just how evil humanity is in its natural state when left without strict laws and rules to keep everyone in order.
A “deus ex machina” is a plot device whereby seemingly unsolvable problems are suddenly and abruptly solved by an unrealistic occurrence. This Latin term directly translates to “god from the machine”, referring to Ancient Greek plays where actors playing gods were suspended above the stage, and whose divine intervention would usually lead into the resolution of the play. The use of this device in storytelling is generally criticized and frowned upon, as it often connotes lazy writing. However, as is the case with William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, the use of a deus ex machina can also be used to further emphasize the core themes of the work and to reinforce the meaning of the work as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThe last few pages of Lord of the Flies show Ralph literally running for his life to escape from the rest of the boys who are actively hunting him. The whole island is erupting into chaos and going up in flames, as Jack had recklessly and murderously set fire to the island. Ralph makes it to the beach safely and falls at the feet of a British naval officer. The officer had apparently come ashore after he and his crew had seen the burning island from their ship; thus, the boys are rescued.
This ending is criticized because the sudden appearance of the naval officer is an example of a deus ex machina, as the situation is unrealistic and improbable. Still, Golding’s decision to end the novel this way is not an example of poor writing, but rather one of masterful storytelling in the way it reinforces the themes of the novel though its irony and unreality.
As soon as the naval officer appears, the point of view switches to his. Golding writes seamlessly in a third person omniscient point of view throughout the story, but this shift in perspective, from Ralph to the officer, is a purposefully very dramatic and drastic change. While the reader had previously been fearing for Ralph’s life as he was hunted by the savages, the reader is now thrown as the naval officer describes them as merely “little boys, their bodies streaked with colored clay, sharp sticks in their hands” (181). This description of the savage boys dramatically eliminates the antagonization and threat that they had previously held. Even Jack, the fearsome chief and the most violent of the savages, is described as a “little boy”. The drastic stripping of the boys of their intimidation gives the reader a fresh perspective detached from the events of the novel. And it is in the erasure of the importance of these events that the importance is also emphasized. The mundanity of significant objects like Piggy’s glasses also add to this surreal feeling that Golding curated through the officer’s point of view. The naval officer frustratingly simplifies the struggles that the boys had faced and views their fighting as “fun and games”, even comparing their experiences to a television show. (1/2)
ReplyDeleteIronically, though the rational Ralph had spent a large portion of the story insisting on the importance of maintaining a fire and Jack opposing him, it is Jack’s fire, with all of Jack’s recklessness and murderous intent, that eventually saves them. Although Ralph is correct in that a fire would signal a ship and rescue them, it is not a controlled fire born out of order that does—but a haphazard one born out of chaos and the intent to kill that gets them rescued. This irony is not unintentional, though. Golding purposefully connects Jack’s act of savagery to the boys’ eventual rescue because he communicates the notion that all humans possess such savagery, though it is masked in civilization.
The abrupt arrival of the naval officer symbolizes the boys’ abrupt reintroduction to civilization, but this time with a new sense of self-awareness and impurity. Ralph had spent most of the novel wishing for an adult figure to take charge and maintain order, and the appearance of the officer paradoxically provides both a comfort as an example of civility and a poignant reminder of the horrors of war and violence that also exist in civilization. The naval officer is hypocritically disappointed in the boys for descending into savagery while on the island while he himself is an active participant in the war. Though the officer looks down upon it, the savagery of the boys exists in him as well, just under the guise of the order of civilization with his “white-topped cap” (180) and “trim cruiser” (182). This parallel between the boys and the officer reflects on one of the major themes that Golding conveys: In the battle between the two impulses of human nature, to follow order and to succumb to violence and savagery, it is savagery that will prevail because humans are innately evil and ill-natured. Golding communicates Thomas Hobbes’s theory that society and civilation force moral behavior upon humans, but when left to their own devices, humans will revert to primal cruelty and barbarism. While the arrival of the naval officer seems like the end of savagery in the boys, it really is the opposite; with the officer’s appearance, Ralph, and perhaps some of the other boys, come to the sudden realization that savagery truly exists even in civilization, just under the guise of order and civility. They realize the true horrors of the atrocities they have committed and mourn for their loss of innocence and naivety, as they previously had not known the “darkness of mans’ heart” (182).
Had Golding ended the novel in a more realistic way without the deus ex machina, this theme and these messages would not be conveyed as clearly, if at all. The direct connections and parallels between the savagery in the boys and their eventual rescue are most blatantly evident in the last chapter because of the arrival of the naval officer. Though a deus ex machina, the naval officer represents a closer connection between savagery and civilization than had been previously explored in the novel. Golding’s use of irony through his portrayal of the naval officer in this last chapter blurs the boundary between savagery and civilization, connecting the story back to Hobbes’s theory on the nature of humanity—which the novel had been an allegory for all along. This ending, though unrealistic, strongly reinforces the themes of the novel and beautifully ties in bits of reality and a connection to the real world that force the reader to ponder and ruminate on true human nature. (2/2)
Prompt 2
ReplyDeleteIn Lord of the Flies Golding decides not to include Piggy’s actual name and is only known by the reader and the characters as Piggy. By not including Piggy’s real name Golding makes Piggy feel more distant and also makes him a character that the reader can feel bad for. Golding creates a distance from Piggy from the reader and characters because without a real name it's hard to bond to a character. However, you could also argue that making his name different from normal also creates a bond and identification from the reader. For example, the other characters in the novel have pretty basic names like Ralph and Jack, those names are common placed. Furthermore, Piggy is definitely not a common name that anyone would usually hear, making it easier for the reader to identify and distinguish. This especially works in the beginning of the book when the reader is not totally familiar with all the characters. Golding also named Piggy the way he did to make the reader pity Piggy. Because from the second Ralph and Piggy met, Piggy trusted Ralph with the name kids used to bully him with back at home. What does Ralph do with it though, he tells all the other boys almost immediately. This gets the reader to instantly feel bad for piggy and makes him a more relatable character in the narrative. A bullied character is often the most relatable and pitiable. This is true also for the death of piggy in the later chapters.
In The Lord of the Flies two characters die in total, those characters being Simon then Piggy. Both deaths are in some ways different and in some ways the same. For Piggy he is killed by Roger after he drops a rock on him. Piggy’s death is very quick on a descriptive level, one second he’s there one second he’s not. He doesn’t even really get a reaction from the other characters just a short paragraph describing how his head was busted open. However Simon's death was very drawn out and detailed in the way he died. In Simon’s death Golding described how Simon was ripped to shreds by the blood raged boys. While Piggy’s death was quick and “clean” in a sense.. This shortness of a Piggy’s death almost makes you feel worse because there is the thought of “he deserved better” because even in the end he didn't get any attention. Piggy was always helpless in making decisions on the island and even when he had the conch the other boys treated him as if he wasn't even there. This theme carries over into his death because even the one person that Piggy believed in, that being Ralph, didn’t really seem to care. In the end Golding wanted to portray a type of good will that is hopeless to get out amongst all the evil inside humans. Both Simon and Piggy were both the “good” characters that actually helped the boys situation but in the end they both end up dying to the very thing that they are fighting.
William Golding decided to end the novel in a way to relive the audience from all the savagery. This was a deus ex machina, or hand of God. By deciding to have a naval officer rescue the boys on the island is a relief to the reader. Golding could have easily ended the book in the death of Ralph, the island burning into flames, or any other casualty. Even though this ending is a hand of God it is still not a happy ending. Golding ended the novel leaving the reader with multiple emotions. Obviously the reader is happy the boys finally get rescued and get to return home from this awful situation. The boys get to escape the savagery they have created, they get to comeback to humanity again. The boys are also happy, bursting into tears crying when they see the naval officer step foot on the beach. However the ending is also sad. We see the island burning up into flames causing destruction to the peaceful and beautiful island. Before the island is invaded by the boys it is a beautiful place of nature, but once they leave they have extirpated the whole island leaving no beauty left. Also above the island is a deadly war taking place killing many and will kill even more. This shows that no matter how good the circumstances are, there will always be wickedness in the world. Furthermore the naval officer speaks to the boys and comments that hopefully there were no casualties that have occurred on the island. Unfortunately the boys answer that two were killed. This shocks the naval officer knowing that people have been murdered by their own peers. Lastly because of these murders the boys will return home carrying guilt of what they have participated in while stranded on the island. Not a day will go by without the boys thinking about this terrible time. Even though the boys eventually are rescued there's still destruction present till the end. If Golding had not ended the novel with a deus ex machina there would be no overwhelming rush of emotions, just sadness. The rescue has the audience even more emotionally involved in the novel, without it the reader will be left off without any relief or hope.
ReplyDeleteIn Golding’s novel Lord of The Flies the real name of the character “Piggy” is never revealed. A simplistic theory would be that Ralph did not care enough to ask Piggy his real name. This also shows Ralph’s childlike nature at the beginning of the novel because he only cares about what Piggy’s nickname, only after, Piggy tells Ralph to never call him that. Another reason is because the boys view Piggy as mostly insignificant, he is only significant when the other boys want someone to make fun of in order to make themselves feel better. On the island intellectual capabilities and morals are not valued as much as leadership roles and the ability to hunt and gather food, which is why Jack and Ralph are praised and Piggy is derided.
ReplyDeleteOne other possible reason why we never learn Piggy’s real name can be inferred from Golding’s interest in Ancient Egypt. There is a concept in Ancient Egyptian myths, known as a secret name. Golding during his life was fascinated with Ancient Egypt and its mythology. After Lord of the Flies he went on to write a short story collection known as the Scorpion God, which told the tales of Ancient Egypt and he later went on to visit Egypt. The Ancient Egyptians believed that a secret name was a name no one would tell anybody, that was a well-kept secret. A person who knew someone else's secret name had complete power over them, but if the person who knew the secret name told someone else, the person they told would not have power over the original person. We never learn Piggy’s real name because he, basically tells Ralph his “secret name” upon meeting him. This means that Ralph does not need to know Piggy’s real name in order to have power over him and this also explains why Piggy only supports Ralph. Ralph told the other boys that Piggy’s secret name was Piggy, but since Piggy does not tell the other boys this directly, they have no power over him. The point Golding makes by not including Piggy’s name is to show that the boys do not need his real name to have power over him and thus showing Piggy has no power on this island, because Ralph by knowing that Piggy’s secret name is Piggy, took all the power that should have rightfully been Piggy’s.
Piggy’s death compared to Simon’s is drastically different. Simon’s death was less intentional than Piggy’s. When Simon died none of the boys were in their right mindsets and their only thought was of bloodlust, however, when the Roger killed Piggy he purposely leaned on the “lever” which allowed the rock to crush Piggy. This difference shows that the boys are unconsciously killing their innocence with the choices they are making on the island, because when the boys kill Simon, they do not realize what they are doing. When the Roger kills Piggy, the boys are purposely rejecting intelligence and civilization, because Roger purposely kills Piggy and Piggy was the only one who truly wanted to go back to civilization.
By never learning Piggy’s name we see the brutality of the boys because they didn’t even care to ask. As we know, Piggy is bigger than the rest of the boys thus making him an outsider. In the beginning of the book, when Ralph tells the boys that his name is Piggy, they all laugh. It is apparent that the boys find it funny to refer to him as Piggy and enjoy feeling superior to someone they can laugh at. It also shows that the boys only care about themselves which supports Hobbes’ philosophy that human beings are, at their core, selfish creatures. Golding is trying to show that people tend to pick on the weakest members of society, even if they have something to contribute. Due to his size and physical abilities, Piggy is seen as less than and invaluable to the boys, even though he brings intelligence and concepts of civilization to the group.
ReplyDeleteWhen comparing Piggy’s death to Simon’s, one thing that stands out is how, for the most part, Piggy’s death was intentional whereas Simon’s was not. It signifies how the boys, especially Jack and Roger, strayed so far from civilization that the two outsiders of the group were the only ones to get killed. It also shows how the boys have turned into ravenous animals that are willing to kill others without a second thought of feelings of guilt.
