wgolding.lordoftheflies-第49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！


　〃…Or　else；〃　said　the　Lord　of　the　Flies；　〃we　shall　do　you。　See？　Jack　and　Roger　and　Maurice　and　Robert　and　Bill　and　Piggy　and　Ralph。　Do　you。　See？〃
　Simon　was　inside　the　mouth。　He　fell　down　and　lost　consciousness。
　
　The　〃ancient；　inescapable　recognition〃　is　that　the　Lord　of　the　Flies　is　a　part　of　Simon；　of　all　the　boys　on　the　island；　of　every　man。　And　he　is　the　reason　〃things　are　what　they　are。〃　He　is　the　demonic　essence　whose　inordinate　hunger；　never　assuaged；　seeks　to　devour　all　men；　to　bend　them　to　his　will。　He　is；　in　Golding's　novel；　accurately　identified　only　by　Simon。　And　history　has　made　clear；　as　the　Lord　of　the　Flies　affirms；　that　the　Simons　are　not　wanted；　that　they　do　spoil　what　is　quaintly　called　the　〃fun〃　of　the　world；　and　that　antagonists　will　〃do〃　them。
　Simon　does　not　heed　the　〃or　else〃　imperative；　for　he　bears　too　important　a　message：　that　the　beast　is　〃harmless　and　horrible。〃　The　direct　reference　here　is　to　the　dead　parachutist　whose　spectrally　moving　form　had　terrified　the　boys；　the　corpse　is；　obviously；　both　harmless　and　horrible。　But　it　should　also　be　remembered　that　the　Lord　of　the　Flies　identified　itself　as　the　Beast　and　that　it　too　might　be　termed　〃harmless　and　horrible。〃　Simon　alone　has　the　key　to　its　potential　harmlessness。　It　will　bee　harmless　only　when　it　bees　universally　recognized；　recognized　not　as　a　principle　of　fun　but　as　the　demonic　impulse　which　is　utterly　destructive。　Simon　staggers　on　to　his　panions　to　bear　the　immediate　good　news　that　the　beast　（the　rotting　parachutist）　is　harmless。　Yet　he　carries　with　him　a　deeper　revelation；　namely；　that　the　Beast　（the　Lord　of　the　Flies）　is　no　overwhelming　extrinsic　force；　but　a　potentially　fatal　inner　itching；　recognition　of　which　is　a　first　step　toward　its　annihilation。　Simon　bees；　of　course；　the　suffering　victim　of　the　boys　on　the　island　and；　by　extension；　of　the　readers　of　the　book。4
　
　4pare　Donald　R。　Spangler；　〃Simon〃　on　pp。　211…215　in　this　volume。…Eds。
　
　IV
　
　To　me　Lord　of　the　Flies　is　a　profoundly　true　book。　Its　happy　offense　lies　in　its　masterful；　dramatic　and　powerful　narration　of　the　human　condition；　with　which　a　peruser　of　the　daily　newspaper　should　already　be　familiar。　The　ultimate　purpose　of　the　novel　is　not　to　leave　its　readers　in　a　state　of　paralytic　horror。　The　intention　is　certainly　to　impress　upon　them　man's；　any　man's；　miraculous　ingenuity　in　perpetrating　evil；　but　it　is　also　to　impress　upon　them　the　gift　of　a　saving　recognition　which；　to　Golding；　is　apparently　the　only　saving　recognition。　An　orthodox　phrase　for　this　recognition　is　the　〃conviction　of　sin；〃　an　expression　which　grates　on　many　contemporary　ears；　and　yet　one　which　the　author　seemingly　does　not　hold　in　derision。
　Lecturing　at　Johns　Hopkins　University　in　the　spring　of　1962；　Golding　said　that　Lord　of　the　Flies　is　a　study　of　sin。　And　he　is　a　person　who　uses　words　with　precision。　Sin　is　not　to　be　confused　with　crime；　which　is　a　transgression　of　human　law；　it　is　instead　a　transgression　of　divine　law。　Nor　does　Golding　believe　that　the　Jacks　and　Rogers　are　going　to　be　reconstructed　through　social　legislation　eventuating　in　some　form　of　utopianism…he　and　Conrad's　Mr。　Kurtz　are　at　one　in　their　evaluation　of　societal　laws　which；　they　agree；　exercise　external　restraint　but　have　at　best　a　slight　effect　on　the　human　heart。　Golding　is　explicit：　〃The　theme　＇of　Lord　of　the　Flies＇〃　he　writes；　〃is　an　attempt　to　trace　the　defects　of　society　back　to　the　defects　of　human　nature。　The　moral　is　that　the　shape　of　a　society　must　depend　on　the　ethical　nature　of　the　individual　and　not　on　any　political　system　however　apparently　logical　or　respectable；〃
