The novel Lord of the Flies Essay Example for Free

The novel Lord of the Flies Essay Imagine being on a deserted island with no rules, no civilization, nothing besides the need to survival. The novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding and the short story The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell are two fictional stories that deal with this concept, exploring the behavior of humans in such a primitive, unstructured environment. In both stories, a distinct division develops between hunters and the hunted, and while each story conveys and focuses on slightly different aspects, the two stories more importantly share the same fundamental view on the overall, underlying theme in regards to human nature. In The Most Dangerous Game, general Zaroff is the hunter. As the title of the short story implies, hunting is a fun and thrilling game to Zaroff. His cunningness and his natural instinct for hunting led to his many successes as a hunter because as he said himself, The animal had nothing but his legs and his instinct. Instinct is no match for reason' (Connell, 47). Using his instinct and reason, the hunter in this short story demonstrates an exceptional super ego. However, his instinct is evil. With his superiority to animals, Zaroff was no longer satisfied with hunting animals, so he progressed to killing other animals with both instinct and reason-humans. His disregard for human life shows Zaroffs twisted nature. During his hunt of the human Rainsford, Rainsford thought: Only the devil himself could follow that complicated trail through the jungle after dark. But, perhaps, the general was a devil (Connell, 54). Throughout the book, this being an example, Connell alludes to the evilness of Zaroffs character. Zaroffs mind and his nature illustrate him as cunning, but corrupt person. The group of hunters in Lord of the Flies also becomes animalistic and savage. At one point, Ralph too was fighting to get near, to get a handful of that brown, vulnerable flesh. The desire to squeeze and hurt was over-mastering (Golding, 115). Even Ralph, who is considered to be more mature and civilized than the others, became caught in the thrill of the hunt. This is because in Lord of the Flies, the hunters completely lose their identity and sense of reason when they hunt, relying purely on their instinct. The evil actions of the hunters when theyre following their instinct show how humans are evil in nature. Despite the hunters brave act and their domination over the island, they all fear the unknown Beast. Jack, the head of the hunters, describes it as a dark thing, a beast, some sort of animal. (Golding 89) The Beast, which is given a physical form as the pig head and as Lord of the Flies, symbolizes the Devil that is within all the hunters and the human race in general. In this aspect, the state of mind of the hunter is Lord of the Flies is similar to The Most Dangerous Game because both stories suggest that humans are primitive and evil in nature. The hunters in both stories enjoy killing, starting with animals and moving on to humans. However, Zaroff also does not seem to fear anything, unlike the boys in Lord of the Flies who fear the Beast. Zaroff also uses his mind a lot more than the boys who completely lose their sense of reason once they become entranced by the hunt. In a sense, Zaroff is the more terrifying one because he reasons that it is completely acceptable to kill humans, whereas the boys mindlessly kill. If there are hunters, then there must be the hunted. At the beginning of The Most Dangerous Game, Rainsford expresses his attitude towards hunting in his conversation with Whitney: Great sport, hunting. The best sport in the world, agreed Rainsford. For the hunter, amended Whitney. Not for the jaguar. Dont talk rot, Whitney. (Connell, 39) Ironically, later on in the story, Rainsford is the one being hunted. His attitude towards hunting changes. He acknowledges that animals feel terror, having played the fox (Connell, 54) himself. When being hunted, Rainsford felt panic and dread and knew the full meaning of terror (Connell, 55). Even though Rainsford had previously hunted and been in the war, it was different to be hunted. He would do anything to stay alive. Rainsford fights to keep his nerve throughout the hunt, but taken over by fear, his instinctual, animal side surfaces. At one point during the hunt, Rainsfords impulse was to hurl himself down like a panther (Connell, 54) even though his reason told him not to. His instinctual act of jumping into the sea and then proceeding to kill Zaroff saves him in the end. Like Zaroff, Rainsford uses both his mind and instinct-his super ego. Originally a hunter, Rainsford finds himself on the other side as the animal in fear, using his wit and instinct to overcome the hunter. In Lord of the Flies, Ralph also becomes trapped in a situation being hunted by others. Through his fear, Ralph tries to devise a rational plan, but he was beginning to dread the curtain that might waver in his brain, blacking out the sense of danger, making a simpleton of him (Golding, 196). Ralph fears losing his reason, and he fights to keep his reason while all the other boys lose theirs. There are moments where Ralph loses it, particularly near at the end of the novel. When being hunted by the savages, Ralph becomes hysteric with fear: Dont scream. Youll get back Ralph screamed, a scream of fright and anger and desperation He swung