wgolding.lordoftheflies-第38部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


ve　up　a　tremendous　number　of　principles　in　order　to　achieve　the　one　pointed　unity　which　could　possibly　withstand　Hitler。　It's　possible　to　look　at　the　question　in　this　way　and　say；　〃Is　the　remedy　not　as　bad　as　the　disease？〃　I　don't　know。
　Q。：　Well；　the　innocence　in　man；　for　example；　that　you　bring　out　among　the　boys　in　this　novel；　would　you　say　it　was　an　inherent　kind　of　thing　which　materializes；　or　is　it　a　thing　from　without　which　is　taken　on　during　a　transitional　process　from　innocence　to　non…innocence？　Are　the　boys　innocent　of　themselves　or　are　they　innocent　of　evil　from　without　and　evil　of　others？
　A。：　They're　innocent　of　their　own　natures。　They　don't　understand　their　own　natures　and　therefore；　when　they　get　to　this　island；　they　can　look　forward　to　a　bright　future；　because　they　don't　understand　the　things　that　threaten　it。　This　seems　to　me　to　be　innocence；　I　suppose　you　could　almost　equate　it　with　ignorance　of　men's　basic　attributes；　and　this　is　inevitable　with　anything　which　is　born　and　begins　to　grow　up。　Obviously；　it　doesn't　understand　its　own　nature。
　Q。：　Then　it's　more　a　bination　of　innocence　of　their　own　and　other's　attributes？
　A。：　Yes。　I　think；　quite　simply；　that　they　don't　understand　what　beasts　there　are　in　the　human　psyche　which　have　to　be　curbed。　They're　too　young　to　look　ahead　and　really　put　the　curbs　on　their　own　nature　and　implement　them；　because　giving　way　to　these　beasts　is　always　a　pleasure；　in　some　ways；　and　so　their　society　breaks　down。　Of　course；　on　the　other　hand；　in　an　adult　society　it　is　possible　society　will　not　break　down。　It　may　be　that　we　can　put　sufficient　curbs　on　our　own　natures　to　prevent　it　from　breaking　down。　We　may　have　the　very　mon　sense　to　say　that　if　we　have　atom　bombs　and　so　on…H…bombs…well；　we　cannot　possibly　use　these　things。
　Now　that　is；　in　a　sense；　the　lowest　possible　bit　of　mon　sense…obviously　we　can't…but　you　know　as　well　as　I　do　that　there　is　a　large　chance　that　those　weapons　will　be　used　and　we'll　be　done　for。　I　think　that　democratic　attitude　of　voluntary　curbs　put　on　one's　own　nature　is　the　only　possible　way　for　humanity；　but　I　wouldn't　like　to　say　that　it's　going　to　work　out；　or　survive。
　Q。：　You　recently　stated　your　belief　that　humanity　would　either　be　saved；　or　save　itself。　Is　that　correct？
　A。：　Yes；　but　here　again　this　is　because　I'm　basically　an　optimist。　Intellectually　I　can　see　man's　balance　is　about　fifty…fifty；　and　his　chances　of　blowing　himself　up　are　about　one　to　one。　I　can't　see　this　any　way　but　intellectually。　I'm　just　emotionally　unable　to　believe　that　he　will　do　this。　This　means　that　I　am　by　nature　an　optimist　and　by　intellectual　conviction　a　pessimist；　I　suppose。
　Q。：　The　reason　I　posed　that　ment　was　because　in　your　published　notes　in　Lord　of　the　Flies　。　。　。
　A。：　They　aren't　my　notes。
　Q。：　I'm　sorry。　I　thought　Mr。　Epstein2　quoted　you。
　A。：　Did　he？
　Q。：　In　the　summation　。　。　。
　A。：　Oh；　yes。
　Q。：　In　the　end　the　question　is；　who　will　rescue　the　adult　and　his　cruiser？　This　seems　to　me　a　little　fatalistic；　it　conveys　the　notion　that　there　isn't　really　any　hope。
　A。：　Yes；　but　there　again　you　can　take　。　。　。　there　are　two　answers　here；　I　think　they　are　both　valid　answers。　The　first　one　is　the　one　I　made　before；　and　that　is　that　the　quotation　there　is　what　I　said　is　intellectual　fatalism。　It's　making　the　thing　a　sort　of　series　of　Chinese　boxes；　one　inside　of　the　Other。　The　other　thing　is　to　say　that　as　the　fabulist　is　always