Long ago during Ancient Greek times the idea of a deus ex machina was created primarily for theatrical performances. In nearly all of the bleak and dramatic plays, at the very end when it seemed as though things would end badly, stage directors would literally bring down a “god” using a contraption. This hero, or “god in the machine,” would come down from the rafters and save everyone. The novel, Lord of the Flies, ends similarly to these ancient plays; with a deus ex machina. One might wonder why a director or author would choose to end their piece in this way. There are of course several important reasons for this that show the author’s ingenuity.
ReplyDeleteClearly an author would only end a novel so abruptly if they were wanting their readers to think about something vital. Golding chose to end his novel Lord of the Flies with a deus ex machina for this very reason. Before this ending occurred, the book was reaching its ultimate climax and all sorts of horrors were taking place on the boys’ island. During this time the readers are stressed out and in a state of disbelief at the atrocious acts being committed. Not only does Golding input a god-like character during this time to stop the boys in their tracks, and paths of destruction, but he also inserts this character to stop his readers in their tracks as well. By using a deus ex machina Golding wants his readers to pause and reflect on the jarring events that just occurred. This leads to one questioning what he achieved by ending his novel in such an intriguing way.
By ending his novel this way, Golding forces his readers to become very introspective for a brief moment. He makes them realize how the presence of such a character impacts the boys, and how this character is incredibly symbolic. Not only does this deus ex machina cause the book to end on a higher note, but it also symbolizes the future and civilization. Had Golding simply ended the book with Ralph dying and chaos remaining, one would not come to think about the boys returning to civilization. By this time there seems to be zero hope for the boys, and this instance causes one to think about how the boys changed and will change once they return to their “normal” lives. This deus ex machina also reveals the strongest question of whether or not what humans believe is a “normal” society actually exists. With savagery seen both on the island between boys and in Europe during a war between men, it is difficult for one to answer this question. Although Golding’s book examines many of Hobbes’s ideas, it also examines human nature at a deeper level, and gets everyone to question to reconsider what “normal” means.
Golding’s choice of ending makes a statement about how the boys savagery has made them stray from civilized nature and boyish innocence. Golding ends his novel Lord of the flies with a deus ex machina in the form of a Navel officer. This officer is a savior to the boys and brings back civilized nature in the form of an adult. This reminds the boys of that they have lost while simultaneously being saved from an outside being. This officer is almost an angel sent from heaven because he signifies that the boys can go home and don’t have to resort to their savage and primitive lifestyles. The officer does not understand the boys and views their primitive and savage ways as play being a “jolly good show.” From an outside perspective this is definitely what it seems, yet the boys start to weep at their lost innocence and relief from what they don’t have to return to. Golding’s specific choice to end the novel this way is an author’s choice to further highlight Hobbes theory and the boys progression in their time in the novel. Although the boys dangerous world seems to end once the grown up arrives, Golding illuminates the fact that the boys’s world is just a microcosm of the real world that happens outside of the island. The boys were trying to escape this evil bigger world by taking a plane and leaving the comfort of their home. The waging war just across the ocean is a representation of the boy’s island but on a much larger scale. Golding makes a point to the reader, showing the civilized world that Ralph dreamed of isn’t that civilized and isn’t much different from their time on the island. Golding by ending the novel in a deus ex machina proves to us that Hobbes theory of our own selfishness and evil at heart is evident in our own lives through the devastating and destructive war happening throughout the novel. The boys are not saved by the navel officer but transported from one savage world to the next. If Golding didn’t end the novel in a deus ex machina his point wouldn’t be conveyed to the reader as effectively. The reader would just see the book as a work of fiction and a testing room for Hobbes theory. The reader would’t see that the loss of innocence and savagery is very real and evident in our own lives and others. Boys forced to grow up to fast through killing others and learning to survive in brutal conditions, watching their friends die before them was the life of the boys on the island and in the 1950s the life of the boys barely men outside of the island. The boys life can be parallel with the young soldiers of WW1 and WW2. Without the deus ex machina none of these parallels would be understood as well, and being a navel officer brings the book to life and makes us realize what Golding believes of Hobbes theory and how it affects the readers eyes going from one microcosm to the next.
ReplyDeleteWe never learn Piggy's real name because Piggy is considered an outcast among the boys on the island. Piggy is an outcast among the boys because of his intelligence and obese appearance. Also due to his ashtma, he's only able to do very little or barely any physical activity. Since he can't do anything physical, the boys think he's useless and just slacking off. Even if Piggy has a lot of disadvantages, he's the closest thing to an adult. The boys don't value Piggy for what he has to offer, and only use his glasses to start a fire.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Golding, by not giving piggy a real name, wanted to de-humanize piggy in the eyes of the reader. By doing so he intended to create a contrast between piggy and the rest of the boys on the island. Without a real name, Golding creates the impression of piggy being less than a normal human being. In fact, the name Piggy is an insult hurled at him by the other boys. It is another attempt to play with piggy's emotions and feelings in order to suppress his identity. In the begining of the book, Piggy was so insistent on getting the names of everyone on the island, including the littluns and giving them a chance at being an individual. It shows how much he values the individual identities. But, ironically, Piggy is not given his own identity by supressing his real name.
Piggy's death is far more gruesome and brief compared to Simon's death. Piggy was killed on purpose by Roger in order to silence him. On the other hand, Simon's death was an accident. He was clawed and bitten to death by the boys beacause they did not know who they were attacking and they mistook him to be a beast.
The differences between the two deaths signifies the reader's attitude towards Piggy and Simon. As intended by Golding, the readers view Simon's death with sympathy while they view Piggy's death with less concern.
Sean Peters
ReplyDeleteWhy do we never learn Piggy's real name? Piggy's name is not disclosed because he does not represent a person, but a concept. Piggy represents the intellect and logic of humanity. In the first chapter none of the kids listen to Piggy, which represents the fact that they are disregarding the civility of their past lives. Golding does this to demonstrate the beginning of the children's decent into savagery.
Piggy's death is written with much more detail then Simon's,because it represents the death of logic and intellect on the island. Both Simon and Piggy's body are carried into the ocean and supposedly lost to sea. This represents the fact that the concepts that both Simon and Piggy represent, benevolence and intelligence, are lost to the tide.
1) Golding conveys many messages relating to the nature of humanity by ending his novel with a deus ex machina, and it is up to the reader to decide how to analyze this choice. Lord of the Flies is a clear allegory to the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes which portrays a microcosm of a world without civilization, rules or order. Hobbes believed that humans are wicked and savage beings who will descend into anarchy without an absolute ruler. A deus ex machina is often referred to as a “hand of God”, and Hobbes believes that an absolute monarch is inherently good due to divine right. The addition of the supposed “hand of God” includes another aspect of Hobbes’ theory in Golding’s novel. His novel also serves as a cautionary tale as to what to expect of humanity when order and civility is lost. The officer, acting as the deus ex machina, shows readers that it is not too late for the boys to accept civilization when it is presented to them even after so much time spent on the island giving into savagery. In this way, Golding emphasizes the simplicity of humanity by showing how the differences between the boys are resolved when there is hope of return to a stable society. Earlier in the novel, Ralph and Piggy participate in the killing of Simon simply because it demonstrates the beginnings of a nascent society which is demented yet stable. Simon is described to be constantly accompanied by light and helping others, leading readers to believe he is the most god-like figure in the group of boys that crashed on the island. His death symbolizes the loss of God in their new society and the stimulation of the inherent evil inside them (according to Hobbes). With the arrival of the officer, the boys’ further descent into savagery and anarchy is thwarted. The resolution of the plot with a deus ex machina, especially in the case of Lord of the Flies, leaves mystery as to what would have happened if the plot had continued rather than being abruptly stopped at what would seem to be the climax of the story. There are so many possibilities as to what the fate of the boys on the island would be had the officer not arrived to save them. This air of mystery left with the end of the novel leads to questions asked by the reader, allowing him/her to wonder how the book relates to their own lives. It is also important to note that the officer who has been sent as a savior to the island is an adult sent to save only children. Throughout the book, the kids are constantly remarking the lack of grown-ups on the island. Even though the kids are happy about the loss of order and rules, their civility and quality of life decreases dramatically as time passes by on the island without adult life. Because the deus ex machina happens to be an adult who saves all of the children, he trivializes all of their problems and casually addresses their issue of survival over the time they have passed on the island. Again, this emphasizes Hobbes’ philosophy that humans feel they are more significant to the world than they really are and that humanity more often harms than helps in the progress of benevolence in the world.
ReplyDeleteThroughout Golding's novel we see Ralph try his very hardest to maintain civility whether that be through his signal fire which is a a symbol of Civilization. In this final chapter Golding has set the scene of Ralph being chased through the woods by the hunters who are using the very “civilized” fire to flush him out of the jungle Now, when all he can do is struggle to stay alive as long as possible, a deus ex machina appears, at the last possible moment, in the form of the naval officer who brings the boys back from the savagery that has taken over and corrupted their minds. Golding’s use of irony in the last chapter to blur the boundary between civilization and savagery and implies that the two are more closely connected than the story originally conveys. By ending the novel in this way Golding gains the ability to use this irony in his portrayal of the naval officer. Although the naval officer saves Ralph at the moment in which the officer encounters the boys he is not met with untainted joy. The officer says that “he is unable to understand how upstanding British lads could have acted with such poor form.” Ironically, though, this “civilized” officer is himself part of an adult world in which violence and war run in parallel with civilization and social order. If this was not conveyed by Golding in this manner I believe the message for society would have been somewhat lost in translation. This Ironic characterization of the naval officer gives evidence of the authors point of view on civilized societies relation with violence and savagery, and how the gap between them that Golding illustrated in the majority of the novel was out of perspective and when viewed as a reflection of society as a whole the author's beliefs are more clearly exemplified.
ReplyDelete-Ewan Macfarlane
2. The fact that we never learn Piggy’s real name is a very significant part of Lord of the Flies. Piggy’s voice is never revealed because he is not important enough to the other boys. They only see Piggy as another number to do work on the island while they mess around and they see not point in getting to properly know him. It is also significant that Ralph told the rest of the boys Piggy’s nickname. It shows how easily the boys listen to a voice of authority and ignore someone who is weaker. From the moment Piggy is introduced to the rest of the boys, they make fun of him. This teasing does not stop even when Ralph tells the boys Piggy’s nickname. They readily accepted Ralph’s statement about Piggy who was ignored when he tried to clear his name up. Even though it is Piggy’s name, the lack of respect given to him about the matter shows the other boys’ views on him.
ReplyDeleteBy comparing Simon’s and Piggy’s deaths, it is made clear the obvious difference in the way the rest of the boys felt about each boy. Although Simon is killed in a violent, brutal way, it could be argued that it was an accident in the heat of the moment. The boys were riled up, it was dark, and Simon was in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, Piggy’s death was in no way an accident. Jack’s tribe had purposefully set a boulder up with the intent to cause harm. Roger meant to drop the boulder on Piggy, showing the boys’ disregard for Piggy as a person. This is further shown when Piggy is immediately forgotten. Whereas the boys feel bad about Simon’s death and are burdened by it for a while, Piggy’s death is hardly acknowledged. This just demonstrates how cruel society can be when it inadvertently values one person’s life over another’s. Overall, Piggy was not appreciated by the rest of the boys and throughout his time there, they boys made it clear that they did not care about him.
William Golding’s well renowned novel, The Lord of The Flies, ended in a way most people wouldn’t predict that it would. This sinister novel concluded with a light, hopeful, almost artificial way that was extremely intentional. Golding could have ended this book as sinister and eerie as he started it, but he consciously used literary devices such as deus ex machina, to execute his view on human nature.