the stake and the savage tumbled over (Golding, 199). With his life in danger, he forgot his wounds, his hunger and thirst, and became fear (Golding, 200). Previously sheltered from danger, Ralph did not know true fear until he became exposed to evil on the island and realized the evil the hunters are capable of. When pushed into a corner, Ralphs panic and his need to survive made him act on instinct, becoming like a savage as a result because humans are evil by instinct. In both The Most Dangerous Game and Lord of the Flies, the hunted initially start out as hunters. The quick turn of events demonstrates how fragile status can be based on differences in reasoning and power. Although Rainsford and Ralph try to keep their nerve, they experience terror and desperation when their life is in danger. Instinct shows dominance when the prey is in fear, and as a result of the need to survive, the hunted commit animalistic acts to defend against the evil hunters. The incorporation of hunters and the hunted contributes to the theme of humanity in The Most Dangerous Game. The story suggests the idea that the world is made up of two classes-the hunters and the hunted (Connell 40). It is because of this division that fear, struggle for survival and power exists, bringing out the worst in humans. Humans are degraded to the level of animals in The Most Dangerous Game. In Zaroffs point of view, a thoroughbred horse or hound is worth more than (Connell 49) the human scum of the earth (Connell 49). Zaroffs heartless view of humans illustrates his evil nature. In his regard, humans are essentially all animals with reason, and like all animals, humans in their simplest form feel fear. Whitney contradicts Rainsfords belief that animals have no understanding: I rather think they understand one thing-fear. The fear of pain and the fear of death (Connell 39). Fear is a primal instinct that everyone harbors. Put into an unstructured environment, fear brings out the worst in humans. It causes people to lose their nerve and act instinctively without thought. In humans, fear of death brings out the raw need to survive. In the short story, Rainsford was willing to do whatever it takes to ensure his survival, even if it meant killing his pursuers. The hunted sink to the same level as the hunters because it is kill or be killed. This shows how human nature is evil, selfishly treating others to fulfill their own desires. The Most Dangerous Game suggests that the bad nature of humans surface when engulfed by fear. Lord of the Flies also contains a message regarding humanity. In his novel, Golding advocates that humans all feel fear. A concrete example of this is shown in the novel where the boys fear of the Beast tears them apart. As discovered when the Beast addresses Simon, Fancy thinking the Beast was something you could hunt and kill You knew, didnt you? Im part of you? Close, close, close! Im the reason why its no go? Why things are what they are? (Golding, 143) Tainted with fear, the evil nature in humans grows. The desire for power is also an aspect of human nature that separates people. There is a conflict of power between Jack and Ralph, and as a result, a division occurs between the boys. The fact that most of the boys choose Jacks authoritative power over Ralphs democratic power shows how humans respond better to fear and brutality rather than rules and reasoning. Even though the boys have their own system of power on the island, their own rules are very much different from the rules of the civilization they came from. As the story progresses, the influence of the civilizations rules decrease and the savagery of the boys increase. For example, at first when Roger was throwing rocks, 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 (Golding 62). Lord of the Flies stresses how civilization protects the innocence of humans, preventing them from being exposed to the evil nature of humans. The evil nature of humans is brought out by fear in both The Most Dangerous Game and Lord of the Flies. There is a struggle survival in both stories, although as the boys in Lord of the Flies lose their sense of reason, they dismiss being rescued, and their attention is more focused on the conflict of power and hunting. Both stories are set on an island away from civilization where havoc activities occur, but the need for civilization is emphasized more in Lord of the Flies. While there are these minor differences, the underlying message about humanity is the same-human nature is bad. The Most Dangerous Game conveys this message by representing humans as animals acting instinctively to survive, and Lord of the Flies emphasizes the message through the symbol of the pig head being the Devil. In the end, both stories effectively express the idea that humans are evil in nature. The Most Dangerous Game and Lord of the Flies are two stories that both include the components of the hunters, the hunted and a message about humanity. While there are differences within these elements, the overall moral about humanity remains the same in both stories. That is, that human nature is bad. Implementing the hunters and the hunted emphasize this idea. Connell and Golding share a similar vision. Humans stuck on an island with no rules is not a good idea. Bibliography Connell, Richard. The Most Dangerous Game. Currents in Fiction. Virginia: McGraw-Hill, 1984. Golding, William. Lord of the Flies. Philadelphia, PA: Chelsea House, 1999. Print.

