The Loss of Innocence:
A Theme Analysis in Lord of the Flies
Nurul
Kamilah Mat Kamil
1007C10614
Period 5
ENG3U
Mr. S.
Wise
6th
September 2010
The loss of
innocence is a prominent theme in The Lord of the Flies, as it prevails from
the beginning to the end of the story. Innocence is defined as the state of
being unsullied by sin or moral wrong; lacking knowledge of evil (“Innocence”).
In the context of this novel, loss of innocence occurs when the boys discover
the innate evil within themselves. This knowledge causes a change in the boys’
behaviour and thinking. Some succumb to bloodlust, while some gain an insight of
the natural evil in man that enables them to somehow resist yielding to it. The
theme is portrayed in the protagonist, Ralph, the other boys on the island, as
well as the antagonist, Jack. This loss of innocence is not learnt or moulded from
social conditioning; rather, it is the direct consequence of the deterioration
of civilisation that exposes the boys to the darker side of the human nature.
The first
analysis is in the protagonist himself, Ralph. At the beginning of the story,
Ralph still had a carefree attitude; still remotely unaware of the seriousness
of the situation. Before coming to the
island, Ralph is used to a world of obeying rules and adults. The “realized
ambition” of not having any grown-ups on the island delighted Ralph (12),
instead of distressing him as Piggy was.
According to Michael Gelven, it seems an almost natural disposition of
the human race to trivialize the possibility of evil when time or circumstance
affords us any distance from it, which is why, at this state of innocence,
Ralph has yet to suspect any presence of evil among them . However, as the
story progressed, Ralph acquires a new sense of responsibility as he was
elected chief, advocating the importance of having rules to establish a society
and keeping a signal fire to increase their chances of being rescued. He also starts to think differently-“He found
himself understanding the wearisomeness of this life” (95). To him, rescue was
no longer a game, and they had to put serious effort in doing so- “We’ve got to
make smoke up there-or die” (101). He
also criticized Jack’s hunting, “The smoke is more important than the pig,
however often you kill one” (101). This shows the conflict that is taking root
among the boys, which is the competing impulses that exist within all human
beings: the instinct to live by rules, follow moral commands, and value the
good of the group against the instinct to gratify one’s immediate desires and
act violently to obtain supremacy over others (“Themes”). In the end, most of the boys lose out to the
thrill in hunting and rejects order and civilisation. At this point, Ralph
realizes the capacity of evil in man. Even at their tender age, they were still
susceptible to turn evil. With this new knowledge, he weeps at what they’ve
become. In the end, Ralph also loses hope for rescue. This is a stark contrast
from the carefree little boy with wishful thinking at the beginning of the
novel as opposed to the boy with a more wary and pessimistic outlook on life
that Ralph becomes at the end of the novel.
The second analysis
is from the group of boys, namely, the supporting characters: Roger, Samneric
and Simon. The four of them each experience different transformations in losing
their innocence. Roger started off as a quiet boy, but he ended up being the
most demoralized of the boys. In Chapter Four, Roger and Maurice were throwing
stones at Henry, but they purposely missed because of the “taboo of the old
life” (78). Taboos are temptations
(Holland), and this is what drives Roger to become savage. Roger was brought up
with the social norms of right and wrong, but now in the absence of adult
authority, what could stop him from yielding to that temptation? As an example,
after hunting, the boys made a new ritual of dancing as a recreation of their
hunt. They have someone to pretend to be a pig, at first, it started off as a
sort of children’s game, but when people started to get hurt, that shows a loss
of innocence, because children only pretend to be violent (“Mockingbird”), but later
on, their games were no longer child-like
and were actually violent. The climax of Roger’s violence was when he caused
Piggy’s horrific death of being crushed by a boulder. Meanwhile, Samneric began
as supporters of Ralph, but towards the end, they were pressured to betray
Ralph. They were aware that savagery was a force that was growing more dominant
on the island, and later on, they eventually give in to it- “They understood
too well the liberation into savagery that the concealing paint brought” (212).
In this way, Samneric represents the weakness of human nature, when pressured,
the twins decided to join the dark side (“Character”). Simon, on the other hand,
seems to retain his goodness. Even from the beginning he was very helpful and
generous as he helped Ralph build the huts when everybody went to play, and he
was deeply connected to nature. Simon also experiences a loss of innocence when
he stumbles upon the revelation of the darker side of the human nature after he
encounters the ‘lord of the flies’, who said, “You knew didn’t you? I’m part of
you” (177). He is aware that the irrational fear of the beast is causing the
boys to act dangerously and that the only thing they should fear is themselves
as they have developed the capacity to kill (Ebdon). At his loss of innocence
and discovery of the nature of evil, Simon had wanted to warn the other boys. However, this insight had cost Simon his dear
life as he was killed by the boys as he was mistaken for the beast. It was
ironic in a way that he himself became the evidence of his own discovery. Here,
it is apparent that civilisation is the lacking key element causing the new
erratic behaviour among the boys (“Loss”).