ReplyDeleteThe surprising use of deus ex machina in the ending of this book strays from the predictable, despondent fate most readers thought the book would conclude with. Golding turned the hopeless situation the boys had on the island into what most readers would think would be a paradise, or a savior from the demons and hardships the island; but yet a deeper meaning lies within. The island acts as a mere microcosm for the macrocosm that is going on in the “world” outside of the island. The naval officer was working in the fictional atomic war that was occuring during the time the boys were on the island. Golding deliberately does this to further elucidate the Hobbesian ideals of how corrupt and savage humans are. Simultaneously, he indicated that the boys on the island are finally saved when an adult figure showed up to rescue them. This implies that humans are always going to require a higher power, or form of rules and restrictions to follow or everything will result in chaos. Hence Without an astonishing ending like this, he wouldn’t have nearly gotten his true point across about the ideas of Thomas Hobbes. This ending was a surefire way of catching the attention of the readers and making them delve into the deeper and true meaning of the meaning of the work as a whole. If Golding ended the novel in the way the readers would’ve expected, the theme and meaning of the work as a whole wouldn't nearly mean as much as it did because of Golding’s clever use of deus ex machina.
Why do we never learn piggy’s name? The answer to this question is at once both as simple and utterly complex as the many layers Lord of The Flies the literary novel presents itself to be. The simplistic answer is that Piggy’s name is not important enough to the boys to mention. Because this novel is written mostly from the viewpoint of the boys on the island the reader is also subject to the many biases of them as well. Names are something that is given and set by civilization and the rejection to give Piggy a real name is the boy’s first rejection of civilization. Names also change with different time periods and cultures as they go in and out of style. On the island the culture is to only give names to those who are respected. The reader not only does not learn Piggy’s real name, but only learns a select few of the littlun's names. This is evidence that one’s importance in the boys’ minds ai what warrants each person a name. The littluns are on the bottom of society and therefore are given one name to characterize all of them.
ReplyDeletePiggy earns his nickname right at the start of the novel, when in confidence he tells Ralph that “Piggy” is what the school boys used to call him to mock him. Ralph in turn laughs and tells everyone in mockery that his name is Piggy, marking the first act of cruelty in the novel in just the first few pages. This mean streak displayed by Ralph and the boys is the holdings of civilization beginning to shake loose now that the boys are free and to call whomever they want whatever they want. The bullying of Piggy is the boy’s first step into the decent of savagery as they begin to establish the dominance and the characteristics of a primordial beings. The boys immediately fall back on characterizing and naming Piggy based on his physical appearance. Piggy’s brain power being that of little importance to them and instead it’s his abnormal weight is what sticks out to the boys, displays society’s underlying instinct to classify one based on outward appearance rather than “what is on the inside”. This is evident in the novel when they choose Ralph and later Jack as leaders purely based brute strength and their ability to wield power, and then again when the character “the kid with the mulberry mark on his face” is lost in the fire never to be heard about or seen again. The boy with the mulberry mark on his face stood out in the crowd due to his abnormal characteristics and then is named as such. Just like how Piggy is Golding’s direct characterization of civilization. He is the only one who portrays a logical, methodical way of thinking as evidenced through his building shelters and demanding the signal fire. Ralph notices this right away and then forever brands him as different.
Part 2:
ReplyDeletePiggy’s death is an accident and although it was unintentional it was brutal in description. Simon’s death was murder as each person involved was cognizant of what they were doing, just not totally unaware of the consequences. In contrast Simon's death was written with flowery language and descriptions. Another contrast between the two was that Simon’s death was multiple times in the book and the boys were horrified while no one mourns piggy and his death is mentioned in one sentence on page 166. Each death in its own right marks another stop in the boys’ decent into savagery. Simon’s death happens towards the beginning of the book during the middle of a tribal dance frenzy. His death marks the killing of the only true benevolent personality on the island and is symbolic of the kindness of human nature being the first to go in the decent of true human nature. Piggy’s death is symbolic to the boys final culling of civilization as Piggy is the last straw that holds the two together. Right after Piggy is killed the boys become true savages as Ralph loses his only ally and then fully loses humanity as he is hunted like a pig on the island. Therefore, these deaths symbolize the gradual deterioration of civilization on the boys whilst the boys are in different mind frames of savagery when the killings happen. The killing of Simon occurs while the boys still have connections to civilization, explaining their grief, while Piggy’s happens at the end of the book at the apex of savagery.
To sum up the ending of Lord of the Flies, Golding decides to use a deus ex machina (naval officer) to resolve the tension between Ralph and Jack’s tribe who are about to kill him. This abrupt introduction to this outside force however can be more closely analyzed into Golding’s choice of including this passage and the reasons why and how the officer found the boys on the island. Golding wanted to show a sense of reflection of Jack’s past life on the island in addition to the readers’ understandings of what events has occurred.
ReplyDeleteAfter the real adult chatted with Ralph about the previous events that happened on the island, Jack had a horrifying but completely eye-opening moment. He had a realization that Ralph, Piggy, and Simon were not his enemies at all, and he truly did want to be rescued and returned to civilization. He is almost depicted as child, weeping and falling to his knees as he comes to his senses in the end. If no opposing outside force interfered with this situation, Ralph would have been killed and Jack would have absolute control over the island, empowering with a new and savage motivation. Coming from this theory, Jack would not realize how seriously he took these conflicts and would believe conflicts would only be resolved through violence.
In addition to Jack’s realization, Golding wanted to provide an outlet to the readers, so they can take a step back from the chaotic and violent scene to capture the main concept/purpose of this situation. Because of this frantic and detailed passage of Ralph trying to survive from Jack’s troops, it is easy to get caught up with the scintillating diction, imagery, and other literary devices to try and decode the situation at hand. Although these details are important, Golding wants to show the importance of the overall purpose of these actions Jack is taking. If Golding did not have this passage for this reason, the readers would have no ending satisfaction that Jack has been stopped or punished for his evil doings and would leave a bitter ending to the descriptive and symbolic novel. Additionally, if Jack got his way in the end and Ralph was killed, this could have portrayed a different message to the readers. One of these lessons might have been that violence always overpowers the good in humanity and can lead all the way to destruction of innocence itself. In reality however, there are many still who are strong-willed and will not sway with evil desires or intentions.
In Lord of the Flies, the author never reveals Piggy’s real name. This is because the boys do not care enough about him to call him by his real name. This shows that the boys are selfish and only care about themselves. Piggy is seen as an outsider due to his geeky personality and because he is bigger than the rest of the boys. Golding shows the brutality and selfishness of the boys by not including Piggy’s name. The savageness of the boys becomes coherent because the boys did not even bother to learn his real name. This supports Hobbes philosophy that all humans are born evil and selfish. After Piggy died, none of the boys felt remorse or sadness including one of his best friends, Ralph, this illuminates the idea that all humans are born savage and wicked. Piggy’s death is different from the death of Simon because Piggy’s death was planned out and intention whereas Simon’s death was somewhat of an accident. Once they were killed, both bodies fell into the ocean, but Piggy’s body was washed away almost immediately while Simon’s body took longer to wash away and felt purer. This reveals the savageness of the boys and shows how they never thought of Piggy as anything more than an outsider.
ReplyDeleteGolding makes the very important decision of leaving out Piggy's real name for many reasons. First is because Golding doesn't want us to get emotionally attached to Piggy. Since Golding knows that Piggy is going to die, maybe he didn't give us his real name so we wouldn't feel as bad. We also associate names with personalities. For example, when you think of Jack, you think cruel, savage, and wild. When you think of Simon, you think of kind and helpful. After discovering more about a character's personality, whenever you see their name, you will automatically think of their personality. However, whenever you think of Piggy, most people would probably just think of the animal, and it's traits, instead of a human. Some might associate Piggy with being intelligent, but that is only if you have read the book. For someone who has not read the book and doesn't know who Piggy is, they would probably assume that he represents the actual animal. Another reason why we never get Piggy's real name is because it makes his death so much more inevitable. Throughout the whole book, it is made obvious to the reader that Jack is obsessed with hunting and killing pigs. As soon as the reader discovers this, it is safe to assume that the character named Piggy will probably be one of the "pigs" that are hunted. The violent words used when speaking about pigs also represents Piggy's death. The aggressive tone and harsh words used along with the pig hunting illustrates how harsh Piggy's death is. Piggy's death and Simon's death were both very brutal. However, they are still slightly different because of their personalities and the things that they represent. Simon, who was perceived as the "beastie", represented the fear of becoming savages and the fear of killing. Because of this, Golding made Simon's death much more savage and horrid. The boys made a show of killing their so called innocence and fear. Simon's death served as one of the major turning points in the novel, because the reader sees how that action truly turned them into savages. However, in Piggy's case, Golding makes him out to be a mere obsession. Jack and his tribe love to kill things, especially pigs. By killing him abruptly and somewhat unexpectedly, Golding furthers his point that Piggy is not so important. Because killing Simon was one of the first times that most of the boys had actually killed, everyone made a big deal about it and was thinking about it afterward. However, Piggy's death was almost not even acknowledged. None of the boys gave it a second thought. Naming characters is very important, and often not naming them can also be important, as shown by Golding and his choice to leave Piggy nameless.
ReplyDeleteToby Wakefield-Carl
William Golding ended Lord of the Flies using a trite deus ex machina cliche because it further conveys Golding and Hobbe’s philosophy of of humans are naturally born evil. Thus it is a proper ending since it started with born evil and ends with a convenient tie to a similar self-destruction. This innate evil is introduced early in the book by showcasing the blatant difference between the savage, blood-thirsty schoolboys and a civil navy officer. By presenting the difference, a stark contrast between the two is established. Golding shows how far the once innocent schoolboys have come from society, and this is also made more shocking because the reader has grown accustomed to how the boys were from constant exposure of their actions. But by showing the naval officer, it refreshes the reader of how abnormal Jack and his tribe had become.
ReplyDeleteIn addition of reminding the reader of how this de-evolution drastically changed the boys, the use of a naval officer saving them conveys more than expected. Through the use of a navy officer, Golding reconfirms and strengthens’s Hobbe’s belief of how human nature is savagery. From the context of the beginning of the novel, this time period takes place in the detrimental future, when World War 3 occurs. With this context, Golding implies that the navy officer has also killed human beings, the same act Jack and his tribe commit to stray far from society. Through these subtly implications, Golding reminds the reader of how even in the most civil “god-like” saviors, savagery occurs everywhere and plagues society because humans are naturally evil by nature. The use of this trite trope end reprehends the idea even further by implying how the savior also bloodied his hands as well; it conveys how even the most polished people in society, they too are also savages.
Through the use of stark contrast and irony, William Golding achieves furthering and strengthening his ideas. If the novel ended differently, for example the triple murders Ralph, then Hobbe’s philosophy would not been as strong and direct. While some may be able to write off the actions of the immature school boys as mass hysteria or young adolescents who don’t know better, the ending instead is used as a foil so that it contrasts with the adults who should have learned from many experiences from their life, yet have soiled their hands in the same manner. Therefore, this ending is appropriate in a convenient manner to convey its philosophy of man in order to make the impact that it did.
Tiffany Cha
1) During the last sections of the novel, Golding describes a complete collapse to the island when Jack and his tribe begin to burn everything down creating an enormous smoke fest. Ralph, hurriedly trying to escape the clutches of Jack and his inevitable death, is near his final breaths when he spots a “huge peaked cap” above him. Fortunately, this turns out to be a naval officer who saw this chaos of raging fire and plentiful ashes. The moment all the boys see this long forgotten adult figure, everyone stops in their tracks and gazes. In this very scene, it is almost as if this layer of innocence and purity that was torn off when their true savage self was exposed has finally returned and relayered. After a quick conversation with the naval officer, Ralph finally begins to comprehend the severity of their actions on the island and begins to weep which dominoes the rest of the boys into doing the same.
ReplyDeleteGolding, although presented with a copious amount of choices to pick from, chooses to use a deus ex machina in order to cap off this novel. Since there are most likely several reasons why Golding chose to finish this novel with the deus ex machina, one of the more prominent reasons that he used this literary device is to show the greater picture to everything that he showed in his novel and to relate it to a larger model. Looking back at the events that took place on the island, it is made evident that due to many factors, the ending resulted in an all-out war between two opposite minded leaders who led the island to obliteration. In order to relate the flaws of humans and the Hobbesian views that Golding agrees with to the outside world, adding a naval officer allows the reader to see the irony of him rescuing the boys. In the setting of the novel, it is known that outside of the island, a whole other war is taking place that consists of millions of people, not just a several amount, and adults, not just kids. Golding not only seems to mock the war that the outside world is apart of but also shows how all humans contain this evil no matter the age. Having the island of boys as a microcosm for the true evil nature that lives in all of us allows Golding to get his point across more efficiently in this simplified version of an example of Hobbes’s perspective on human nature.