　
　2。E。　L。　Epstein；　〃Notes　on　Lord　of　the　Flies〃　reprinted　below；　p。　277。…Eds。
　
　a　moralist；　he　is　always　overstating　his　case；　because　he　has　a　point　he　wishes　to　drive　home。　I　would　prefer　to　say　if　you　don't　curb　yourself；　then　this　is　what　will　happen　to　you。
　Q。：　Again；　in　Lord　of　the　Flies；　I　noticed　a　very　definite　relationship　between　Simon　and　his　brutal　death　and　Christ　and　his　crucifixion。　Would　you　care　to　discuss　this；　or　give　any　omniscient　judgment？
　A。：　Well；　I　can't　give　an　omniscient　judgment。　I　can　only　say　what　I　intended。　First　you've　got　to　remember　I　haven　t　read　this　book　for　ten　years；　so　I　may　be　a　bit　off。　I　intended　a　Christ　figure　in　the　novel；　because　Christ　figures　occur　in　humanity；　really；　but　I　couldn't　have　the　full　picture；　or　as　near　as　full　a　possible　picture　of　human　potentiality；　unless　one　was　potentially　a　Christ　figure。　So　Simon　is　the　little　boy　who　goes　off　into　the　bushes　to　pray。　He　is　the　only　one　to　take　any　notice　of　the　little　'uns…who　actually　hands　them　food；　gets　food　from　places　where　they　can't　reach　it　and　hands　it　down　to　them。　He　is　the　one　who　is　tempted　of　the　devil：　he　has　this　interview　with　the　pig's　head　on　the　stick；　with　Beelzebub；　or　Satan；　the　devil；　whatever　you'd　like　to　call　it；　and　the　devil　says；　〃Clear　off；　you're　not　wanted。　Just　go　back　to　the　others。　We'll　forget　the　whole　thing。〃
　Well；　this　is；　of　course；　the　perennial　temptation　to　the　saint；　as　I　conceive　it；　to　just　go　and　be　like　ordinary　men　and　let　the　whole　thing　slide。　Instead　of　that；　Simon　goes　up　the　hill　and　takes　away　from　the　island；　removes；　discovers　what　this　dead　hand　of　history　is　that's　over　them；　undoes　the　threads　so　that　the　wind　can　blow　this　dead　thing　away　from　the　island；　and　then　when　he　tries　to　take　the　good　news　back　to　ordinary　human　society；　he's　crucified　for　it。　This　is　as　far　as　I　was　able　to　find　a　Christ　parallel；　you　see。3
　Q。：　You　mentioned　that　you　couldn't　give　any　omniscient　judgment；　and　you've　earlier　said　that　an　author　cannot　really　say；　after　he　has　written　a　work；　what　he　has　given　from　himself　or　created。4　What　do　you　feel　the　role　of　the
　
　4。For　a　further　discussion　of　the　role　of　Simon；　see　Donald　R。　Spangler；　〃Simon；〃　p。　211　in　this　volume。…Eds。
　5。　pare　Gelding's　remarks　here　with　his　statements　in　the　interview　with　Frank　Kermode；　p。　199　in　this　volume。…Eds。
　
　critic　is　here？　Do　you　feel　the　critic　has　the　right　to　bring　these　things　out？
　A。：　Well；　isn't　this　really　a　question　without　much　meaning？　Because　whether　a　critic　has　rights　or　not　he　is　going　to　do　these　things　to　a　book　which　has　got　out　of　the　author's　control；　and　therefore　you　might　just　as　well　ask　whether　a　man　has　a　right　to　five　fingers　on　each　hand。　This　is　a　thing　that　happens。　Are　you　really　meaning　do　I　think　the　critic　has；　by　his　nature　or　by　his　training；　a　better　chance　of　saying　what's　in　this　book　than　the　author　has？　Is　that　at　all　it？
　Q。：　Yes；　that's　mainly　it。　As　an　artist；　do　you　feel　the　critics　are　justified？
