by Angeni Wang
REFLECTIVE QUESTION #1- Do you believe that the characters exemplified what a true society today is like even though the novel was written in the 50’s? Or do you think society has changed so much over the last 67 years that no connection can be made?
REFLECTIVE QUESTION #1- Do you believe that the characters exemplified what a true society today is like even though the novel was written in the 50’s? Or do you think society has changed so much over the last 67 years that no connection can be made?
I think that the main characters each represented a different aspect of human nature. For example, Ralph represented law and order, Piggy represented intellect and rationalism, Simon represented an innate human goodness, Jack represented a primal instinct for savagery, and Roger represented cruelty and violence. I think that this exemplified what a true society today is like even though the novel was written in the 1950's. We may have come a long way in many aspects, such as technology or urbanization, and there are countless differences in the way we live versus the way people lived 67 years ago. For example, the government has enforced more rules and rights for people, but these rules and rights are not real; they are just made up, like all rules and rights are. I think that the novel really proved this. The longer people stay away from civilization, the more savage they will become. When people realize that rules are not really rules, it will come down to who has the most strength, be it physical strength or manipulative people skills or something else. Jack respected the conch at first, but as he spent more and more time on the island, he started to realize what true power was. The almighty conch was really just a shell, and the only power it had came from the meaning that the boys themselves had given to it. This was when he decided he could do whatever he wanted, and he may well have killed Ralph and many more had the navy officer not shown up. I think that Golding wanted to expose to the readers the true extent of human evil, which every human possesses and could potentially unleash. Our modern society may appear different and even seem superior to the society of 67 years ago, but it is made up of the same people. We might know more about the world, but we don't understand ourselves any more because no one can live long enough. We spend a lifetime trying to figure it out and die before we can manage to do so. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if there was no evil in people at all, if this thing called world peace could really become reality. What would happen if everyone could understand everyone else for real? Maybe we would never have wars anymore, or poverty, or crimes. But I suppose that wouldn't be quite right either. I think human evilness may be rooted in our instinct to keep ourselves alive and have as good a life as possible while we're at it. And I don't think that's a bad thing. Maybe it's just greed. It's obvious that greed is a bad thing; we don't even need to think about it because we've been taught so from the moment we could speak. Yet I feel like greed is essential to keep a larger system in balance. Maybe it's just enough for us to know that greed is bad. But, really, what is bad? And what is good? Is it not just another mere human perception to try and draw a line between good and bad? Maybe the evilness of humankind originates from the same place that the goodness of humankind originates from. Maybe there will never be good unless there is bad. Perhaps humans will remain the same forever. Perhaps a society 67 years from now would be the same.