Civilization in Aeschylus The Orchesteia and Voltaires Candide Essay

Man’s continual search for a perfect civilization attributes the history of human progress. From Plato to Locke to Marx, man has always sought to order society to provide justice for himself and for his children. In this everlasting quest for perfection and utopia, many writers have suffered the penalties of imprisonment, exile, or even death. In time, most critical writers learned that in order to avoid such brushes with the authorities, they must use imagination, sarcasm and irony, as in satire, and/or use aliases so that their identity remains undisclosed. In both Aeschylus' The Oresteia and in Voltaire’s Candide, human civilization is viewed as an imperfect balance of opposites, which helps fight against man's tendencies toward barbarism and inhumanity. Aeschylus’ tragic trilogy, the only play to survive from Ancient Greece, repeatedly calls our attention upon a central concept of justice: justice as revenge. This is a relatively simple concept, with a powerful emotional appeal, linking vengeance to the family and their feelings for each other and for their collective honor. However, one must look past this superficial theme in order to fully appreciate and understand the depth and beauty of Aeschylus’ work, and regard it as a philosophical investigation into the concepts of justice rather than a great artistic fiction or a poetic exploration. The former approach is unfortunate because the Oresteia is not a rational argument. It is, on the other hand, an artistic exploration of abstract and theoretical issues. What matters in this case is the complexity of the feeling that emerges from the characters, the imagery, the actions, and the ideas in the story. In other words, the writer is dealing with a case of how human bei... ...th of its characters. For Aeschylus, successful civilization defines itself not by complete devotion to Fate or the gods, instead, society forms "the ultimate product of conflict between opposing forces" in which violence and antisocial behaviour are repressed through a "hierarchization of values". Candide addresses issues about human nature that other stories might choose to ignore, such as optimism, as well as religion and state. These elements give such an insight and a perspective that most readers do not usually get in every day literature. Whereas highly controversial, Voltaire always writes from an honest point of view. He never tries to be politically correct – he tells it like it is or at least the way he perceives them to be. Not only does Voltaire address the ignorance of mankind, but also directly challenges the integrity of the church and state.

