Lord of the Flies

Moniba Mehboob
BA (hons), 3rd year
Department of English
University of Karachi

A small length novel written simplistically, with little philosophical discourse and
almost no serious allusions (other than the title), Lord of the Flies by William Golding
has a deceiving appearance. It is in fact a thought-provoking novel with far-reaching
analytical depths which no one has, as yet, deciphered fully. It is said and Golding
firmly believed this, that a novel after having been written, is entirely out of control
of the author. Readers may interpret it any way they like, and no book is the same
for any two readers. This is even more the case for Goldings insightful Lord of the
Flies, aptly named for its reference to the god of all evil, Beelzebub.
Lord of the Flies has so far been analyzed most from psychological and postcolonial
approaches. The significance it holds as a psychological representation of society
and of individuals is undeniable and immense, with the title itself a symbol for
innate savagery and evil in humans, and the main characters popularly believed to
be parts of the Freudian structure of human mind. Its postcolonial implications
cannot be ignored either; the background of world war II, the attitudes of British
boys, the struggle between Jack and Ralph, the part democracy plays between
them, and of course, Jacks insistence that they must live up to their English birth
honor by having rules, as opposed to being savages.
The novel has interestingly been compared to Ballantynes The Coral Island,
Conrads Heart of Darkness, Defoes Robinson Crusoe, and most recently, to The
Hunger Games. The first two of these, and the novel in discussion have all been
termed part of the Robinsonade genre, and one might wonder if its not just the
island marooning that has termed them so, but also the savage vs civilization
themes along with the similar commentary on society and on human nature. If we
look for likeness of the latter, Hunger Games and Heart of Darkness seem to be
better comparisons.
It is clear that Golding had a few questions in front of him when he began writing
the novel. We can only guess what these were, and to me, they seem to be of
varying natures. The most important of these is the question of our innate savagery,
as he speaks of his aim in an interview, to trace the defects of society back to the
defects of human nature. In an essay on this novel, Golding writes, "So the boys
try to construct a civilization on the island; but it breaks down in blood and terror
because the boys are suffering from the terrible disease of being human. How
much of our nature is truly natural, and how much of it consequence of societal
restraint, or of authoritative figures? How is a balance of different parts of
personality important? How do grown-ups influence the littluns and what role does
power really play? What activates the beast inside of us and what rids us of the
need to act with societal propriety? And of course, the question of the freedom
behind a mask, and of mans real nature.

Golding has covered everything marvelously through this allegorical novel, although
he is criticized for being racist. The practicality of democracy is challenged through
Ralphs struggle to maintain order, the concept of dictatorship is challenged through
Jacks character, the sad fates of intellect and innocence are reflected in the tragic
deaths of Piggy and Simon, and the differences between the childrens world and
the grown-up world, so highlighted throughout the novel, are almost erased with the
last scene of the novel.
You will notice, if youve read Goldings novel that there are some things highlighted
again and again, and some statements repeated in different ways throughout the
novel; some refuted in the end, and some proved. The first thing that struck me was
how glad Ralph was to be free of adult supervision, of having independence and
being dominant. "Ralph looks around him. Here at last was the imagined but never
fully realized place leaping into life." And yet as the story progresses, we see the
children looking back to the grown-up world, idealizing it, and wishing for some sign
from the grownups. If only they could send us something grownup. Secondly, the
recurrent reference to a beast. From a psychological point of view, this is the
projection of internal fears onto the external. We humans always feel better when
we can see. We would prefer facing a murderer with a loaded gun rather than a
ghost who we cant see. And we like placing the blame on something other than
ourselves. Well acknowledge an external beast which makes little sense, but we will
not accept the internal ones. Golding illustrates this by showing us the childrens
reaction to Simon here: Simon's effort fell about him in ruins; the laughter beat
him cruelly and he shrank away defenseless to his seat. Third, we see the
emphasis on rules and order and on whos chief. The English boys of course have a
bit of the colonizer blood in them too; Ralph and Jack fight for authority over the
younger boys, they use the conch and call assemblies for a semblance of discipline.
The attitudes of Ralph with Piggy, and of Jack with his choir boys are clearly those of
colonizers with the colonized; theyre used and their resources are depleted, and
theyre only of significance as long as theyre useful. We see this in the very
beginning when no authority has been established and yet, Ralph orders Piggy to
get his clothes. This can be compared with Crusoe; when he meets Friday, he
automatically assumes authority and superiority. Come to think of it, maybe this is
the survivor psychology- Or it might just be because both novels are written by
British authors.
Another notable thing in the novel was the childrens desire for acceptance. Piggy
has been described to flush whenever he feels accepted or whenever he gains
attention, Simon too has been shown vying for acceptance in his own quiet way.
For a moment or two Simon was happy to be accepted. Even Ralph wanted to be
accepted as chief, to have attention of the children. So perhaps, the struggle
between the kids was only to be accepted. Jack too wanted to be accepted, in his
own way. All of them wanted attention, and each asked for it in his own way. They
acted out of basic desires of security, physical and social fulfillment, and of
acceptance, but since there were no adults to set boundaries, they simply went
wherever their desires took them, blinded to rationality.
Just as languages bring with them their own culture, appearances do too. Jack
Merridew paints his face and is liberated from shame and self-consciousness, from
then on, he takes up the personality of a hunter, pure and complete. He leaves

behind his own personality, or rather, he embraces his hidden evil too much behind
the mask, because there was no one, no memory, no authority keeping him in check
when he was behind the mask. Even to those he was with, he was now a different
person altogether. Golding writes of Ralph, He pushed his hair up and gazed at the
green and black mask before him, trying to remember what Jack looked like And
then theres the pigs head, our evil side in its animal manifestation, which makes a
clear point: Fancy thinking the Beast was something you could hunt and kill! You
knew, didnt you? Im part of you? Close, close, close! Im the reason why its no go?
Why things are what they are? Psychologists would say this is not the evil side, but
simply the side which goes after whatever it wants without any sense of right and
wrong- the savage side.
I think the most important point that Golding has conveyed through this novel is
that men have wilder inner selves, that they have some innate evil (as implied by
the title), and that some sort of authority is essential for society, even if its mans
own authority over himself. The moment the children realize no grown-ups are with
them, they run lose and indulge in everything they could. There was at first no order
at all in the island. Jack and Ralph tried to form a semblance of authority in their
own figures and there developed a bit of discipline but since they werent strong
enough in their own characters to hold it up, that authority slowly slipped and
devolved into something entirely else. As a result, two children were killed
ruthlessly, senselessly, and a man-hunt ensued. All of this came to a halt when a
naval officer appeared. Order was restored. Societal authority was back. The animal
was caged. We notice throughout that Ralph did not turn into a savage, neither did
Simon and Piggy perhaps because they had better control over their own natures
that Jack and Roger did.
Keeping all the critical and symbolistic analysis already available on Lord of the Flies
aside, this piece of writing is only what I myself gathered from the novel. Anyone
with the slightest knowledge of psychoanalytic analysis would be able to figure out
(maybe with the help of basic research) that Jack, Ralph and Piggy might represent
the Id, Ego, and the Super Ego, and anyone with some biblical knowledge would be
able to decipher that Simon is the truth-bringer, or a Christ symbol who is sacrificed
for the ignorance of others. Lord of the Flies is definitely not a childrens book, with
its gory detail and cruel reality. It is deeper than many books, and that too in very
little pages. For each of us, this book is sure to bring out something new, and
something different.