For Golding to end his novel with the deus ex machina, it allows him to give the readers a glimpse into the real-life application for this “boys on an island” problem. However, if Golding had a different ending to this novel, the effect the novel would have on the readers would lessen due to a lack of self-application. To prove this point, pretend that the ending of Golding’s novel ended with Ralph finally being killed by Jack and his tribe. Although this could possibly show the point that the evil nature in all humans will overcome all good and reason when there is no present authoritative figure, it does not do Golding’s well thought out ideas and concepts justice if there is no application to the outside world. Another important reason that Golding’s real ending benefitted his main concepts is how Jack’s fire, intended to draw Ralph out and then kill him, led them to their rescue. This is ironic since, in the beginning, the main use of the fire was to seek help and use for survival purposes only. Even though this failed, when Jack used the fire in order to intend harm onto Ralph, it eventually saved them. This series of ironic events leads to the idea that during the time of destruction and panic, the only thing capable of ceasing the chaos ensuing on the island is a figure of authority, which is what happens. This supports the Hobbesian view on how humans are savages until governed by a complete ruler in order to become civil once again.
The Irrelevance of Piggy
ReplyDeleteGolding did not include Piggy’s real name throughout Lord of the Flies for numerous reasons. A prominent justification for the exclusion of Piggy’s name is that Golding intends for Ralph to be the protagonist. However, if Piggy’s real name had been disclosed, then the reader would have had more sympathy for Piggy, thereby resulting in the reader routing for Piggy opposed to Ralph. Coinciding with the reader’s potential sympathy for Piggy, Golding also excluded Piggy’s name to objectify and dehumanize him. Golding intends for Piggy to be a symbol in his allegory, not a round character whom the reader shares empathy for. Additionally, Piggy’s name is not included to highlight the cruelty of humanity since the children are aware that Piggy has a real name, yet none of the children inquire upon his real name. This portrays a society who pushes down the weak and undesirable, thereby further proving Hobbe’s point that humans are wicked at heart. Furthermore, it is not a coincidence that Piggy shares his name with the only large animal on the island. By including this parallel, Golding is portraying that even Piggy, the most intellectual and reasonable of all the children, is comparable to an animal. Thus, this proves Golding’s opinion of humans being savages deep down. Lastly, excluding Piggy’s real name depicts Golding’s attempt at making Piggy irrelevant, thus proving that logic and weakness have no place in society, or lack thereof, in the children’s case.
Piggy’s irrelevance is also portrayed through his quick and insignificant death. Piggy is killed in the anti-climactic method of Roger pushing him off a cliff with a rock. Even as Piggy dies, Golding continues to dehumanize him, “Piggy’s arms and legs twitched a bit, like a pig’s after it has been killed” (163). Golding is comparing Piggy to a pig throughout Piggy’s last moments, which further proves Piggy’s unimportance. Likewise, Simon is also compared to a pig, as the boys use the exact ritual that they use to hunt pigs to murder Simon. However, Simon’s death contrasts with Piggy’s death enormously. Simon is murdered during an important dance that the boys had used to kill their precious pigs. Hence, the dance is comparable to many rituals that tribes have performed throughout history, making Simon a god-like figure. Additionally, Simon’s death is prolonged, and Golding uses powerful diction and scintillating imagery to depict Simon’s death. The contrast between Piggy’s irrelevant death and Simon’s important death is significant for numerous reasons. First, Simon’s prolonged death signifies the author’s importance in extinguishing democracy since Simon is employed as an allegory for democracy throughout Lord of the Flies. Furthermore, since Piggy’s death comes at the close of the novel, Piggy’s death portrays that as humans descend savagery, the value of the life of a single person decreases.
By using the dues ex machina Golding depicts irony to the audience and sends a message to them. He could have simply ended it with the death of Ralph and the boys going into pure savagery as their island burns before them. Instead he has this naval officer appear to save them almost as the officer was god. This godly figure is ironic if you look at who this officer truly is and what he has most likely done. During the time LoF was published World War 2 had just ended and people saw how brutal the war truly was. So the irony of a man who has probably assisted or actually killed another man rescuing a bunch of savage boys sends an underlining message. Even though these veterans of the war are awarded and thought as heroes at the end of the day humans still fell back to their savage ways. People may dress as nice as they want and can receive awards, but the things they have in the past does not change the savage ways they once commited. When humans are pushed to their limits their true evil bleeds through and nothing can conceal their past. So rather than having the story end like any other basic survival island story, Golding sends the reader home with the feeling of pure human evil and thinking, how savage is our society truly?
ReplyDelete-Holden Sanderson
Golding chose to end his novel with a deus ex machina to provide the reader with contrast between civilization and savagery. The naval officer is a model of civilization. He is one who is well dressed and prisene. His pure white and gold uniform represent how he is classy and places value in his appearance. His appearance contrasts to that of Ralph, who is embarrassed of his dirty and rough look. This represents how he is of civilization as supposed to having a savage nature, like the boys on the island. When the naval officer asks Ralph if any one has died, he asks it in a lighthearted and joking tone. This implies that he never really intended an answer that one let alone two people were killed. He also replies in a tone of disbelief, as if he can’t believe the answer given by Ralph. His naiveness for such deadly and savage ways is clearly emulated here. He lacks overall knowledge of what life away from civilization can be like. The officer is also described as “moved and a little embarrassed” by the boy’s weeping noises. It is as if he is a parent, embarrassed by his children’s disobedience. He feels embarrassed by the boys actions to turn toward a savage lifestyle. He feels disappointed in their decisions to leave a civilized life. The officer, representing civilization, is horrified by the thoughts of savagery. The naval officer can’t believe his eyes and refers to what he sees as a scene out of a fictional book. His civilized mind can’t wrap around the idea that being as savage as they are is possible. For him, he can only comprehend what he sees as out of a fictional book. By using the officer as a contrast to fully intensify the differences between civilization and savagery, the reader can fully understand and see just how far into savagery the boys became. Without this ending, the reader would not be able to fully grasp the significant difference between the boys that turned savage and the civilized naval officer.
ReplyDeleteIn the ending of Lord of the Flies, William Golding uses Deus ex machina to further emphasize the savagery the boys have descended into, and to further prove Hobbe’s view on humanity.
ReplyDeleteAfter destroying the island and almost killing Ralph, the boys are saved by a Naval Officer who discovered the island when seeing smoke from the accidental fire. This ending is far more optimistic than the rest of the novel, and Golding could have easily used a darker ending where Ralph dies, or the boys are never rescued instead. But by using the Dues ex mechina, or “by the hand of God”, it puts the Naval officer in almost an angelic state. When Ralph first sees the rescuer, he is described to be in “gold foliage...white drill...gilt buttons” (180). These colors represent that of purity and goodness, or that of God and his angels. Making the Naval Officer seem this way shows just how far the boys had descended into savagery, and that they were so far gone that only god could save them. It’s showing how without society, humans are so vile and wicked that we are basically hopeless, and the only hope we have is that God can save us from ourselves. The guard's point of view also shows him observing the island, which is utterly destroyed and in flames. This is a strong contrast from how the island is first described, when it was lush and untarnished, not unlike the Garden of Eden. As soon as the boys first land on it, it is immediately harmed by a large scar from the plane, and throughout the novel it is further violated until the end when it is destroyed. The island, which was an untouched respite from the war and provided the boys with everything they needed, was desecrated. Its inhabitants were so obsessed with their “games” that they didn't give it a second thought. The boy's savagery not only destroyed each other, but also destroyed the land that nurtured them when they could have easily crashed into an unforgiving sea.
The Officer’s first look at the boys reminds the reader that these were just children. By the ending of the novel, the boys seem more and more like monsters, especially with their tribal paint and disturbing rituals. Even Ralph at some point thinks of how he can no longer remember what Jack’s face looked like. The Officers description of the boys as “little scarecrows” (181) disintegrates our thoughts of savage beasts. It reminds the reader of how even with all the atrocities committed, these are still just little boys who originally wanted fun and games. It shows us how darkness and savagery lie in all humans, no matter the original intention. Without the Naval Officer arriving in the end, we would have never been reminded who these boys used to be, and the warning of how darkness lies in all men's heart may have been lost.
In Goulding’s Lord of the Flies he chooses to end his book with a deus ex machina, which is represented by the naval officers rescue of the boys to return them to civilization. Rather than continuing the plot, and chaos the boys are facing on the island Goulding chooses to give the boys a happily ever after, but it is not really a happy future necessarily. The ending of a book could be seen as sort of a destiny for the remaining boys, since the purest of the island who were Piggy, and Simon were able to experience a peaceful death, while the remaining sort of un pure boys are left to suffer, and go back to their not savage ways off the island. The view of Thomas Hobbes is that all humans are naturally cruel, and without absolute monarchy control is not possible. When the naval officer arrives this supports Hobbes’s view in that as soon as he showed up, the boys on the island returned to their old selves. When an officer shows up that means structure is brought back, which causes Ralph to start crying, because he feels structure back in his life with a adult. The officer wants to return them to their homes, but what they will be returning to is a future of war. The outside world has little difference from the island in that the boys will still be returning to a savage world, being in the era of WW11. The naval officer is supposed to represent civilization, and structure, but if we think about it he himself is as savage as the rest of the boys, this is ironic, because he doesn’t understand how the boys lost control and acted uncivilized, but he himself is living in an uncivilized violent world. Now off the island the boys have to grief from the pain of not being able to be truly savage again, except for the purest of the island Piggy and Simon who are in peace.
ReplyDeletePrompt 1:
ReplyDeleteGolding’s choice of ending the novel with a deus ex machina helps build his story into an allegory in the Hobbesian view.
The boys were in a state of turmoil before the officer arrived and to readers. It seemed as if they would eventually end up destroying themselves in a blaze of savagery. There seemed to be no easy solution to resolve all the conflicts on the island, yet Golding decides to end the book abruptly with the arrival of a foreigner. Golding’s decision use deus ex machina as an ending seems as though he wants to say that the only thing that can save humans from each other is divine intervention, God. Through this ending backs the Hobbesian view of humanity being inherently evil while offering a solution to humanity’s inherent malevolence, God.
To continue, Golding highlights humanity’s hypocrisy through making the boys’ savior a naval officer. Naval officers are soldiers who fight in wars, similar to how the boys fight among each other. If the boys’ play-fights are considered savagery, how can the war that the officer fights in be considered civil? This hypocrisy once again assists in highlighting the Hobbesian view of humanity possessing a natural evil.
Knowing that Golding admitted the book is an allegory for the Hobbesian view, Golding unintentionally made some more optimistic statements on humanity. Near the end, any altruistic force on the island has been decimated in one sadistic way or another: Simon torn up by a mob, Piggy ripped apart on jagged rocks. The only remaining benevolence on the island is Ralph. Literally, all the evil around him is trying to kill and corrupt him. Out of the blue, a hand of God comes to save the innocent from corruption. This act resonates with common Christian belief that God has a plan for everyone, paralleling the universal idea of fate. Through the choice of ending the book with a deus ex machina, Golding makes many statements about humanity as a whole.
The lack of incorporation of the character Piggy’s true name, is extremely significant. This character tries to articulate his frustration and begs others not to call him this rude nickname, however he remains Piggy. Golding does this to further emphasize the savagery in these boys. It begins with Ralph consistently calling him Piggy at the beginning of the novel, seeming like not a big deal, just an immature little boy thinking he is funny. However, one could interpret this initial impression to be Golding’s way of expressing how such savagery is instilled in us all. It’s the lack of civilization that reveals the extent to which this evil resides itself in everyone. From the instant they land on this island, cruelty towards an innocent character (Piggy) takes place. This continues to occur throughout the entire novel, evolving from the murder of pigs, to the murder of people. This was Golding’s initial insight into the torturous and bullying acts to come. He wishes to highlight the idea that Piggy is all society sees him as. There is no need to learn the real name, for his real name does not reflect how anyone truly sees him.
