Lord of The Flies

From a worksheet I had to do:

Okay, here's where you can voice your opinion! Is Goldberg onto something? Are we really that way? Do we really need some sort of rules/order to live by? Do we have an evil side? Do we do negative things to each other without noticing just how bad they are? OR do you think Golding is just way too pessimistic (negative, gloomy) and traumatized by the war? Give me some examples to back up your opinion.



And my reply:

The problem with 'good' and 'evil' is that the terms are entirely subjective based on cultural and personal view. For Americans, eating dogs or blowing people up may be evil, but in Korea eating dogs is perfectly acceptable and for Radical Islamics, killing Christians is almost a religious mandate; it's how you get to heaven.

Golding poses the proposition that humans, when left without rules, degenerate into murderous savages who live by 'survival of the fittest'. Technically speaking, humans do not need rules. You could live completely by yourself with no rules and survive perfectly fine. The problem is that humans are social animals, and society demands at least some sort of rules, even if it only be "Do not kill or harm other members of the community". As soon as you get two or more people in one place, you need rules or guidelines of a sort. Those rules and guidelines increase proportionately to the size of the community. Depending on the resources and conditions, 2-5 people could probably live fairly close to one another with an understanding to not get into each other's business. This gets increasingly harder as you get to the 6-9 range, and once you hit 10 you will probably need some sort of authority figure and cooperation system in place. The more people, the more cooperation needed.

I think Golding makes good points about power struggles and 'entropy in the system'; but simply saying things must happen that way fails to address the free will that each character was in the book. The choir/hunters and the little ones CHOOSE to follow Jack and to not do the work that Ralph and Piggy outlined. The little ones, likewise, choose not to do the work. Ralph and Simon end up doing most of what needs to be done, along with Samneric for awhile and occasionally Piggy (without whom the group would never have been able to stay together as long as it did). Everyone chose to keep following Jack even after Simon was killed and Samneric were tortured and Piggy was murdered. They could have chosen not to, but they did. It is on this that I chose to argue that 'Lord of the Flies' is simply one scenario of a quite a few that could have happened.

This was an essay. Almost.

Truth.
I had to write an essay on one of three topics:

• Genius and Idiosyncrasy
• Fashion
• Stereotypes

I was free to do whatever I wanted within those topics, as long as I was in the 300-500 word limit. This was my first version of the essay, in an attempt to combine the "Genius and Idiosyncrasy" topic with the "Stereotypes" topic. It tops out at 527 words. Read and enjoy.

Throughout mass media, there are certain cliches that have penetrated the collective American conscious. In nearly every TV show and movie made within the last 20 years, there are certain stereotypes present. The athletic jock. The preppy cheerleader. The rebel loner. Some of the most persistent characterizations are those of the ‘genius’ characters in the stories. Socially awkward, strangely dressed, and sometimes psychopathic; they are some of the most easily visually recognized characters.
One of the most annoying characterizations of the ‘genius’ character is the socially awkward aspect. The character will be perfectly fine if there is anything to do with knowledge in an academic area, usually math, but as soon as it comes to talking with other people and being social; they can no longer function. Perhaps this seems truth in the real world; certainly the smartest people I know are in no way social butterflies. I myself enjoy ‘alone-time’ much better than socializing. This is not, however, because I do not know how to function in society. It is because I consistently either have to wait for most everyone else to catch up with me or I have to tell them straight off what I am doing. The only solution is to find people on the same level as me or immerse myself in a conversation where people are talking about a subject I have no knowledge of. Alternately, I can simply not talk to anyone and think on my own time. I much prefer to do that then try to stand people who seem unable to keep up.
The easiest way to identify the ‘genius’ of the story to look at what the characters are wearing. Usually the ‘genius’ will look formal and unfashionable. Pocket protectors in button-up shirts, neatly combed hair, glasses, slacks, and dressy shoes. How many people do you actually ever see dressed like that? Sure, every so often there are nice shirts and ties around in school; but have you ever really truly seen someone looking like the ‘genius nerd/dork/geek’? I thought not. Most of the time, clothes don’t matter to me that much. I get functional stuff I like and some fancy things and I’m done. I’ll wear whatever I find in the morning that fits the weather and is most convenient then boom, off to breakfast. No fashion-y stuff. No tight jeans, no dipping necklines, no strappy sandals or flats and nary a trace of makeup in sight. So, clothes don’t matter as much to the smart ‘genius’ type, but it’s not as if we go around looking stupid. Also, how are nice clothes somehow more obnoxious than having to look at someone’s underwear while they’re walking? In decent circles, that’s called mooning.
The last bit of unhappiness that I have with the ‘genius’ stereotype, is, unfortunately, only a slight misconception. It’s what should probably be called “mad scientist syndrome”. How many times has there been a school shooting announced where the shooter was described as a ‘high-honors student’? So smart people in media become dorks on one end and psychotic on the other. I blame the news for this bias.
The point: the ‘genius’ stereotype is incorrect.