Gosling wrote his novel Lord of The Flies as an attempt to portray that human nature

is innately leaning towards aggression. Gosling’s experience in the navy and teaching

schoolboys had exposed him to the darkness of human’s nature. They become aggressive and

are able to forgo rules and civility. As in this novel, the schoolboys’ behaviours are civilised

initially but throughout the novel their rationale disintegrates especially when they are thirsty

for power. Without adults to intervene, they are free to do anything as they please. Ralph at

first is also delighted when he realises that there is no adult on the island. However, this

happiness does not last long when conflicts arise between the characters. Through the

conflicts, the darkness of human nature is portrayed. This theme is significant for us readers

because it make us reflect on our own human nature.

At the start, there is an attempt to recreate societal rules and regulations. After hearing

the conch and grouping themselves, the boys have decided to appoint a leader. They are

civilised and democratic. They have chosen Ralph according to the majority vote. Ralph is

also amicable towards Jack by appointing him as the leader of the hunter. This diplomacy and

civility showcase their attempt to maintain social and political order despite being away from

civilisation. The platform and conch represents parliaments, government and legislatures.

However, the conch is portrayed to be fragile when Piggy said, “Careful! You’ll break it –” to

Ralph when he tries to get the conch. Moreover, the omniscient narrator remarks about the

conch during the election in page 30, “… there was the conch. The being that had blown that,

had sat waiting for them on the platform with the delicate thing balanced on his knees…” The

conch thus represents how fragile our social and political order. The fragility of our

civilisation is being shown as the novel progresses further.

 With the conch, Ralph holds the authority of an adult. He continues to hold meetings

and give out orders. However, his authority begins to diminish when Jack begins to show his

evil nature. His failure to strike a piglet after their exploration has made him adamant to kill.

This foreshadow about his degeneration to his evil nature. After painting his face, Jack

becomes someone different – “He looked in astonishment, no longer himself but at an

awesome stranger… began to dance and his laughter became a bloodthirsty snarling…

liberated from shame and self-consciousness (Gosling 61). When Jack painted his face, the

mask allows him to achieve total freedom to act on his desire. The mask then symbolises our

ability to leave our conscience and morality.

Despite volunteering to keep the fire alive, Jack forgets to when he leads the

choirboys to hunt for pig. After the flame extinguishes, the conflict between Ralph and Jack

grows intense. The conflict then illustrates his wild nature is winning against Ralph’s rules

and regulations. Jack forgetting his own responsibility over his thirst for blood shows that

Jack is slowly leaving society's conventions for the dark side of human nature. Furthermore,

the conversation between Ralph and Jack displays that the social order is slowly collapsing

(Gosling 87-88):

“The rules!” shouted Ralph, “you’re breaking the rules!”

“Who cares?”

Ralph summoned his wits.

“Because the rules are the only thing we’ve got!”

But Jack was shouting against him.

“Bollocks to the rules! We’re strong – we hunt! …”

Hence, the conflict between Ralph and Jack portrays the friction between civilisation (Ralph)

and wild nature (Jack). This also suggests that rules are not enough to rein in our depravity.

1
 The failure of the rules set by Ralph points us to think about the fragility of our

society’s rules and norms. We are able to relate to the boys when they try to maintain

civilisation’s norms. We even admire them for their civility amidst disagreements but

eventually when the conflicts and disagreements arise, we are forced to reflect on our own

morality and ethics. The shock value when Simon and Piggy are killed jolts us out of our

comfort zone. This forces us to think about the darkness of human nature. The hunters show

us that as long as someone is willing to lead the aggression, there will always be followers.

Consequently, this begs the question whether the hunters reflect our own nature. Are we are

naturally evil or is it because of the circumstance that we are forced to be evil? Was it

because of society’s pressure that we became civilised? Are we not inherently morally good?

These questions arise as we read further.

Whenever the public are in distress, they will turn to the strongest leader who offers

protection. This is shown when the boys turn to Jack even though he is morally wrong. He

ignores rules and challenges their leader Ralph. However, because Jack is strong and he

offers them meat, the boys followed him. They, in return, sacrifice their moral reservation.

They could have survive eating the fruits and fishing for fish but they are attracted to

someone who can relieve them from struggling on their own. With Jack’s leadership, they do

not have to worry about finding food. Jack will provide them the meat and under Jack’s

protection, they feel safe. This herd mentality provides us with an example of the darkness of

human nature. We have the tendency to conform to the group to which we belong. The boys

do not think of what is ethically or morally wrong because if everyone is doing it, it must be

the right thing to do. They become aggressive and this dangerous herd mentality is shown

when they have accidentally killed Simon during their ritual act.

2
 Simon, who died, had a heightened perception. He could understand the reality of the

darkness of human nature. When they meet to discuss about the beast from the water, Simon

speaks out about it, “… maybe there is a beast…What I mean is… maybe it’s only us.”

(Gosling 85). Piggy who is “shocked out of decorum” says, “Nuts!” to Simon’s attempt to

express himself. Simon has become the outsider of this community because he could observe

their viciousness nature. When Sam and Eric tell them about the ‘Beast’, Simon’s thoughts

are portrayed as if he could envision the truth:

Simon… felt a flicker of incredulity – a beast with claws that scratched, that

sat on a mountain-top, that left no tracks and yet was not fast enough to catch

Samneric. However Simon thought of the beast, there rose before his inward

sight the picture of a human at once heroic and sick.” (Gosling 98-99)

He is seeing that the twins are just frightened and the fear is making them sick.

