The Lord of the Flies is an intricate novel filled with subtleties that make it a memorable book, in the 1990 version movie however, Harry Hook failed to capture many of these aspects, including the point that the "beast" was an actual person, the lack of a "Lord of the Flies," and the loss of the novels allegory to real world events.
Upon arrival on the island the boys soon develop a fear of a so-called beast. In the novel the beast is simply made up, but actually symbolizes the evil within each human being, which comes back to be central theme throughout the book. In the movie, the pilot survives the crash and wanders off eventually to be confused with a "beast" in the forest. In the novel the beast was simply a psychological phantom that came from within the child and when it's confused with a tangible object the storyline looses the point that the fear that eventually drives the boys to violence is a figment of the human psyche versus a simple and meaningless confusion.
A major symbol of the novel is The Lord of the Flies, which is a manifestation of the fear and evil that lurks within each being, as well as being the symbol for the devil. The scene in the book describes a direct confrontation between Simon, the godly figure, and the Lord of the Flies, the demonic figure. Without this crucial scene in the novel the entire biblical parallelism and Golding's stance on religion is completely lost, even though it was an important underlying theme of the entire novel.
Finally a major part of the novel was its extended allegory of real world events occurring the same time the book takes place, WW2. This ultimately showed his view on the issues at stake and how he thought things played out which again is an important message the the film failed to capture. Without this point, Golding's underlying message is lost and his statement on the current event.
It's because of these major assets that the novel is so incredible not only in it's storyline, but in what lies between the lines. The movie could simply not catch the essence of all the novels best functions and that is why the book will always be better than a movie. No film director will be able to recreate the true depth to Golding's classic words.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Lord of the Flies: Taking Part in a Trial
Good Morning, fellow jurors. We are here to judge the case against Roger Wilds being tried as an adult for the murder of James “Piggy” Civil. To review what the jury has agreed on I will repeat our stance as of yesterday.
“This jury has been able to agree upon the fact that Roger Wilds did push the rock that killed James “Piggy” Civil, but the charges and final sentence have not yet been declared.”
I strongly believe that Roger Wilds is guilty of aggravated manslaughter and should serve 45 years to life imprisonment. I have concluded that this is the accurate charge and sentence based on information I have collected from eyewitnesses that I would like to share with you today, including historical records of Wilds being drawn towards violence, the fact that Roger committed this act on his own accord with no order or command from Jack Merridew, as explained through an eyewitness report by Sam and Eric Windom, and a statement released by Ralph Kent from after the murder in regards to Wilds’ behavior.
To begin, I would like to bring to your attention an incident in which Roger threw stones at an eight year-old boy named Henry Wells, this record confirmed by Wells himself. Here is an excerpt of the interrogation of Wells in which he tells about the circumstances of the incident and what happened, but I would just like to summarize it and show you where he verifies that it was Wilds who threw the stones.
"Henry Wells: Roger was throwing the stones towards me, or at least in my general direction. He looked angry, but at the same time, confused, like he was considering something. I was frightened that he was considering actually throwing the rocks at me."
In this historical record, it is evident that Wilds’ intent was not to hurt the child, but through violence, the supposed intent could be to scare Wells. Wells describes a look of confusion on Wilds’ face, like he is considering something. This violent act, though it caused no injury, contributes to the idea that Wilds already desired to cause harm to others; this desire, though rather small and insignificant at the time, would eventually concentrate itself inside him until he had the desire not to injure, but to kill. Here we see no motive whatsoever for why Wells would want to injure the child, so we can see that he needs no strong motive to drive him to injure and/or kill someone, but we can be sure that at the time he was sane as well as when he killed Piggy because before, during and after these events he interacted normally with all the other boys on the island with no signs of insanity.
Following this event, Sam and Eric Windom explained the scene of the murder and the circumstances in which is occurred, including the events preceding and following it.