　William　Golding's　story　is　as　old　as　the　written　word。　The　figure　of　the　Lord　of　the　Flies；　of　Beelzebub；　is　one　of　the　primary　archetypes　of　the　Western　world。　The　novel　is　the　parable　of　fallen　man。　But　it　does　not　close　the　door　on　that　man；　it　entreats　him　to　know　himself　and　his　Adversary；　for　he　cannot　do　bat　against　an　unrecognized　force；　especially　when　it　lies　within　him。
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　Is　Golding　Calvinistic？1
　A　more　optimistic　interpretation　of　the　
　symbolism　found　in　Lord　of　the　Flies
　THOMAS　MARCELLUS　COSKREN；　O。　P。
　
　IN　an　issue　of　America　last　winter；　two　critics　gave　their　interpretations　of　William　Golding's　remarkably　successful　Lord　of　the　Flies。2　While　the　approach　of　each　of　these　critics　differed；　Mr。　Kearns　being　concerned　with　the　sociopolitical　implications　of　the　work　and　Fr。　Egan　with　the　theological；　both　reached　the　same　conclusion：　Lord　of　the　Flies　presents　the　Calvinist　view　of　man　as　a　creature　essentially　depraved。　As　one　of　the　professors　who　has　placed　the　novel　on　his　required　reading　list；　I　should　like　to　raise　a　dissenting　voice。
　While　I　am　prepared　to　admit　that　Lord　of　the　Flies　is　hardly　the　most　optimistic　book　that　has　appeared　in　recent　times；　I　find　it　difficult　to　accept　the　conclusion　reached　by　Fr。　Egan　and　Mr。　Kearns。　Both；　it　seems　to　me；　have　left　too　much　of　the　novel　unexplained；　indeed；　their　view　of　the　work　seems　to　render　important　sections　inexplicable。　If　Golding　has　presented　man　as　essentially　depraved；　why　are　three　of　his　four　major　characters　good　people？　Granted　that　Ralph；　Piggy　and　Simon　possess　a　limited　goodness；　the　condition　of　all　men；　they　are　decidedly　boys　of　high
　
　1。This　article　is　reprinted　with　permission　from　America；　the　National　Catholic　Weekly　Review；　920　Broadway；　New　York　City。　It　appeared　in　the　issue　of　July　6；　1963；　Volume　109；　pp。　18…20。
　2。Francis　E。　Kearns；　〃Salinger　and　Golding：　Conflict　on　the　Campus；〃　America；　108　（January　26；　1963）；　136…39；　and　John　M。　Egan；　〃Golding's　View　of　Man；〃　140…41。…Eds。
　
　purpose；　who　use　good　means　to　achieve　their　ends。　Jack　may　strike　many　as　the　perfect　symbol　of　essentially　depraved　man；　but　he　is　only　one　out　of　four。　Three…to…one　seems　a　rather　impressive　ratio　favoring　at　least　a　limited　goodness　in　the　human　munity。
　Moreover；　if　Golding　hesitates　〃to　view　evil　in　a　religious　framework；〃　as　Mr。　Kearns　says；　why　is　Simon；　on　the　symbolic　level；　so　cleverly　identified　with　Christ？　3　In　fact；　this　identification　is　so　obvious　that　one　is　tempted　to　agree　with　Kearns'　statement　about　Lord　of　the　Flies　being　〃too　neatly　symbolic；　too　patently　artistic。〃　Certainly；　the　very　presence　of　a　Christ…figure　in　the　novel；　a　presence　which　pervades　the　work；　implies　some　kind　of　religious　framework。
　Again；　if　man　were　not　good　or　innocent　at　some　time　in　the　long　history　of　the　race；　why　should　Ralph　at　the　end　of　the　novel　weep　〃for　the　end　of　innocence；　the　darkness　of　man's　heart；　and　the　fall　through　the　air　of　the　true；　wise　friend　called　Piggy〃？　Ralph　weeps　for　an　innocence　that　man　once　possessed；　he　laments　the　loss　of　goodness；　and　this　is　not　some　vague　goodness；　but　the　palpable　goodness　in　his　〃true；　wise　friend。〃