Crash Film Essay Essay

Crash is a movie where director clearly and deliberately portrays the characters in within the context of many typical ethnic stereotypes that exist in our world today. Society sees race as an indicator of identity and ability. Instead of getting to know an individual, we see color or ethnicity first and assume that we already know them as well as their tendencies. This very problematic issue affects us all in some way or another. Racism is a very sensitive topic, but it cannot be ignored. This movie vividly shows us how America is a collage of cultures and that we must find a way to see past our misconceptions of one another. What’s most interesting to me is how the film sort of suggests that the realization that racism as well as other things is a problem can only be reached through a shocking personal experience of some kind. As stated earlier the movie deals with various sorts of racial and social order conflicts and show how some way things are all connected. It’s interesting to see how almost every main character held some sort of animosity towards someone because of race and ironically needed someone of the same decent. One example that sticks out the most to me regarding that is that of the district attorneys wife and how she wrote off the Hispanic locksmith and was rude to her (also Hispanic) hired help. The irony here comes when she hurts herself and the only person who cared to see about her was indeed her hired help. It was shocking to hear her say that the maid woman was her best friend. She had previous misconceptions about the woman and it turned out that she would take care of her before her husband or friend of 10 years. The movie also highlighted the aggressively hostile mental dispositions that many young black men carry. The character played by rapper Ludacris plays a highly opinionated, pro-black car thief who’s completely convinced that the world is a conspiracy made to hinder people of color. He rationalizes his bad judgment and illegal activity with the thoughts that the world are against his people and that he doesn’t take from black people. He states â€Å"the only reason black people steal from their own is because they’re terrified of white people.† His epiphany comes when he attempts to steal a car from a black man (another main character played by Terrance Howard) but to no avail. After a successful stand of and talk with police the character played by Howard tells him â€Å"you embarrass me, you embarrass yourself.† I think that statement stuck with him because it was coming from his own, especially considering the way he perceived his surroundings and how he thought of other people oppressing his people. Crash is the perfect example of how we as a human race deal with life; it shines a heavy light on people and our own experiences. Physical characteristics and racial differences may be taken and viewed as two distinguishing traits that separate us. I personally think that is the fact of life that keeps us apart and constantly in a mix. We as humans so easily recognize other humans but don’t stop there, it’s almost our nature to spot out differences and exhaust them in whatever manner both positive and most times negative. There is one example of how a man’s racism comes from experience rather than it being taught as in how most cases of racism are assumed to be. I always thought that racism occurred as a result of a person’s upbringing. If your parents were racist, there is a good chance that you would be a racist too. At first glance, the character played by Matt Dillon exhibits characteristics that supported my theory. Dillon clearly had a close bond with his father and later, we discover the roots of his racism. Initially I assumed that Dillon’s character had absorbed his racist views from his father based on his attitudes towards black people. However, as the film progresses we find out that his father was not racist towards black people. It was him who developed these thoughts and views in combination with his father’s negative experiences and his own as a member of the LAPD. This is what allowed him to form his own attitude towards blacks. To conclude the biggest problem we have regarding racism is ignorance. A prime example of ignorance occurred at the beginning of the film when the Persian store owner and his daughter went to buy a gun. The clerk at the gun store made blatantly racist comments about the customers. There were several references to the twin towers and planes. It didn’t matter that the two were Persian, not Arab. A reoccurring theme was that after 9/11; all Middle Eastern people became potential terrorists. It is amazing that people have the ability to take bad events and cast their own prejudices on different groups of people to cover their own feelings of anger and frustration. This brings me to my main point that; as the movie crash shows, we have been systematically trained to harbor anger towards other groups of people as a result of ignorance. This we must stop. View as multi-pages

Personal Experience My Enthusiasm for Hydrology - 2196 Words

I. What I Know My enthusiasm for hydrology began when I worked with a hydrologist as a student in the NASA Girls summer program. STEM is an acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. Every Thursday for five weeks my mentor, Miss Aimee Teaby, and I would do something related to STEM. For example, the one week we would performed a science activity such as extracting DNA from spinach, and the next week we would do something related to technology, and so on. During these meetings, Miss Aimee and I would discuss what her job was as a hydrologist. She told me about how she was working at Yellowstone and the geysers. During one experiment, she explained to me that when ocean water changes PH, she saw that the ecosystem changed because fish died and animals and people can not eat them. This got me interested in hydrology, and over the weeks I asked her a plethora of questions about what her profession was about. I am very excited about this search because I want to learn more about what she does. I do not know a lot about hydrology, but I do know some facts. I understand that it is the study of the movement and distribution of water, and that the hydrologists study the hydrologic cycle. I also know they can do things that could possibly assist the ecosystem. Hydrologists can invent different ways to transport water to other places, as well as ways to conserve water. I have found that hydrologists need a comprehensive understanding of water resources in