　A。：　Some　of　them。　As　a　practical　matter　some　of　them　say　things　which　I　agree　with　and　some　say　things　which　I　don　t　agree　with。　I　don't　see　there's　much　generalization　that　can　be　made　here。　The　critic　has　as　much　right　as　any　man　to　get　what　he　can　out　of　a　book；　and　I　would　say　that　I　think　some　critics　that　I've　read　have　been　extremely　perceptive　…or　else　I've　been　very　lucky…in　that　they've　seemed　to　put　their　fingers　on　certain　things　which　I　had　deliberately　intended　and　which　I　would　have　thought　were　rather　subtle；　and　they　have　contrived　to　get　hold　of　these。　Equally；　I　would　have　to　say　that　some　critics　seem　to　me　to　be　miles　off　beam。
　Q。：　Well；　perhaps　Mr。　Gindin5　was　a　little　off　beam　in　his　article　which　discusses　your　use　of　gimmicks。　He　mentions　the　saving　of　the　boys　as　a　gimmick　that　didn't　quite　fulfill　the　manifestations　that　were　opened　in　the　book　。。。　it　didn't　resolve　diem；　I　should　think；　as　well　as　he　would　have　liked。　Do　you　feel　this　is　justifiable　criticism？
　A。：　I've　been　haunted　by　that　word；　〃gimmick；〃　ever　since　I　used　it　in　an　interview　explaining　that　I　liked　a　sharp　reversal　at　the　end　which　would　show　the　book　in　an　entirely　different　light　so　that　the　reader　would　presumably　be　forced　to　rethink　the　book；　which　seems　to　me　a　useful　thing　to　do。　I　don't　know；　in　that　event；　whether　the　saving
　
　5。James　Gindin；　〃　'Gimmick'　and　Metaphor　in　the　Novels　of　William　Golding；〃　Modern　Fiction　Studies；　6　（Summer；　1960）；　145…152。…Eds。
　
　of　the　boys　at　the　end　is　a　gimmick　or　not。　The　reason　for　that　particular　ending　was　twofold。　First　I　originally　conceived　the　book　as　the　change　from　innocence…which　is　ignorance　of　self…to　a　tragic　knowledge。　If　my　boys　hadn't　been　saved；　I　couldn't…at　that　time；　at　any　rate…see　any　way　of　getting　some　one　of　them　to　the　point　where　he　would　have　this　tragic　knowledge。　He　would　be　dead。　If　I'd　gone　on　to　the　death　of　Ralph；　Ralph　would　never　have　had　time　to　understand　what　had　happened　to　him；　so　I　deliberately　saved　him　so　that　at　this　moment　he　could　see　…look　back　over　what's　happened…and　weep　for　the　end　of　innocence　and　the　darkness　of　man's　heart；　which　was　what　I　was　getting　at。　That's　half　the　answer。
　The　other　answer　is　that　if；　as　in　that　quotation　there；　the　book　is　supposed　to　show　how　the　detects　of　society　are　directly　traceable　to　the　defects　of　the　individual；　then　you　rub　that　awful　moral　lesson　in　much　more　by　having　an　ignorant；　innocent　adult　e　to　the　island　and　say；　〃Oh；　you've　been　having　fun；　haven't　you？〃　Then　in　the　last　sentence　you　let　him　turn　away　and　look　at　the　cruiser；　and　of　course　the　cruiser；　the　adult　thing；　is　doing　exactly　what　the　hunters　do…that　is；　hunting　down　and　destroying　the　enemy…so　that　you　say；　in　effect；　to　your　reader；　〃Look；　you　think　you've　been　reading　about　little　boys；　but　in　fact　you've　been　reading　about　the　distresses　and　the　wickednesses　of　humanity。　If　this　is　a　gimmick；　I　still　approve　of　it。
　Q。：　I　think　it　fulfills　what　you　said　about　the　use　of　the　gimmick　at　the　end　of　a　novel；　making　a　reader　go　back　and　take　another　look　at　things。
　Did　the　work　by　Richard　Hughes；　High　Wind　in　Jamaica；　have　any　influence　on　your　writing　Lord　of　the　Flies？
　A。：　This　is　an　interesting　question。　I　can　answer　it　simply：　I've　read　this　book　and　I　liked　it　but　I　read　it　after　I'd　written　Lord　of　the　Flies。　And　if　you're　going　to　e　around　to　Conrad's　Heart　of　Darkness；　I　might　as　well　confess　I've　never　read　that。
　Q。：　Then　if　you　hadn't　read　High　Wind　in　Jamaica　until　you'd　written　Lord　of　the　Flies；　how　do　you　feel　about　the　thematic　presentation；　the　parallel　between　the　two　works？
　A。：　There　is　a　parallel；　I　think；　but　like　so　many　literary　parallels　it's　the　plain　fact　that　if　people　engag