ReplyDeleteOften times people who act like Piggy in society, people who think rationally and may not be the most socially accepted, are the people that are cast aside or treated with disrespect. In society, if you don’t fit the mold, everyone tries to understand why. There must be something wrong. Piggy, this bullied child, represents how mankind treats those who represent good. Simon as well, with both characters ending in a tragic death.
Simon’s death is brutal and lengthy, whereas Piggy’s death is over within an instant. Simon was such a pure individual, at one with nature and in favor of taking care of others. However, he wasn’t accepted, just as Piggy wasn’t accepted by the group. Simon’s murder is faulted by the accumulated fear and impulsiveness of a savage group. These boys, day by day, lose sight of their intellectual sense of what’s right and wrong, and the lines become blurred once rules and orders are stripped of these individuals, and they are left with only emotion and a simultaneous sense of no restriction. Piggy’s death is truly at the fault of conformity and the lack thereof that ultimately pins him against the majority of the group. Group brutality and violent mentality would play no balanced match to intelligence, logic, and reason, which is what Piggy stands for. Brutality never listens to reason. Rules fade on this island, so Piggy does as well. Kindness and innocence die, and so does Simon. Over all, these differences reflect the elements of good at different points in the novel, varying between these characters’ personalities, and the actions that take place as a result of or as a reaction to the characters eventually changing or evolving, into something gradually worse, gradually evil. If humanity is deprived of civilization, then individuals are limited to their instinctive emotions and act based on them, rather than logic.
In Golding’s novel Lord of the Flies one of the characters we are first introduced to does not get a formal introduction. His nickname is Piggy and he is referred to as this throughout the duration of the book. His real name is never revealed to the readers, and for good reason. This truly nameless character plays an important role when he arrives at his eventual doom. The symbolism in this character is immensely important and Golding chooses to name him Piggy for a very important reason.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that we never learn Piggy’s real name shows how the boys dehumanize him. They have yet to make their full transformation into savagery yet they still don’t see him has a human equal to them. He is called Piggy by the characters in the book, mostly due to his weight and looks, however Golding names him Piggy because he has the same importance and significance as one of the pigs on the island. He doesn’t matter in the eyes of the boys. This fact contributes to the symbolism and syntax later on in his death scene. This is abundantly clear when we compare his death to the death of Simon.
When the boys kill Simon they are extremely and feel great remorse. It is their first killing and they try to play it off as an accident. They are in denial. As he floats off to sea it is described as beautiful and the description is long and detailed. On the other hand when this character, who is seen as less important, is killed, not on accident, the boys hardly even acknowledge it. As he is washed away to sea it is quickly glossed over as unimportant, as the boys have become desensitized to the killings of pigs and Piggys. Golding doesn’t give us his full name because without it we can see the boy’s point of view and thought process as they descend into savagery. The differences between the deaths show how they feel before they become ape-like, and how they feel about the deaths after. It is a shocking and dark reality that Golding wants to convey, as he believes in the Hobbesian view, and he does so perfectly by his clever use of characterization with certain characters, like Piggy.
We never learn Piggy’s real name because after Ralph exposes Piggy’s nickname to the rest of the boys, the name sticks. By not including Piggy’s real name in the novel Golding effectively dehumanizes Piggy in a sense. By leaving Piggy as the only boy on the island who isn’t addressed by his real name Golding reveals that Piggy would have been essentially the same and have the same effects on the island regardless of his name. Not only this, but by leaving Piggy as the only boy on the island with a nickname Golding further illuminates the idea that Piggy is an outsider from the rest of the group. Prior knowledge and analysis have already shown how different Piggy is from the rest of the boys, in personality and physical appearance alike. However, down to the simplest trait a person has, Piggy is different. Not only does he look drastically different from all the skinny, muscular boys, he thinks and acts differently and has a greater grasp of reality and humanity. However, from the very beginning of the novel when Piggy was first introduced, he was referred to as Piggy, a nickname. Not only is Piggy a nickname, but it’s a name he hates. In calling Piggy such a hates nickname despite Piggy resisting, Golding not only dehumanizes Piggy, he also shows how little the boys regard his emotions and ideas and it shows that by being the only member of the island with a nickname, Piggy was an outsider before the boys knew anything else about him. Piggy’s death was abrupt, belittled, and obviously intentional. In contrast to Simon’s death being allegedly accidental, elongated, and worshiped. Simon was always a big part of the island, and despite not being loved by everyone, he was part of the group. Piggy, however, was always viewed as an outsider who showed little significance to the boys and his death was simply brushed over and belittled. Simon’s death was a somewhat ceremony that was long and thought out, and it is unclear whether or not it was entirely intentional. In addition, after Simon’s death, the scene describing him floating in the water was portrayed as a beautiful, angelic scene. Piggy’s death in contrast was quick and intentional. After his death, not much was spoken of him and the whole scenario was belittled and brushed over similarly to how Piggy was treated while he was alive on the island. Finally, for Simon to be killed, the boy’s moods had to be at the apex of savagery after dancing and chanting and working as a group, then, and only then, did the boys work up to killing Simon. Once again, Piggy’s death was easy in a sense, and took no preparation or planning. It was an act that was brushed over during and after the death and completely opposes the way Simon was treated. The overall differences between Piggy and Simon’s deaths show how unimportant the boys saw Piggy in comparison to Simon, and how the mood and scene portrayed for each death scene are polar opposites similar to how the two boys were seen as opposites to the rest of the young boys on the island. Piggy was always seen as an outsider on the island, from his first moment being known as Piggy to his last.
ReplyDeleteIn William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, a group of young boys marooned on an island is rescued from an ultimate doom. Golding ends his piece with a deus ex machina to further explain his say about Hobbesian views. Although inevitable death of the boys was foreshadowed throughout the whole novel, Golding chose to have the boys rescued.
ReplyDeleteThe boys corrupted the pure island leaving a scar and killing off the only good of the group. Naturally, one of the boys acts as a leader. Although governed by authority, Simon, the light, was murdered by the savage kids who represent darkness. Golding shows Hobbes’ ideology that humans are born with a wicked nature and can only be managed by a dictator-like figure. Aside from believing in Hobbes’ view, Golding also believes that there is still hope; by including the rescue of the boys, Golding shows that humans aren’t completely bad. If ended differently, the novel would not display Golding’s true perspective.
At the end of the Lord of the Flies, a naval officer appears on the island on which the boys inhabit after seeing the conflagration set upon the island. When the naval officer steps ashore, he is faced by Ralph who is being hunted by Jack’s tribe. By appearing when he does, he is able to prevent the almost certain death of Ralph and reminds the rest of the boys about civility and order. By ending the novel so suddenly with a deus ex machina, Golding has made it so that the reader can clearly contrast civility with savagery as one is able to immediately notice fundamental differences between the boys and the officer. By ending the novel suddenly with a deus ex machina, the reader is left to wonder how much more savage the boys would have become if an external savior hadn’t shown up when it did. If Golding hadn’t ended this way, the novel would seem to be conveying a stance that implies that humanity is already lost and there is no hope in becoming civilized; by ending the novel the way he does, Golding allows for a silver lining to exist, giving hope that there is possibility for change.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, Golding also uses the naval officer to further strengthen his intended Hobbesian perspective. Lord of the Flies takes place during an atomic war during which naval officers would most likely be in active duty, either killing people or giving order to kill people. When everything is boiled down, one can see that the naval officer isn’t so different from the boys after all. From this Hobbesian perspective, all men, boys and adults alike, are already evil; however, it is the strict rules and regulations of civilization that distinguishes the naval officer from the boys.
Golding used a Deus Ex Machina in the end of Lord of the Flies to display the two different aspects of humans being morally corrupt. When Ralph and the littluns meet the naval officer, there is a reason why the person who finds them is a naval officer. Hobbes’s ideal in humanity is that everyone is born naturally evil. The novel exhibits that ideal as the story follows the events of boys that are stranded on an island start civil and become more like Hobbes’s ideal. We see them become more primitive and ruthless to the point of killing each other in cold blood. Killing another human is seen as an evil thing to do as you are taking another’s life. The reason why Golding used the naval office as the Deus Ex Machina in the end, is to show that there is no difference between the boys on the island and the naval office. They are corrupted humans as they both have taken another human’s life. What Golding achieved is an ending that leaves the reader thinking about what humanity is like today after the story ends. He makes readers think that are we, as a society, any better than our primal counterparts? Hobbes’s idea that humans are born evil is displayed in this ending as both the kids and the naval officer are equally evil. With a different type of ending the book wouldn’t have left a mark in history.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Leng
“‘He’s not Fatty,’ cried Ralph, ‘his real name’s Piggy!’” (14). In Golding’s Lord of the Flies, Piggy is first introduced with a nickname, asthma, glasses, a little pudge, and an incessant need to see his auntie. As the novel progresses and Piggy’s character develops, he comes to symbolize organization, an adult figure, and civilization. He is one of the only boys that provides rational thought and acts with innocent intentions which makes him stand out. If a nickname like “Piggy” isn’t enough to make him notable, his awareness of reality and animalistic treatment from the others definitely are. The social outcasting of Piggy for being a nerd and a few pounds heavier than average continues from his normal life to the island. The nickname coincides with the idea that physically and mentally different members of society are picked on and erased in the name of insignificance. Though the boys may not realize, except Ralph for a split-second towards the end of the novel while being hunted down by a group of children gone mad, Piggy plays a necessary role in their survival and reason. The fire could not have been created without Piggy’s glasses, the conch would not have been utilized as a symbol of power to bring the boys together, and Ralph would have no loyal and logical friend to stick by his side among the chaos. Piggy never gets the chance to justify himself or prove his importance in the eyes of the others, and it’s as though they believe he isn’t deserving of a name. This stays constant throughout the novel which proves the author never revealing his name to be appropriate. Piggy is written off as nothing more than “Piggy” by the boys, though Golding and the reader know he is at the flaming core of keeping everyone alive. His name parallels the brutal treatment he receives throughout the novel and the tragic end he meets. Piggy, or whatever his real name may be, is belittled simply to a nickname, both in life and death.
ReplyDeleteThe death of Piggy and the conch as one brought the end of order and leadership on the island. Though the boys had already split, with Piggy gone it turns into an unfair fight of many rowdy, face-painted boys versus a very solo Ralph. The rolling of the rock off the cliff, due to Roger’s “sense of delirious abandonment”, that basically flattened Piggy until he plunged almost fifty feet down to the sea was cruel but quick (163). Piggy’s nickname mocked him even during his death with his limbs moving “like a pig’s after it had been killed.”(163) Piggy was sacrificial in this manner, dying so the other boys could eventually be saved. He was murdered for his belief in rules by the lack of them. Golding only dedicated a single paragraph to describe the scene, keeping up with the idea of his apparent unimportance and the decreasing effect of death on the island boys. This directly contrasts the death scene of another unique character, Simon, that receives a combined three pages of vivid language and a detailed departure. Simon’s death can be viewed as accidental, the result of boys becoming entranced in excitement and overtaken by momentary insanity. He was mistaken for the beast and instinctively the boys sought to protect themselves without thinking clearly. Piggy may die in the name of civilization, but Simon dies in the name of beauty, nature, and innocence. While Simon’s “sculptured marble” body was being delicately pulled to sea with a “fringe of inquisitive bright creatures,” Piggy was engulfed by waves “sucking back again” and dragged lifelessly across the ocean until it disappeared(137,163). The differences in tones and the extent to which the deaths are described show Simon’s ethereal presence and purity as the first true introduction to murder in comparison to Piggy’s dismissed presence and treatment throughout the novel. Nature grieved over the slow, drawn-out end of Simon but the boys reaped greater consequences from the seemingly minor destruction of Piggy. The death of innocence brings savagery, but the death of rationality and leadership brings more death.