“We were going to Jack’s fort because the previous night Piggy’s glasses had been stolen when Jack’s tribe raided our shelters. Piggy wanted to go demand them back so we decided to go but take spears. When we got there Jack thought they were a threat, but they were just a line of defense. As we arrived Piggy stepped forward to say some words. He said ‘Which is better—to have rules and agree, or to hunt and kill? Which is better law and order, or hunting and breaking things up?’ That’s when Roger rolled the boulder off the cliff. We couldn’t really understand why Roger had done it; As far as we knew there had been no signal from Jack, and they couldn’t have planned it before, because they couldn’t have known that we were coming to get Piggy’s glasses, and even less that he would step forward right to the trajectory of the boulder. The only reason Roger might have rolled the boulder is because we arrived with spears and he took it as a threat, after all, he had been ordered to protect the fort, but Piggy hadn’t been carrying a spear because he couldn’t see without his glasses, and with his vision compromised he posed no threat to their tribe.”
Again as the Windom boys stated, there seemed to be no motive, even though he was ordered to protect the fort. Piggy posed no threat in any way to the tribe and violent action was not necessary.
Lastly, I want to share with you a statement released by Kent about Wilds’ behavior after he murdered Civil.
“After Roger killed Piggy, he demanded authority. He immediately became the intimidating figure. I knew they were coming after me. I had to hide. I met up with Samneric and they told me he was sharpening a spear at both ends; I didn’t really understand what it meant. Roger immediately became a powerful figure who made everyone fearful; after all, he was the one who had killed a person. Though Jack said he would, he never did, whereas Roger did, and not only that, he was ready to kill again with no remorse or change in attitude.”
Ultimately this shows that Roger was not upset or remorseful of what he had done. He chose to accept the fact that he had murdered someone, and he also took advantage of it in order to gain power and “respect” in the tribe. If he did in fact feel any form of guilt there is no way he would be ready to kill Ralph so quickly, and especially not so violently as to use a spear sharpened at both ends.
With these facts I build up my case and come to the conclusion that Roger Wilds is fully responsible in the murder of Piggy Civil and is guilty of aggravated manslaughter. We can see that Wilds had a history of leaning towards violence and in those instances he was completely sane, something we can derive from how witnesses interacted with him. It’s been verified that the murder was committed solely by Wilds, without instruction of Merridew, the so-called “chief” of the tribe. Using the facts it has been impossible to justify why Wilds killed Civil even under the order to protect the fort because Civil posed no threat. We’ve proved that the kill was not premeditated; this makes it manslaughter, also adding on to the fact that he committed the act without command from Merridew because they could not have known that Civil would come or even stand in the very trajectory of the boulder. Finally, if Wilds had felt any type of remorse to at least make it possible that it had been some sort of “accident” we would have seen it after the murder, but instead he continued with his violent attitude and planned to kill yet another individual. On these grounds I believe Roger Wilds should be charged with aggravated manslaughter and be sentenced 45 years to life imprisonment.
“This jury has been able to agree upon the fact that Roger Wilds did push the rock that killed James “Piggy” Civil, but the charges and final sentence have not yet been declared.”
I strongly believe that Roger Wilds is guilty of aggravated manslaughter and should serve 45 years to life imprisonment. I have concluded that this is the accurate charge and sentence based on information I have collected from eyewitnesses that I would like to share with you today, including historical records of Wilds being drawn towards violence, the fact that Roger committed this act on his own accord with no order or command from Jack Merridew, as explained through an eyewitness report by Sam and Eric Windom, and a statement released by Ralph Kent from after the murder in regards to Wilds’ behavior.
To begin, I would like to bring to your attention an incident in which Roger threw stones at an eight year-old boy named Henry Wells, this record confirmed by Wells himself. Here is an excerpt of the interrogation of Wells in which he tells about the circumstances of the incident and what happened, but I would just like to summarize it and show you where he verifies that it was Wilds who threw the stones.
