![]() I was mostly kidding at the time, but then I got to thinking about it. Now, like I said before, both novels deal with the idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and underneath Lord Acton's quote I mentioned Donald Trump. It's purpose was to show what happens when you try to reconcile human impulses with social norms in a basic state of nature.īoth books created waves when they were published, but what social relevance do they have now? To find that answer, we need to revisit themes, specifically their themes on power. Lord of the Flies was published in 1954, nearly ten years after Animal Farm. Orwell wrote it to express how easy it was to spread communist propaganda and to expose Stalin's corruption of socialist ideals. This proves once again, in conjuncture with Lord of the Flies, that the best laid plans, however noble the intentions, will often go awry.Īnd now, allow me to throw all my cards on the table and discuss social relevance.Īnimal Farm was published in 1945, just after WWII, and is very clearly meant to be an allegory to the rise and fall of the Soviet Union. Throughout the book, the tenants are changed and manipulated, until the tenant which was once so important has been rewritten as "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". The humans are driven off the farm, and the animals create "Animalism", the most important commandment of which being "All animals are equal". This leads to the development of a new animal society. The animals want only to be treated as equals to their human counterparts. They had only the best intentions, but their lack of structure caused their plans to become derailed.Ī very similar thing happens in Animal Farm. The fire goes out, the shelter building is interrupted by the boys' desire to relax and have fun, and their pig hunting endeavors turn in a more "Most Dangerous Game" direction. ![]() Unfortunately all of these plans go downhill fast. They maintain a fire, build shelters, and hunt food, all in an effort to keep this sense of civilization while they wait to be rescued. In Lord of the Flies, the boys start out trying their darnedest to retain some level of civility. Here Golding demonstrates that intelligence and strength do not equal civilisation.Pictured above is Robert Burns, noted poet and avid haggis eater. Despite their organised society and family groups, the new people are savage in their behaviour. The ‘new people’ (Homo Sapiens) have an abundance of tools, but seek to dominate the other group. ![]() However, they are gentle and non-confrontational, even refusing to kill animals for meat. We might consider that the Neanderthal people are not particularly civilised, as they are a simple group, with a lack of tools, and only rudimentary knowledge. The InheritorsĬivilisation vs savagery is somewhat more complicated in The Inheritors. Lord of the Flies is an allegorical tale of the danger when civilisation breaks down, and savagery takes over. ![]() Jack’s group don’t just act in a savage manner – they paint their faces in order to look ‘savage’, and to enhance their levels of intimidation. Ralph and Piggy remain ‘civilised’, continuing to obey and uphold the rules, despite the threat from violence of Jack’s hunters, who symbolise savagery. ![]() In Lord of the Flies, the fragile civilisation created by the boys on the island fragments and the boys divide into two camps. The battle between civilisation and savagery is represented in a number of Golding’s novels, most famously in Lord of the Flies and The Inheritors. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |