READ THIS
Ralph, Jack and Simon have climbed the mountain and determined that they were indeed on an island.
They call a meeting of the boys late that afternoon to report back.
The suggestion is made that the only way for them to be rescued is by building a fire, at which point the
meeting disintegrates as the boys rush back to the mountain to light their fire.
The attempt is a disaster as the flames leap out of control. At least one of the boys is killed in the inferno.
CORAL ISLAND VS LORD OF THE FLIES
Why does Simon climb the mountain with Ralph and Jack? He was only six years of age and not very
strong? Indeed, he was the young boy who had earlier fainted.
To find a possible answer, one has to turn to an earlier novel called Coral Island by R.M.
Ballantyne which forms the foundation upon which William Golding builds his story.
Coral Island is the tale of three English lads who get wrecked on a South Pacific island during the
latter part of the 19th century. They are Ralph, Jack and Peterkin.
The tropical island is precisely the same place in both novels. The big difference lies in the quality of the
boys.
Ballantyne's heroes are gentlemen -- and they remain gentlemen throughout the novel.
They have true leadership and absolute loyalty to one another. To them, the entire incident is one great
adventure which they enjoy to the entirety.
In Coral Island, Ralph and Jack are the leaders -- just as they are in Lord of the Flies.
Peterkin, however, is not quite so bright. He nevertheless remains a respected member of the team.
In Lord of the Flies, Peterkin is replaced by Piggy, a boy who is very bright indeed but is fat,
irritating
and suffers from asthma.
Unlike Peterkin of Coral Island, Golding starts working Piggy away from the comfort of friendship
with either Ralph or Jack.
Nevertheless, Golding needs three boys to explore the island. He therefore settles on a youngster, Simon,
to replace the Peterkin of the original novel.
This enables Ralph and Jack to discuss things over the top of Simon's head.
In Coral Island, on the other hand, Peterkin claims that his head is so hollow that Jack and
Ralph's
words can go right through it without hindrance.
The major difference between the two novels, apart from the number of children, is that in Coral
Island the boys remain gentlemen throughout.
In Lord of the Flies, they descend quickly into a state of anarchy and barbarism.
It is as though Golding is saying, "Look where English children are today. During the 19th century, they
would have remained stout-hearted gentlemen. Modern English children have only a veneer of civilization.
Leave them alone for just a short time and they will descend into unutterable savagery."
Of course, Golding has the example of Germany to prove his point. Germany was one of the bastions
of civilization of the 19th century and yet, in the mid-20th century, along came Hitler and revealed that
even this civilization was a mere veneer, a sham.
Have you looked at the questions in the right column?
|
TEST YOURSELF!
Read the left column and then answer the following questions:
"The island is like a book," Ralph explained to the assembly -- and later even mentioned Coral
Island.
- Why does the author almost immediately make mention of the novel, Coral
Island? (4)
[Need help?]
It can be argued that Lord of the Flies is a retelling of R.M. Ballantyne's famous novel, Coral
Island.
It is the same island that features in both stories.
In Coral Island, the chief characters are Ralph, Jack and Peterkin whereas in Lord of the
Flies the protagonists are Ralph, Jack and Piggy.
The major difference between the two novels is that Ballantyne's boys remain English gentlemen
throughout, whereas Golding's boys descend into utter savagery.
|
Ralph and Jack looked at each other while society paused about them. The shameful knowledge grew
in them and they did not know how to begin confession.
- What is meant by "the shameful knowledge"? (2)
[Need help?]
The boys had amassed an amazing pile of wood but neither Ralph nor Jack knew how to light it. Each
had believed himself to be a good leader but each was now being shown up as incompetent.
|
- Why could they not confess it? (2)
[Need help?]
Each was also too humiliated to confess his ignorance, and neither wanted to lose face with the rest of
the boys. Leadership is all about not losing face -- or is it?
|
By stealing Piggy's glasses in order to light the fire, the boys showed not only total disregard for Piggy but
also common lack of civilization. Do you agree? (4)
[Need help?]
The glasses belonged to Piggy. Without them, he was unable to see anything beyond a vague blur.
If they should drop them and break them . . .
Furthermore, common courtesy demanded that they ask Piggy if they could borrow his specs, not just take
them against his will.
|
"After all," said Jack, "we're not savages. We're English."
- Comment on the irony of Jack's words. (2)
[Need help?]
"Being English" meant being civilised. The irony is that the boys were already descending into
savagery.
|
- What has their "being English" to do with it? (4)
[Need help?]
In the original story of Coral Island, three boys are wrecked on a similar tropical island.
They are English boys and they remain English gentlemen throughout their stay on the island. Lord
of the Flies revisits that concept.
Jack says they are "English", implying that they are gentlemen and that the English know how to
do everything properly and in civilized fashion.
The reality, however, is that the boys are already descending into a state of utter savagery in which they
have no respect for the others in their company. They are not at all like the boys in Coral Island.
|
The disastrous fire caused a conflict between Piggy and Jack.
- Explain the conflict. How was it resolved? (4)
[Need help?]
Piggy criticised the fire which irked Jack, causing him to lose his temper.
It happened that Piggy was carrying the conch and he laid claim to its authority to allow him to speak his
mind. Jack rejected the idea that the conch had any authority up there on the mountain.
It was only with Ralph's intervention and his taking the conch from Piggy that order was restored. Ralph
proclaimed that the conch did indeed have authority anywhere on the island.
|
Jack volunteered his hunters to take control of the fire.
- What danger was there in that decision? (4)
[Need help?]
One could argue that the fire was so central to their rescue that it needed to have been directly in the
hands of the leader, i.e. Ralph.
By placing control of it in Jack's hands, it could lead to a leadership struggle between the two boys.
What if Jack's choir failed to do their job properly? Would Ralph be able to chastise them and take back
control of the fire?
|
- The fire and Piggy's response to it -- and Jack's response to Piggy -- indicated serious problems
for Ralph and the unity of the group. Discuss. (6)
[Need help?]
Piggy's response to the fire was one of profound shock, realising the enormity of the catastrophe.
His reaction, however, lacked tact. He confronted Jack in a belligerent but whining way, thereby angering
someone who was already disgruntled at not having been elected leader.
Jack's response, therefore, was antagonistic. Indeed, he must have been close to hitting Piggy.
Ralph attempted to be conciliatory, to take charge again but the rift with Jack was clearly widening.
It is also clear that a child had been burnt to death. A fear gripped the boys that they had somehow
managed to kill a member of their group.
Of course, they would never admit to doing so. Few people are ever big enough to own up to their
mistakes. Nevertheless, it made Piggy even more suspicious of Jack.
It also turned Jack into a accidental killer. Once one has killed once, it is easy to kill a second time.
|
|