Simon’s interaction with the Lord of the Flies portrays his heightened awareness

when Simon hears him saying, “Fancy thinking the Beast was something you could hunt and

kill! … You knew, didn’t you? I’m part of you? Close, close, close! I’m the reason why it’s

no go? Why the things are what they are?” (Gosling 137). Simon is not afraid to face the

Beast and he eventually finds out the truth. The ‘Beastie’ is actually a paratrooper. His

attempt to tell truth however is not accepted by the boys. The attempt symbolises a sense of

morality to curb the viciousness from developing further. Unfortunately, Simon failed to do

so and his death symbolises the death of morality. Ralph realising what has happened during

the dance ritual tells Piggy that it was a murder. However, Piggy insists that it was an

accident and he shows no remorse when he says, “Coming in the dark – he hadn’t no business

crawling like that out of the dark. He was batty. He asked for it” (Gosling 149). Hence, the

death of Simon highlights the fragility of human’s morality.

3
 On the other hand, Piggy might have been trying to ignore the truth. He who

symbolises intellectuality has become a part of the community who does not stop to think

before acting. Additionally, perhaps the community members are afraid to speak out because

Jack will persecute anyone who dares to go against him. The punishment is shown when

Piggy falls into his demise. The death of Piggy is foreshadowed when the hunters

successfully kill a pig. Even though Piggy is living proof of how we have benefitted from

civilisation – his glasses and his knowledge – his name and his physical attributes portray

weakness. He is asthmatic and fat, which makes him an easy target for the hunters.

However, when he is holding the conch he feels strength and he argues against Jack

even though he is afraid of him and says, ‘Which is better – to have rules and agree, or to

hunt and kill?’ (Gosling 172). He has said this while still holding the conch – “the talisman,

the fragile, shining beauty of the shell.” The conch has provided strength to him. Nonetheless,

the conch is again described as a fragile object. When the rock strikes Piggy, the conch

“exploded into a thousand white fragments and ceased to exist” (Gosling 172). We are also

reminded that Piggy was in fact bound to die like the pig that the boys have hunted. This

sentence demonstrates the connection between Piggy and the pig: “Piggy’s arms and legs

twitched a bit, like a pig’s after it has been killed” (Gosling 172). In the end, one of Jack’s

hunters, Roger, had killed him.

Roger one of the hunters demonstrates the sadistic nature of humankind. His moral

meltdown is foreshadowed from when Roger tries throwing stones at one of the ‘littluns’. He

throws the stone with the intention to miss and he is restrained as shown below:

“Yet there was a space round Henry, perhaps six yards in diameter, into which

he dare not throw. Here, invisible yet strong, was the taboo of the old life.

4
 Round the squatting child was the protection of parents and school and

policemen and the law. Roger’s arm was conditioned by a civilization that

knew nothing of him and was in ruins.” (Gosling 59)

However, with the mask, he no longer has to restrain himself. He throws the rock with the

intention to kill Piggy. His sadistic nature is revealed. This exemplifies the fall of ethics and

civilisation, especially when Piggy is killed because Piggy represents the intellectuality that

results from civilisation.

The novel also mentions Coral Island twice, which is significant to the whole story.

Coral Island is a novel that presents its boys who are “brave, resourceful and Christian” but

Gosling’s boys are “frightened, anarchic and savage” (Gregor & Kinkead-Weekes iv). The

novel mentions Coral Island when Ralph tries to reassure everyone that the island is good and

they will have a good time like in the book. The result is not as expected by Ralph.

Furthermore, when the officer mentions about Coral Island, it brings to our attention that

boys could not behave properly when left to their own (Gosling 192):

Then the officer said, “I should have thought that a pack of British boys –

you’re all British aren’t you? – would have been able to put up a better show

than that – I mean –”

“It was like that at first,” said Ralph, “before things—”

He stopped.

“We were together then—”

The officer nodded helpfully.

“I know. Jolly good show. Like the Coral Island.”

5
 Additionally, the conversation brings out irony. When the officer commented that the

boys should have behaved better, the adults too should have acted better instead of waging

war with other countries. Nonetheless, throughout the novel, the narrator subtly reminds us

about the ongoing war – the incident with the ship leaving without noticing the boys and the

dead paratrooper. Thus, the boys who are waging war between themselves also symbolise the

adults who also participating in the war for power. This initiates a discussion about our

capabilities doing something inherently wrong – attacking the innocents for power. This in

turn, portrays another endeavour to present the darkness of human nature by bringing up

Coral Island and the British civilisation.

To conclude, Gosling attempts to highlight that we are flawed beings through the

characters of the schoolboys. Towards the end, the novel captures its major theme when

Ralph cries for “the darkness of man’s heart” (Gosling 192). This novel shows how

humankind’s innate desire for domination kills our morality (Simon), intellectuality and rules

(Piggy). At the same time, the novel engages us to teach us something about our own human

nature. We are forced to examine the duality of savagery and civilisation in humanity. Our

fragile civilisation is not enough to sustain our morality. Therefore, this novel creates

awareness within ourselves as readers that our morality might collapse anytime if the

circumstance allows it. Rules and regulations are not enough; we must accept that there is

evil in us in order to curb it.

Reference

Golding, William. Lord of The Flies (Educational Edition). With Introduction by Ian Gregor

and Mark Kinkead-Weekes, Faber And Faber Ltd. 1971.

Golding, William. Lord Of The Flies. Penguin Books, 2016.