The novel itself isn't entirely realistic: Piggy's glasses, for example, if they were the prescription of the time for the myopia he suffers from, certainly wouldn't be able to light a fire in the way they do in the novel - it's also hugely unlikely that a conch found on a beach would sound like that. Come to mention it, it's also quite unlikely that so many boys (do they ever actually mention any dead?) would survive a plane crash.
You'll notice though, that the conch and the spectacles both function explicitly as symbols: the conch representing democracy, equality and civilised behaviour, the glasses clear-sightedness and wisdom (of course, they become gradually destroyed as Jack and his gang rise to prominence on the island).
I'd argue that "Lord of the Flies" is a fable, rather like Aesop's Fables, a deliberately heightened and neatened story, packed full of symbols to read, and judged carefully to deliver its message: its message being that, I think, every man's heart contains darkness (slightly paraphrased from the final page of the novel).
Golding's view of human nature is extremely pessimistic: do we really like to think that this is naturally how we evolve - toward war, towards violence, towards the murder of Piggy and Simon? I suppose not. But could anyone really, truly say that they don't think the behaviour of those boys is plausible? I don't think so.
Golding's presentation isn't wholly realistic: but I fear his message is.
No comments:
Post a Comment