　Thus　far；　the　objections　I　have　offered　to　the　view　presented　by　Mr。　Kearns　and　Fr。　Egan　concern　only　the　characters　in　Lord　of　the　Flies。　These　objections　are　serious　enough；　but　there　are　others　which　demand　examination　by　the　critic。　If　the　world　into　which　these　characters　have　been　placed　is；　as　Fr。　Egan　states；　a　universe　that　is　〃a　cruel　and　irrational　chaos；〃　why　does　Golding　indicate；　with　almost　obsessive　attention　to　detail；　the　pattern；　the　order　of　the　island　world　which　the　boys　inhabit？　Throughout　the　novel　we　find　natural　descriptions　which　use　metaphors　from　the　world　of　manufacturing。
　In　other　words；　the　universe　of　Lord　of　the　Flies　is　one　that　has　been　made；　created。　The　novel　is　filled　with　phrases　like　the　following：　〃a　great　platform　of　pink　granite〃；　〃a　criss…cross　pattern　of　trunks〃；　〃the　palms　。　。　。　made　a　green　roof　〃；　〃the　incredible　lamps　of　stars。〃　Further；　Golding's　adjectives　indicate　an　ordered　universe。　This　indication　is　especially　apparent　after　the　terrible　storm　acpanying　Simon's　death。　In　this　section　he　uses　such　words　as　〃angu…
　
　2。Cf。　Donald　R。　Spangler's　〃Simon〃　on　pp。　211…215　in　this　volume。　See　also　Golding's　remarks　on　Simon　in　the　interview　with　James　Keating；　p。　192。…Eds。
　
　lar〃　and　〃steadfast〃　to　describe　the　constellations。　If　William　Golding's　universe　is　〃a　cruel　and　irrational　chaos；〃　he　has　certainly　chosen　most　inappropriate　words　to　describe　it。
　Basically；　it　seems　to　me；　the　real　difficulty　with　the　interpretation　of　Lord　of　the　Flies　offered　by　Fr。　Egan　and　Mr。　Kearns　is　its　failure　to　treat　the　novel　as　a　whole。　William　Golding's　novel　is　not　antihuman；　it　is　anti…Rousseau。　It　does　not　portray　human　nature　as　such；　it　presents　human　nature　as　infected　with　the　romantic　chimera　of　inevitable　human　progress；　a　progress　which　will　be　achieved　because　of　the　innate　nobility　and　innocence　of　the　human　species。　In　theological　terms；　which　are　perhaps　the　most　accurate　critical　tools　for　explaining　this　novel；　Lord　of　the　Flies　is　not　so　much　Manichean　as　it　is　anti…Pelagian。　A　more　detailed　analysis　should　help　to　show　this　anti…Pelagian　character　of　the　work。
　Lord　of　the　Flies　begins　with　all　the　paraphernalia　of　the　romantic；　and　sentimental；　preconceptions　that　owe　so　much　to　Rousseau's　social　philosophy。　In　the　first　chapter　we　are　presented　with　a　group　of　children；　the　contemporary　world's　symbol　of　innocence。　They　are　placed　on　a　tropical　island；　an　earthly　paradise；　Rousseau's　habitat　for　the　〃noble　savage。〃　But　these　boys　are　not　Adam…figures；　they　are　not　innocent。　Each　of　them；　in　varying　degrees；　reflects　the　influence　of　the　serpent…which；　by　the　way；　is　introduced　in　the　first　chapter　when　Ralph　unfastens　〃the　snake…clasp　of　his　belt。〃　Here　begins　the　terrible　irony　that　runs　through　the　whole　novel。　Romantic　man　thinks　he　can　rid　himself　of　evil　merely　by　taking　off　his　clothes；　the　symbol　of　civilization　and　its　effects。
　
　In　this　superficially　idyllic　munity；　made　up　of　refugees　from　an　atomic　war；　we　discover　Golding's　four　major　characters：　Ralph；　Piggy；　Jack　and　Simon。　It　is　with　these　characters　that　Golding's　symbolism　bees　somewhat　more　plex　than　either　Mr。　Keams　or　Fr。　Egan　suggests。　Lord　of　the　Flies　is　essentially　a　fable　about　contemporary　man　and　contemporary　ideas。　Thus；　Ralph　is　not　only　the　symbol　of　the　decent；　sensible　parliamentarian