Lauren Larking
Piggy’s name is never revealed to the readers because of how irrelevant he is to the rest of boys. None of the boys acknowledge him as an authority figure due to how he does not majorly contribute to their survival. For example, Ralph can unite the boys and call for assemblies and Jack can hunt for food, making them an essential part for survival. However, Piggy does not have the ability to have control over everyone and cannot hunt, creating an outlook that he is incompetent, even though holds intelligence. Since he is not considered as a key person, nobody ever bothers to learn his actual name.
ReplyDeletePiggy’s death is also an example of how nobody is concerned about him. After he had his head smashed against a rock, he is described as “like a pig after it has been killed” (163). Piggy is a symbolism for the pigs on the islands because he is looked down upon, similar to the pigs. The boys only see the pig as a normal animal that just exists and kill them without any remorse at all. Connecting to Piggy’s character, from the boys’ perspective, he was just a person that existed to them and his death did not affect them at all.
Comparing Piggy’s death to Simon’s death, the two are vastly different in terms of how they were described and affected the group. Simon’s death was artistic with a detailed description of the scene where and what his body was doing. In contrast, Piggy’s death was instant and pushed aside by the boys for the rest of the story. This shows how Simon was a more relevant character than Piggy. Simon’s death impacted on both Ralph and Piggy since Ralph felt horrified that he killed a person and Piggy kept on saying how it was an accident. However, Piggy’s death seemed to not affect anyone, even if it was an intentional death by Roger. After his death, it could be seen that his existence from the book was erased, similar to how a pig’s existence does not matter to the boys. The differences between Simon and Piggy’s death signify how Simon was a more major, impactful character to the rest of the group more than Piggy.
-Nanako Tanisaka
In William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, Piggy is an especially meaningful and communicative character. Throughout the novel, his contributions to the groups of boys and the boys’ reaction to him convey several thematic messages and characterize Piggy in detail. However, even with this comprehensive depiction, Golding never introduces Piggy’s real name. As Piggy is the ultimate symbol of civility and humanity, Golding does this to show how insignificant civility will be on the island. A name is essential to a person’s character; it is their identity, what they respond to, and part of themselves. Without learning Piggy’s name, we and the boys on the island can never truly understand who he is, and so he becomes less significant. Perhaps undeserving of a name, Piggy’s lack of nomenclature epitomizes the triviality of civility on the island.
ReplyDeleteThe death of Piggy further characterizes the now savage boys and Piggy himself. This is especially significant when compared to Simon’s death. When Simon was killed, the boys were influenced by several driving factors, including the chant, the dance, the masks, and the “mob mentality”. These influences all rely on a group setting made to feel secure. When these actions were performed, the boys were almost under a spell, and didn’t truly realize what they were doing to Simon until a later time. However, Piggy’s death was caused by one singular person, in broad daylight, without the influence of any other boy. No one encouraged Roger to push the rock and kill Piggy; it was of his own motivation and cognitive thought. This shows the boys’ ultimate descent into savagery – when killing a human no longer is feared, all humanity has been lost.
This death scene also shows how meaningless Piggy was to the boys. Like the pigs on the island, Piggy was there for what he could give the group. Once the group became independent and had stolen Piggy’s glasses, they no longer needed him. As such, they killed him out of spite and sport, just like the pigs. This reference to the pigs is enforced by Golding’s constant comparison of Piggy to the pigs around the time of his death. Golding describes Piggy as “a bag of fat” (253), which was the same phrase used to describe the mother sow earlier in the novel. In addition, Piggy’s limbs twitched “like a pig after it has been killed” (254) soon after his murder. Golding even describes the physical scene of where Piggy fell to his death as being covered in “slow spilt milk” (268), which was pictured earlier when the mother sow fed her piglets. All of these references portray Piggy’s similar irrelevance to a pig. This explains how easily and without contrition the boys kill and forget Piggy and all that he stood for. The ease with which the group forgot Piggy also represents their desire to let go of humanity and to live as savages, killing humans and animals alike, almost as if they were one.
JJ Abele
Golding writes Lord of the Flies as an allegory to Thomas Hobbes’s ideology. Men are selfish at their core. Without any form of government Thomas Hobbes believed that human life was short, isolated, and brutish. He did not trust human nature due to him witnessing the English Civil War. The island the boys crash landed on was a paradise that descended into chaos due to the savagery in the hearts of man.
ReplyDeleteThe boys start off with a democratic form of government with rules and regulations. They may have not been in an official society, but at this point, they held onto their civil roots. They elected Ralph as their chief. Ralph grows as a character and becomes more of a voice of logic as time goes. The boys settled up a council run by the people. The conch dictated who spoke their mind. The boys had jobs such as hunter. Yet, Jack and others soon got tired of the rules. Jack’s hunters let the fire go out. The littluns except for Simon did not do much to contribute to society. Not many participated into building of the shelters. Very few boys knew the severity of the debacle they were in.
The conflict in priorities led to tumult between Jack and Ralph. Ralph appealed to more reason. Ralph not only wanted to survive; he also wanted to get off the island. Jack appealed to more primordial instinct and “fun”. As the novel goes on, the reader hears fewer references to the outside world and the pink that is fading from the island. People like Jack lose hope on being rescued and focus on enjoying the island in. The introduction of man to this island corrupts it like all other things. The boys no longer kill for survival rather for pleasure. The hunters paint their faces and thirst for blood. They descend into the most primitive of beings. They are no better than animals.
Jack starts his new tribe and chaos ensues due to this leadership. The intellectual and the pure were killed leaving way for the true evil to begin. These animals nearly do Ralph in, but then a British Naval officer comes to their rescue. This ending is a prime example of deus ex machina. The author could have placed any other ending. So why was this ending chosen? The rescue by the naval officer really brings up the idea that even society cannot save us from savagery. This officer is part of the reason a war is allowed to happen. A war is country sanctioned murder. This ending shows the reader that chaos is not only happening on this microcosm; chaos happens on a world scale. The officer brushed off the fact that two boys were brutally murdered. He responds by saying that he expected better from English boys. He refers them as English boys rather than humans who should have known better than to commit evil acts like that. Although this may seem like salvation, these boys will have to live with this the rest of their lives.
Golding chooses not share Piggy’s real name with the reader to display various imperative messages. At the beginning of the novel, the reader is introduced to Piggy and Ralph. Piggy asks Ralph his name but he does not ask back. The first reason Golding does this is to show that it does not matter about previous background of the characters. For example, the boys in the choir are the hunters and the first ones to turn savage. What matters is the nature and ethics of the character. Without a structured civilization, many the boys turn to savagery at different rates where Jack acts as a catalyst. Golding sets this scene to display Hobbes view of people. The boys turn to their primal roots based on their ethics. Second, Golding chooses this to show that the other boys see him as inferior and weaker. When Piggy dies he is described as, “Piggy’s arms and legs twitched a bit, like a pig’s after it has been killed” (163). His death is fast paced unlike Simon’s. Throughout the novel, Simon represents the purity and goodness in people. When he dies, it is very slow. Golding does this to show how the purity and goodness of the boys slowly fades away. There is not a major turning point in the book where the boys turn from being good to savages. Rather they slowly turn back to their primal roots. When Piggy dies, the conch is also destroyed. The conch represents civilization. The reasoning for the fast pace is because civilization is lost when Jack and the choir leave the group. There is an immediate turning point in the loss of civilization. When Jack forms his own group they lack many necessities of a civilization.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Golding cleverly ends the Lord of the Flies with the remaining boys on the island being rescued. While having the naval officer bring the boys out of savagery and back to civilization may seem like a happy ending, is it really? The officer coming to save them is a form of deus ex machina and everything seems like it will work out on the surface. Once the reader analyzes a little bit deeper, the problems start to arise. Although the boys are returning to civilization, their emotional scars from surviving on this island will never disappear. The boys will forever have the guilt on their backs of having murdered people. Also, even though they’re going back to “civilized” society, doesn’t mean that everyone is civilized. A uniform doesn’t equal maturity and restraint.
ReplyDeleteWhat’s going on in the outside world is just as savage and brutal as what is going on in this microcosm. The adults in crisp white uniforms viciously killing others in the war is just as terrible as the boys covered in paint and pig’s blood killing each other. Golding may have also used this ending and showing the underlying savageness of even the naval officer to show his truly pessimistic outlook on people. This ending shows that people will find a reason to fight no matter what the circumstances are. In the macrocosm war, it may be about money or resources. On this island that the boys are on, it’s about power and leadership. Even these young boys, aged 6-12, find a reason to murder. Golding could have easily ended the novel with Ralph and the entire island burning up into flames, but that wouldn’t have left the reader as emotionally involved. With this ending, readers get to ponder how life will be for the surviving boys. How will they fit in with their old friends again? How will they go back to their families? Instead of ending it with a simple, sad ending, this ending makes readers happy on the surface but is then very thought-provoking once it’s analyzed. The boys leave the once pure island charred, not only with flames but also with malevolent memories that can never be erased.
Golding’s Lord of the Flies constructs the Hobbesian view of humanity’s wickedness through memorable characters and the relationships portrayed among them. Perhaps the most notable character is Piggy. It is described in the early chapters of the novel that Piggy respects each individual on the island, making it his job to collect each of their names. Therefore, it is puzzling that his own real name is never revealed. His nickname is so conveniently symbolic of the animals that Jack and his hunters kill viciously for food as well as amusement. Similarly, the boys find amusement in pestering Piggy due to his inferior physical capabilities and whiny insistence on maintaining order. Though whiny, Piggy is the most faithful to Ralph’s authority and the power of the conch, elucidating his desire for a democracy and organized society. His lack of identification reveals the lack of consideration the boys have for a democracy since they never bother to learn Piggy’s name. Their constant belittling and bullying of Piggy throughout the novel reflect the little regard they have for rational thinking. Additionally, Piggy himself never offers his real name. Despite adamantly opposing the usage of “Piggy”, he does not tell the boys to call him by his real name because he had become accustomed to being disregarded and probably realized that it would have made no difference. The nickname “Piggy” clearly caught on and Piggy felt it was more important to focus on means of survival rather than his name; this once again elucidates his emphasis on order.
ReplyDeleteHowever unfalteringly loyal Piggy may be to democracy, it is eventually killed by him. When Piggy is crushed by Roger’s rock, the impact also shatters the conch in his hand. This represents the death of all forms of civilization known to the boys. At that point, the conch was no longer existing and the boys had fully succumbed to their animal tendencies. The method in which Piggy was killed is unique as it was fully intentional and Roger’s responsibility. However, it is obvious that the only character truly fazed by Piggy’s death is Ralph, and Jack instead used it to justify the wrongdoings of Ralph and the uselessness of the conch. Apart from Piggy’s death, the only other deaths that could be labeled as fully intentional murder are the deaths of the pigs on the island, further establishing that Piggy’s nickname is supposed to illuminate his parallelism with the pigs.
On the other hand, Simon’s death was not so intentional. The boys, in a state of fear and confusion, were convinced that the Beast had found them which caused them to lash out blindly in their frenzied dance. There was no fear involved in Piggy’s death; the decision to kill him was absolute. However, Piggy’s and Simon’s deaths are also very similar. They both represent goodness in humanity and their deaths solidify the loss of that throughout the novel. Simon’s death was also earlier in the novel than Piggy’s. The gory and nasty descriptions of Piggy’s dead body contrast greatly with Simon’s peaceful state of death. This reveals how the boys become more savage as the novel progresses, hence the consequences of their actions also grow in severity. The differences between Piggy’s death and Simon’s death signify the developments in the boys’ characters.
ReplyDeleteIn William Golding's novel, Lord of the Flies, he uses many tactics to imply certain ideas and truths about human nature. His literary techniques and plot are all very intentional and convey a message to the readers. At the end of this novel, the boys are saved by a naval officer who noticed the boys on the island due to the haphazard fire set on the forest by Jack and his hunters, for the sole purpose of killing Ralph. A deus ex machina appears in form of the officer as they finally receive the rescue they wanted. By Golding intentionally ending his novel in the way he did and with a deus ex machina, he reveals blurred line separating humanity and savagery.