"Henry Wells: Roger was throwing the stones towards me, or at least in my general direction. He looked angry, but at the same time, confused, like he was considering something. I was frightened that he was considering actually throwing the rocks at me."
In this historical record, it is evident that Wilds’ intent was not to hurt the child, but through violence, the supposed intent could be to scare Wells. Wells describes a look of confusion on Wilds’ face, like he is considering something. This violent act, though it caused no injury, contributes to the idea that Wilds already desired to cause harm to others; this desire, though rather small and insignificant at the time, would eventually concentrate itself inside him until he had the desire not to injure, but to kill. Here we see no motive whatsoever for why Wells would want to injure the child, so we can see that he needs no strong motive to drive him to injure and/or kill someone, but we can be sure that at the time he was sane as well as when he killed Piggy because before, during and after these events he interacted normally with all the other boys on the island with no signs of insanity.
Following this event, Sam and Eric Windom explained the scene of the murder and the circumstances in which is occurred, including the events preceding and following it.
“We were going to Jack’s fort because the previous night Piggy’s glasses had been stolen when Jack’s tribe raided our shelters. Piggy wanted to go demand them back so we decided to go but take spears. When we got there Jack thought they were a threat, but they were just a line of defense. As we arrived Piggy stepped forward to say some words. He said ‘Which is better—to have rules and agree, or to hunt and kill? Which is better law and order, or hunting and breaking things up?’ That’s when Roger rolled the boulder off the cliff. We couldn’t really understand why Roger had done it; As far as we knew there had been no signal from Jack, and they couldn’t have planned it before, because they couldn’t have known that we were coming to get Piggy’s glasses, and even less that he would step forward right to the trajectory of the boulder. The only reason Roger might have rolled the boulder is because we arrived with spears and he took it as a threat, after all, he had been ordered to protect the fort, but Piggy hadn’t been carrying a spear because he couldn’t see without his glasses, and with his vision compromised he posed no threat to their tribe.”
Again as the Windom boys stated, there seemed to be no motive, even though he was ordered to protect the fort. Piggy posed no threat in any way to the tribe and violent action was not necessary.
Lastly, I want to share with you a statement released by Kent about Wilds’ behavior after he murdered Civil.
“After Roger killed Piggy, he demanded authority. He immediately became the intimidating figure. I knew they were coming after me. I had to hide. I met up with Samneric and they told me he was sharpening a spear at both ends; I didn’t really understand what it meant. Roger immediately became a powerful figure who made everyone fearful; after all, he was the one who had killed a person. Though Jack said he would, he never did, whereas Roger did, and not only that, he was ready to kill again with no remorse or change in attitude.”
Ultimately this shows that Roger was not upset or remorseful of what he had done. He chose to accept the fact that he had murdered someone, and he also took advantage of it in order to gain power and “respect” in the tribe. If he did in fact feel any form of guilt there is no way he would be ready to kill Ralph so quickly, and especially not so violently as to use a spear sharpened at both ends.
With these facts I build up my case and come to the conclusion that Roger Wilds is fully responsible in the murder of Piggy Civil and is guilty of aggravated manslaughter. We can see that Wilds had a history of leaning towards violence and in those instances he was completely sane, something we can derive from how witnesses interacted with him. It’s been verified that the murder was committed solely by Wilds, without instruction of Merridew, the so-called “chief” of the tribe. Using the facts it has been impossible to justify why Wilds killed Civil even under the order to protect the fort because Civil posed no threat. We’ve proved that the kill was not premeditated; this makes it manslaughter, also adding on to the fact that he committed the act without command from Merridew because they could not have known that Civil would come or even stand in the very trajectory of the boulder. Finally, if Wilds had felt any type of remorse to at least make it possible that it had been some sort of “accident” we would have seen it after the murder, but instead he continued with his violent attitude and planned to kill yet another individual. On these grounds I believe Roger Wilds should be charged with aggravated manslaughter and be sentenced 45 years to life imprisonment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)