Lastly, this
loss of innocence is eminent in the antagonist, Jack Merridew. Jack seems to be
the justification of a quote by Rhodes Boyson, “Children are not born good;
they have to be disciplined; otherwise they are a threat to the rest of
society” (Holland). Jack, at first,
couldn’t bring himself to kill the piglet he found when he, Ralph and Simon
were exploring the island. “The enormity of the knife descending and cutting
into flesh” and the blood was unbearable for him (41). At this time, Jack was
still held back by the morals and proper behaviour that society has instilled
in him. When he started painting his face, he feels liberated from
self-consciousness and he is able to behave as someone else and not worry about
consequences (Ebdon). Hunting gave him a sense of power, and somewhere along
the line, the line between animals and human beings were blurred in Jack’s
perception as long as he can “impose his will on a living thing” (88). Simon
was beaten to death like the boys would to a pig. Jack does not feel any
remorse for this. This is because his numerous hunting trips have refined his
skills to kill, until at a point, he no longer feels remorse for the lives he
takes, and his innocence is lost (Chowdurry). Later on, Jack rejects order and
refuses to cooperate with Ralph. In trying to get
Ralph impeached, he uses his rhetorical skills to twist Ralph's words. In
defense, he offers to the group a rationale that "He'd never have got us
meat," asserting that hunting skills make for an effective leader.
(“Jack”). His high opinion of hunting skills, over
practicality and intelligence, in a leader shows how savage he is becoming. Jack
was also a strong influence in transforming the other boys as well. According
to Christiaan Hind, Jack’s almost godly presence rationalizes anything, and
everything he orders them to do is done. That is the reason the fear-stricken
boys easily give in to Jack’s order, no matter how immoral it may seem, even to
the extent of hunting Ralph. Jack’s desire for power and manipulative ways
often causes friction with Ralph and eventually breaks up the community. Jack
has transformed from a boy who was once the head of the choir and head boy a
school into a morally-depraved and violent savage in the loss of his innocence.
As a conclusion,
the loss of innocence is indeed the direct consequence of the deterioration of
civilisation that leads to the discovery of the evil nature in man. In a
society, where there are rules and order, the society is disciplined and
conditioned, but in a situation where civilisation is deteriorated and the
society rejects order, the true nature of evil in man is uncovered. If one is
not aware of this nature, one might easily be succumbed by it, but if one is
aware of it, one would have the capability to suppress it, as what Ralph had
done, and achieves a sort of moral victory to restore humanity in a society.
Word count: 1516
Works Cited
“Character
Profiles - Lord of the Flies.” Novel Guide. n.d. Web. 21 Aug. 2010.
Chowdurry,
Fatima. The Loss of Innocence: Child
Combatants Caught in the Crossfire of Worldwide Conflicts .India
Currents. 28 Nov. 2003. Web. 4 Sept. 2010.
Ebdon,
Amelia. “The Loss of Innocence in Lord of
the Flies, by William Golding.” Helium.
n.d. Web. 19 Aug.
2010.
Gelven,
Michael. This Side of Evil.
Milwaukee, WI, USA: Marquette University Press, 1998. Print.
Golding,
William. Lord of the Flies. London:
Faber and Faber, 1962. Print.
Hind,
Christiaan. “Lord of the Flies
Character Analysis: Jack.” Associated
Content. 17 Sept.
2008. Web. 27 Aug 2010.
Holland,
Patricia. Picturing Childhood : The Myth
of the Child in Popular Imagery.
London, GBR: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited,
2004. Print.
“Innocence.”
Wordnet. Princeton University. Web. 4
Sept. 2010.
“Jack
- Character Analysis - Lord of the Flies.”
Cliffs Notes. n.d. Web. 27 Aug. 2010.
“Loss of Innocence in Lord of the Flies”. Bookrags.
n.d. Web. 26 Aug. 2010.
"Loss
of Innocence in To Kill a Mockingbird."
123HelpMe. 01 Sept. 2010. Web. 5
Sept. 2010.
“Themes.”
Sparknotes. n.d. Web. 26 Aug. 2010.
Comments