The naval officer is part of the navy and the readers are given the information that the boys were in the midst of a war, thus readers can assume that the navy officer has killed human beings before. As observed throughout the novel, murdering of killing another human being is the ultimate act of savagery and the action that symbolized the boys' descent into chaos and barbary. However, that is the same thing the naval officer did; which leads readers to question the true nature of human beings. As a reader, they tend to find relief in knowing that the boys descended into savagery only because they were left on the island with no adults, authority, or laws/regulations. However, in the navy, where there is considered to be the most control, regulations, and order, there is the most killing. The irony that Golding presents shoots down the readers' initial idea that civilization will erase the savagery within humans. Through this, he leads the readers to question the line that separates civilization and savagery, and if that line really exits as distinctly as most assumed.
Furthermore, Golding uses deus ex machina in form of the naval officer to rescue the boys from not only the island but their own loss incivility that would've led them to their own defeat. Deus ex machina, seen as a hand of God, that saves them at the very last moment symbolizes a bigger being that worked a miracle upon the boys. This shows that the boys, who were close to and if not at ultimate savagery by the end of the novel, were too far in their barbary to be saved by anything but God. This shows how much they have suffered into becoming a chaotic group with no order or civilization left. However, in another perspective, it can be seen that the naval officer was this God figure, which shows the destruction of God and not the good of God. Thomas Hobbes did not believe in corporeal spirits and other parts of the Christian belife that couldn't be put under the category of order and structure. Thus, Golding, who uses the novel to prove Hobbes's beliefs, could be implying the falsehood of some parts of the Christian faith, especially because Hobbes wanted the religious aspect to be under the government's rule.
As Golding demonstrated in many ways, his abrupt ending and rescue show certain ideas about humanity and how it applies to society during his time or even today. The glaring truth about human nature that is revealed is shown throughout the novel and coordinated through purposeful tactics until the very end.
ReplyDeleteGolding was undoubtably aware of his choice to end the The Lord of the Flies with a dues ex machina. However, this brings up the question of why he decides to end the novel the way he does. Golding resolves the book this way, not because he wants to quickly solve the conflicts in the plot, but symbolize an underlying hope that he still has for humanity. Lord of the Flies, is best known as an allegory based upon Thomas Hobbes, an 17th century philosopher, philosophies. Hobbes personally believed that all humans were born evil. Hobbes also believed that without an absolute monarch, civilization would come to a crumbling halt. If Golding had one hundred percent agreed with Hobbes philosophy, then Golding would not have ended his book with the naval officer coming to rescue the boys off the island. Furthermore, Golding had already proved his point to the audience throughout the book, he needn’t kill off anymore boys than he already had, but by not doing so, he communicates to the readers that he still wants to believe that there’s hope for humanity.
Throughout Lord of the Flies by William Golding, some characters’ presence become more prominent while others remain less noticeable. Of the well-known cast, Piggy lies in a complex predicament. Of the time on the island, the reader only learns of his nickname, never truly discovering his actual name. Similarly, Piggy’s death greatly juxtaposes the death of fellow inhabitant, Simon.
ReplyDeleteGolding actively chose not to incorporate Piggy’s name for a multitude of reasons. First, as established in the novel, Piggy ultimately symbolizes civility and societal rules. By creating the other boys with an indifferent attitude towards Piggy’s name, Golding demonstrates the loathing of society found within the boys. They seem to elude or evade all aspects of civilization and by disregarding Piggy’s true name, the boys exhibit that primal savagery brewing in them since day one. Furthermore, by exhibiting their lack of care towards Piggy, the boys establish a chain of power, in which they place Piggy on the lowest ladder possible. In fact, Ralph, a boy who advocates for rules and regulations, neglected to ask of Piggy’s name, substantiating the claim of superiority. Their collective approaches when addressing Piggy has led to a near animalistic treatment towards a human. Finally, by dismissing the need to understand Piggy, even on the most superficial level such as learning his name, the boys consider Piggy as only a tool. Instead of viewing him as a person, the others see him as a means to cook their food or create some smoke. By omitting Piggy’s actual name, Golding forms a posse of boys who lack care and embody savagery.
Moreover, Golding provides striking contrast between Simon’s and Piggy’s death. Again, this difference proves the distinction between respectable Simon and detested Piggy. As Roger deliberately heaves a boulder to end Piggy’s life, many aspects of this scene open doors for analysis. First, the very nature in which Piggy’s death appears brief in comparison to Simon’s death. After a boulder crushed him, Piggy expeditiously fell over the edge of the cliff and washed out to sea. His brief description falls short of empathy or commiseration. Simon’s, on the other hand, has a long, flowery narrative accounting for the moon and the ocean. This juxtaposition clearly depicts the boys’ difference in value between Simon and Piggy. In addition, Roger shoved the boulder with design, with intent, with full knowledge that it would lead to Piggy’s demise. Be that as it may, the murder of Simon could chalk up to just an accident. While the boys stampeded and slugged and thrashed Simon, there could be some justifiable rationalization. Again, the contrast in the settings of their deaths solidify the fact that Piggy received abhorrence and animosity from most of the boys. In fact, upon his death, only Ralph thought of him, albeit as a fleeting notion.
Piggy’s character and death symbolize a myriad of concepts and ideas. Even nearing his death, Piggy remained rejected and shunned.
In William Golding’s novel Lord of the Flies, the reader is immediately introduced to a boy known as Piggy, and as the story progresses this nickname is the only name used to call the boy. At the beginning of the book it is established that the name “Piggy” was used to make fun of the boy when he was younger, and this name continues to be an insult on the island. The other boys on the island use the name to taunt Piggy as soon as they hear it, showing their hatred and prejudice from the start. As the boys constantly tease Piggy for his name in addition to his size and eyesight, it depicts how they are wicked enough to hate Piggy before and after knowing more about him. Although Piggy is a source of reason and intelligence the boys still reject him simply because they dislike him and are unkind enough to display it. It is significant that Piggy is only referred to by his nickname because the boys’ use of the name shows their readiness to cast out Piggy.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, Piggy is only given his nickname to emphasize that he is an outcast to the others that they discriminate against. By having it so that Piggy is the only name that he can be called, it shows that Piggy is continuously bullied by the others at every opportunity. If Piggy’s real name had been revealed or used, then the emphasis on the boys’ hatred would not be as great as the boys would have the option to not be rude to Piggy. Through the boys’ constant bullying of Piggy by taunting him with his name, Golding is able to reflect Hobbes’ idea of wickedness in human nature because the boys collectively despise Piggy for no apparent reason. The boys’ wickedness is exemplified by their constant use of Piggy’s derogatory nickname rather than his real name.
In addition to the boys exhibiting hate toward Piggy through their use of his nickname, they also show hate by killing him in the way they do. Piggy’s death is intentional, uncivil, and violent. As Roger deliberately sends a boulder to hit Piggy, it creates a messy scene that leaves Piggy dead in a scene described with disgusting imagery. Piggy’s savage death further shows that the boys truly hate him and would do anything to rid him. In contrast, Simon’s death is unintentional and the boys show remorse for their actions afterward. Simon’s death ends much more calmly as he floats in the ocean while Piggy is roughly dropped into the ocean. This communicates that the boys do not care for Piggy as they murder Piggy with the intent to decimate him and satisfy their sadistic natures.
The hatred displayed toward Piggy shows the boys’ rejection of civility and rationality. When the boys solely refer to Piggy by his nickname, they show that they have no concern for him and will do whatever they can to disrespect him. Furthermore, the boys show through the murder of Piggy that his life is meaningless to them and they openly abhor him. By constantly disregarding and eventually removing the island’s symbol of rationality the boys portray their descent into savagery and evil. Through Piggy’s depiction as an outcast through the use of his name and his death, it shows how the boys of the island express wickedness in human nature with their immoral actions.
As one of the dominant characters in the novel, Piggy expresses unique traits and plays a distinctive role in Golding’s depiction of a world full of savagery. However, we as readers are never acknowledged by the author about his real name besides “Piggy”. In doing so, Golding builds up his main ideas about human nature through a different perspective and a more symbolic way. In addition, the description of Piggy’s death further portrays the significant differences in the characterization of the boys and its reveal on humanity.
ReplyDeleteFrom the beginning of the story, Piggy is depicted as an outsider. He is overweight, asthmatic and also wears a pair of glasses. His physical description already creates a stark contrast with the other boys, who are all skinny and sinewy. Because of his “special appearance”, Piggy is often excluded from the group and ignored by many of the boys. Piggy’s intellect and maturity also help this character to emerge among others and truly grabs the readers’ attention. Throughout the story, he acts like the role of an adult, who often takes responsibility and think about consequences of actions. However, he’s also the weakest and most physically vulnerable, which is one reason that he’s not popular among the boys. The characterization of Piggy and his position in the whole plotline is no coincidence. Through such depiction of this character, Golding personifies morals and rationality in the conflict between civilization and savagery. One reason that his name was never revealed is other boys’ ignorance toward Piggy. They didn’t find any of his ideas or contributions important and even excluded him from the little “society” formed on the island. This sense of rejection symbolically represents the boys’ denial of logic and reasoning, where they gradually descent toward savagery. Their negligence of rules and laws within a civilized society further emphasizes the loss of morality and reveal of malevolence in human’s true nature.
The death of piggy also plays an symbolic role in Golding’s illustration of pure savagery in human nature. The end of his life symbolically represents the boys’ killing of the only rational mind that is remained on the island. After Piggy’s death, the whole island becomes more chaotic under the influences of Jack’s tribe. The scene itself reflects the unique characterization of Piggy. Using simple diction, Golding creates a direct imagery of Piggy’s death to the readers: “His head opened and stuff came out and turned red.”(163) The use of plain text correlates to Piggy’s representative figure of rationality in the novel. The description is explicit and straightforward just like the logical and rational mind of Piggy.
In contrast with the direct description of Piggy’s death, Simon’s death is described in a more poetic and metaphorical way. In the scene, Golding builds up the powerful imagery with strong connections to nature: “The line of his cheek silvered and turn of his shoulder became sculptured marble.” This significant difference between the descriptions of Piggy’s and Simon’s death contributes to the distinct characterizations Golding intentionally creates. Unlike Piggy, Simon plays a Christ-like figure in the novel, who symbolizes the true kindness of humanity. The expressive and almost artistic description reveals and emphasizes the generous and affectionate characteristics of Simon. Through the contrasting description of Piggy’s and Simon’s death, Golding depicts the characters and accentuates their roles in the story. Moreover, the boys are acknowledged that they killed Piggy, not like an “accident” when they killed Simon. This shift from unintentional to intentional mindset further elucidates their descent toward savagery.
Golding ends the novel in a deus ex machina as a resolution to the novel that contrasts the overall theme and message of the book. As opposed to the blunt savagery of the entirety of the novel, this somewhat god-like figure the naval officer possesses suddenly drops the idea of the war Ralph and Jack are a part of. The naval officer is thrown into the novel, with absolutely no transition at all, he suddenly just appears. This captain represents civility and hope, that Ralph and Jack and the rest of the island seem to have lost. With this civil figure appearing, and the fighting immediately stopping, we come to see how this innocence and civility result in wars stopping. This can further be related to the fact that this book was made post-World War II, and comes with the idea that if leaders “turned the other cheek”, or simply opened their eyes to what effects war would have on society, then numerous wars could have been prevented, as the captain does in Lord of the Flies. By ending this novel the way Golding does, it allows the message to be conveyed that their is hope in society, with rules and regulations imposed by governments. If Jack were to have killed Ralph, the message would have been that humans are naturally evil and nothing can prevent that, which is not the message the Golding wished to imply, or believed in. If the conflagration were to burn the children to a crisp, the same idea that instability and craziness is supposed to rule society would have been conveyed, however it is clearly not what Golding was attempting to imply by adding this deus ex machina. By ending the book in this way, it allows readers to believe that hope and civility is possible, despite human setbacks and wars.
ReplyDeleteThe ending of the Lord of the Flies leaves many unanswered questions and mysteries left for readers to try to discern. We never learn Piggy’s real name and the sudden death of such a symbolic character leaves many questions for readers. Why do we never learn the real name of the boy we called “Piggy”? What point does Golding make by excluding his real name? Piggy, like many of the other characters, are disregarded and seen as insignificant. The littluns, or the immature small group of boys, are never important enough to be named. The choir boys are seen as followers of their beloved leader and chief, Jack, and never as individuals. Like the littluns and the choir boys, Piggy is only seen as a name masking his identity. The boys, other than a few exceptions, such as Ralph and Simon, never see Piggy as more than his appearance. Viewed as a fatty and a pig, the boys never attempt to learn his real name, as they immediately label him as “Piggy” in their first assembly. Despite treating him adequately, Ralph and Simon, the ones known as the “good guys”, never learn Piggy’s name. Even the respectable characters seem to neglect him. In choosing to name him “Piggy”, Golding illuminates the boys disregard of Piggy from the very first day on the island.
ReplyDeletePigs, despite being cognitively complex, highly social, and intelligent, are perceived as idle, filthy, and obstinate. They are never perceived as anything more than food. Continually ignored and told to “SHUT UP”, Piggy, was always the one who was tormented for his appearance and ideas, similarly to how humans treat pigs as food or lesser animals. Piggy represents a symbol of rationality and intelligence as he is mature, compared to the rest of the boys. In disrespecting and ridiculing Piggy, the boys also display their disdain for rational and intellectual thinking as they prefer spontaneous, amusing decisions. In naming Piggy after an animal that is constantly ignored and overlooked, Golding displays the boys disdain for him and his mature, rationale.
Piggy’s death stands as an illustration of the boy’s negligence of him. In Ralph’s confrontation with Jack’s tribe, Piggy’s attempt to speak is interrupted as Roger pushes a giant red boulder at Ralph and Piggy in an effort to harm them. Ralph is able to evade the rock as it rolls down, while Piggy, “with no time for even a grunt”(163) is hit by the rock and flipped in the air. He falls forty feet and lands in the sea. His dead body, described to be twitching like a dead pig, is washed into the ocean to be never seen again. Like Simon’s dead body, Piggy’s body is sucked into the ocean under the waves. While Simon’s death was slow and painful, Piggy’s was in direct contrast, incredibly quick and brutal. The boys recount Simon’s death as a nightmare, one of casualty and mishap, but Piggy’s death was intentional and deliberate as Roger pushes the rock straight at him to kill him, or at least hurt him. His abrupt death is again overlooked, like everything else in his life, as everyone continues in the chaos. Jack bounds out of the tribe, screaming “See? See? The conch is gone--” (163). No acknowledgement of Piggy’s death is made as Jack exclaims the destruction of conch, completely ignoring the destruction of a human being. In the boys’ minds, the conch, a small shell, had greater importance than Piggy. From Piggy’s first appearance to his last, he is never recognized as anything substantial or anything more than just a name.
#2)
ReplyDeleteThroughout Piggy’s character arc Golding alludes to a few different reasons on why piggy was not named. Most of these things are not super clear, thus Allusion, but once the reader analyzes everything. It’s very clear why Golding never revealed Piggy’s name.
One of the most important ideas behind why piggy was not name is his actual nick name in the book; Piggy. Pigs in general are understood creatures. They are some of the most intelligent creatures in the animal kingdom, yet people view them differently since their looks are on the fat and ugly side. Golding used this information to put together the Piggy that is known and loved in the book, but it also brings up other ideas which adds to why Piggy was not given a real name. It seems as if the boys viewed Piggy as a literal Pig. When comparing piggy to Pigs these boys just used him like the pigs as a term for humor and enjoyment. They did not care to know his name cause to them he is less than human to them, and in the end, he died animal like death. Smashed in the head and over a cliff. When it comes to Piggy’s death it needs to be compared to the one other death in the book, Simon’s. Simon’s death is symbolic in nature. His death is the killing of the last thing fully pure in the book. Golding allowed Simon to have a slow death sort of showing how painful the island’s death was. When it came to Piggy, he died a quick, but painful death. It was the final straw to the island. Piggy was the last true intellect. When he died Jack’s hatred and savagery broke loose. Anyone who thought was to be dead (Ralph) and he destroyed the island to try to kill Ralph. Piggy’s death was timed so that it would also be the death of the Island.
Piggy is one of the better characters in Golding’s Lord if the Flies. Piggy represents the idea of science and rational thinking. His death shows a lot of symbolism about the savage ways of humans especially when contrasted with Simone’s death. Golding's way if describing Piggy’s and Simone’s deaths in different ways and the reason the readers never learn Piggy’s name show the unimportance of science and rational thinking because human will indubitably become savages.
ReplyDeleteThe symbolism of Piggy’s name screams ridicule. The name Piggy is a name to make fun of the character. Right the beginning Piggy is assigned this name and is bullied for who he looks and for hi health problems. At the beginning this shows the immaturity of the little boys but then the bulling is representing the rejection of rational thinking. As the boys descended into savagery the importance of using your brain also decreases. Savages, like animals, rely on instincts rather than thinking and the use of science. The name Piggy also shows the disrespect of intelligence and how quickly humans can toss it away.
The other part of Piggy’s ridicule is his death. Simone and Piggy both die by big killed but the is a big difference in the way Golding describes their deaths. Simone dies by being killed in a partly hunting ritual. When he is being murdered the boy believe hi the beastie and are terrified of him. The author even uses the word blind to emphasize the clouded knowledge of the boys during the ritual dance. Killing Simone could even be portrayed an accident and some of the characters showed remorse and guilt the next day. Piggy’s death however is completely different. Even though he was not killed by everybody, only Roger, it was done during a time when the group was thinking clearly, unlike during the dance and chant. He was killed by a boulder extremely fast. His death seems rushed and then the boys don’t seem to show any signs of grief. Piggy quickly disappears into the sea and Simone laying in the sea is described in an angelic and saint-like way.
The way Piggy’s death differs from Simone is that Piggy is represented as a lesser character and it also represents a decent into savagery. Simone’s description of his heath show that he is a holy person. Simone represented the goodness in human nature. Even though killing him shows that the boys reject kindness and goodness his death scene is described in a beautiful way. Golding uses three paragraphs to describe the call the scene, mostly the nature. Piggy’s death is quick and more violent. He is smashed by a boulder and pushed into the sea where he promptly disappears. He differences in descriptions show the authors opinion that science and thinking are unimportant, and that people will not use their brains because of their unstoppable descent into savagery. Even though there are a myriad of examples and symbols that show the boy’s decent onto savagery Piggy’s death is also another of these symbols. After Simone’s death the boys, mostly Piggy and Ralph, show guilt and remorse for what happened. They want to believe that it was an accident, that they are not responsible for killing and they don’t want to be murders. After Piggy’s death the boys are a little shocked, but they quickly move one and show no remorse. This show that the boys are more accepting of killing after Piggy and they don’t feel grief like most humans do. They are more like savages because of the indifference of Piggy’s death.
Piggy is one of the most important characters because of what represented but also because of ho the others treat him. His constant mistreatment shows rejection of rational thinking even in the first chapter of the book. Piggy’s name and most importantly his death show how when the boys are descending into a savage, they kill one of society’s values and turn into something of ridicule and unimportance.
Victoria Oginski
When the naval officer swoops in and saves the boys from being stranded, Golding is communicating the hypocrisy of mankind. The naval officer is also a savage, because he is fighting and killing people in a war, but because he is fighting for his government, he feels his killing is justified. He judges the boys for killing each other while on break from killing his enemies. The fact that Golding deploys a naval officer to save them gives us some context, because we see the boys have now gone so far that an animal of a navy officer must save them. Golding is telling us that when on the island, Jack, his tribe, and even Ralph/Piggy felt justified eviscerating Simon in the moment, but as humans, when we really look back, no killing of another human is justified.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the boys were rescued just as Ralph was running for his life is extremely unlikely, a deus ex machina. This is another technique to highlight how far the boys have gone and without this “act of God” coming and saving them they would not have stood a chance. Golding ends the book this way to support Hobbes’ view about human nature, and is extremely successful in doing so.
ReplyDeleteIn Golding's first chapter of Lord of The Flies we are introduced to the characters that will soon form a society. At the beginning of this chapter, the omniscient and reliable narrator describes the first two boys we meet as the fair-haired boy and the fat boy, it isn't until they say their names that the narrator refers to them with them. This process is straightforward with Ralph, the reader should not know his name until he says it and once he does that is what he is called. This process, however, is used to showcase how society will be handled from the outset of the book. The only name Piggy gives is when he tells Ralph what he doesn't want to be called he says ‘Piggy’, which Ralph, being a child, immediately starts to refer to him by. This may seem like an innocent childlike moment but because the narrator, not just Ralph, immediately starts calling him Piggy it is quite striking to the reader. The narrator's use of a name Piggy doesn't want to be called tells the reader that in this world and this society what matters is not objective truth or ethics, but only the actions that the boys take - everything else is just talk.
Piggy’s name not being a common name for a person to have also serves the duty of making the reader perceive him as symbol more than a person. This is accentuated by the fact that when we meet the embodiment of savagery, Jack, his main obsession is killing pigs - and in the context of what character's names show, killing reason.
Piggy's death was sudden, one moment the rock, the next he was laying in the ocean with the source of his intellect sprayed out of the back of his head. It was a cold blooded considered decision to murder, a stark contrast to Simon's death. Simon was destroyed with the frenzy of the scared mob whereas Piggy was killed in daylight with everyone cooly watching. Simon was peacefully dragged off to sea whereas Piggy was violently pulled. All of this shows that goodness needs to be destroyed by a scared society, but thought can be removed by one man.
Golding ended the novel the way he did in Lord of the Flies with a deus ex machina was to get the reader to reflect on the how savage the boys have become by blurring the lines between civilization and savagery through the naval officer. Golding wants the reader to understand the irony between the naval officer and the boys on the island. The naval officer is unable to understand that the boys are actually engaged in brutal savagery because he thinks they are just having fun and re-enacting a storybook adventure. However the irony is that the naval officer is serving on a ship that is in the middle of a war. The war was the reason the boys ended up on the island as they were trying to escape the horrors of war but ended up finding their inner savagery on the island. The officer represents civilization, but he also represents the horrors of war so the boys are being rescued from themselves and their savagery, but now have to live in a worse environment than the island which is the war. If Golding had ended the book in a cliche way like with Ralph’s death, then the boys would embrace their primordial states fully and not be able to reflect on their actions they committed on the island. With the deus ex machina the boys now have to live with themselves and their actions they committed on the island which brought out the savagery in all of them.
ReplyDeleteThe author chose specifically to save the group of boys from destroying each other through an outside force, not so much to satisfy the audience after a long course of tension, but instead to reveal themes that connect to the rest of humanity both in the novel and in reality. Presumably during their last day on the island, Ralph is seen hiding and prepared to defend himself against Jack’s tribe. While the tribe attempts a number of ways to reveal his hiding spot they end up setting a fire to the forest that smokes him out. And it’s this fire-this symbol of rescue and aid-that lures a ship to the island. Ralph has made it clear time and time again how important the fire is as he shown working tirelessly to keep it going. But ironically, it’s the chaotic forest fire created out of feelings of violence and animosity rather than Ralph’s contained signal fire that lures the ship. Help from civilization is finally “attracted” by the boys’ savagery, thus proving that civilization and savagery are more closely linked than we think.
ReplyDeleteSince the readers have been already subjected to boys’ descent into savagery and their lust for violence, the boys (and especially Ralph) don’t require a violent ending to prove this point. Golding instead wraps up this social operation of an island with a naval officer-the boys’ dues ex machina. The officer reprimands them for their “uncivilized” and very “un-British” act, but he is actually a hypocrite (and Ralph realizes this). He has just come from a world a war, much like the boys themselves, the only difference being that in the adult world civilization and violence are linked. Realizing that their life on the island actually reflected a microcosm of the rest of the world, Ralph is overcome with “great, shuddering spasms of grief that seemed to wrench his whole body.” He does not cry tears of joy for being rescued, but is instead filled with grief as realizes that he can not be saved from savagery. He weeps for all of mankind.