Chapter 3: Huts on the Beach

[2balcanderseah01]

I will like to comment on Yu hao's view.

I do not think that Golding is making use of all the words related to darkness and evil. On the contrary, I feel that Golding wrote it to show how closely Simon was connected to nature and also to describe the peacefulness of the island. I like your view however, that Golding was trying to hint that all was not going well and that something very wrong was about to happen as in the later part of the story, the island was later polluted by Jack's tribe by putting the sow's head as a sacrifice to the beast etc. This thus symbolises the loss of innocence of the isalnd, just like you have mentioned that something bad was about to happen.

Thank You

[2climzhengjie21]

Hi all, these are my views on both questions 1 and 2.
1)In this section, Golding largely made use of imagery to describe nature's beauty, as can be seen on the island. Examples of imagery used are "the creepers dropped their ropes like the rigging of foundered ships", "the creepers had wooven a great mat", "walled with dark aromatic bushes", "the candle-buds opened their wide white flowers glimmering under the light that pricked down from the first stars" etc. They help convey the idea that the jungle was mysterious, yet beautiful at the same time, and a place where one could seek a state of peace and serenity in his mind. Therefore, Simon was totally immersed in his own world when he stepped into the deep jungle. I think that Golding chose to include this section at this point in the book to show that as the children started to take on a savage personality when their sense of order fades, that bit of "human" nature which could only be found in the civilized society they once belonged to still existed on the island.

2)I think that there is a focus on Simon at this point in the book as William Golding wanted to make use of Simon to show that the children still possesed signs of humanity despite the fact that there were no adults on the island and that they were losing their basic human instincts and character. This can be seen from how the littluns relied on Simon for fruits, proving that they still depended on the elder ones for help. Also, when Simon pulled off the choicest fruits which the littluns could not reach from up in the foliage until all of them were satisfied, it can be seen that Simon acted as a "big brother" of the littluns since there were no adults to take care of them. He retained the human qualities of kindnesss and love, therefore telling us that signs of humanity indeed existed at that time, and that the children on the island had not totally turned into savages.
Please feel free to comment on my views. Thanks!

Regards,
Zheng Jie 2C21

[2Cyangyi32]

Hey All,

I'll be posting my analysis of question 2.

2) Why is there a focus on Simon at this point in the book?

In the first chapter of the book, Simon has fainted and is perceived as weak , probably physically not up to the standard of the other boys.
This stands him out from the group.

Simon is not significantly included in the story until chapter 3, where he interrupts Ralph and Jack's conversation and states that the littluns talked and screamed in their sleep, as if "it wasn't a good island". Simon makes a very relevant assertion, stating that the littluns were afraid, as if the "beastie", the "snake thing", was real. Readers may be a little surprised by the fact that Simon starts to speak up in the story. My personal opinion is that William Golding wants to establish Simon as someone who's thinking is more astute than appears, and that he thinks before he acts, unlike the impulsive Jack.

Ralph remarks that "he's queer", and "he's funny", the "he" being Simon himself. This shows that Ralph, at least, views him in a different light, and I feel that Simon is the representative of civility in a community where the aforementioned is becoming rarer and rarer. Simon helps the littluns gather fruit to eat, and helps Ralph a lot with building huts, which fits him somewhat to the role of mediator, especially when he interrupts the heated argument between Jack and Ralph.

I also agree with James in the sense that Simon is closely connected to nature, and is a nature lover. This is intricately described in the last 3 or so paragraphs of this chapter. William Golding's purpose is possibly to develop the character of Simon somewhat at this point of the story, to let readers know more about his character, rather than just focusing on Ralph , Jack and Piggy.

Cheers,
Yang Yi

[2b26tayhanyang]

Hi all,

I agree with Yu Hao on his point of that dark imagery is used here to potray the state of the boys, as if foreshadowing that something bad would happen to the boys, especially when there were rising tension between Ralph and Jack, the people not wanting to follow Ralph and do work but just play.I shall list out some more relevant quotes about this point from the book then.

"Simon turned away from them and went where the just perceptible path led him. Soon high jungle closed in. " - It was as if potraying the boys slowly giving up their civilised behaviour slowly and heading tosomewhere unfamiliar, barely recognizable(hinting of savagery behaviour loater on). Also, there is a sense of helplessness as the "high jungle closed in", as if this was bound to happen.

"Tall trunks bore unexpected pale flowers all the way up to the dark canopy where life went on clamorously. The air here was dark too, and the creepers dropped their ropes like rigging of foundered ships. His feet left prints in the soft soil and the creepers shivered throughout their lengths when he bumped them." - It was as if there was life in such an unexpected place, such a lifeless place with the dark air and tall trunks as stated inthe book.This paragraph creates a kind of bad or dark atmosphere, describing the ropes dropping like sunk ships, just the boys slowly descending into the unknown without themselves noticing that. It was if the unknown creeped up them, without themselves knowing that they had slowly changed to somebody they had not knew. With the creepers potraying how the boys were helpless in such a situtaion, being affected so greatly by a minor action (maybe hinting of the "beast" which brought out the fear and savage in themselves). There are still many many examples, but the last paragraph may be more of important.Noticed how the author described the night coming, as if a catastrophe was coming,as darkness engulfed the island,with the scent of the candle-buds taking possesion over the island. It was as if they were to be swallowed by something dark, unknown and fearful, probably by their fear itself.

I probably delved too much into the intepretation of the imagery as this is just the third chapter and nobody knew what was going to happen next, but overall, this imagery sort of potrays to us how the boys slowly descends into the dark, with their attitudes slowly changing with the major events just now like the quarrel between Ralph and Jack and that nobody helped with the shelter except Simon. This showed how their behaviour starts to change, as if there were no restrains, although there wasn't at all practically in the first place, as their own weakness take over themself to create a personality who was supposed to be strong with the weak and feeble self inside.

[2b26tayhanyang]

Here is my take for question 2.

Simon is not of significant importance yet at chapters 1 and 2 as we only knew his name and nothing more than that. But in chapter three, the plot slowly introduced Simon as he starts to appear and talking about the littl'uns terrified over a beast, how it affected them. He was also the person that Ralph and Jack could talk about without enraging the other party. Simon was sort of a middle guy between two extreme different personalities of Jack and Ralph. Also, like what Yu Hao stated, Golding was trying to show him as a quite intelligent boy who was quite weird in a way as Simon's personality is being uncovered slowly.

He was also shown as a helpful person, being the only person who helped Ralph to start on the third shelter and helped littl'uns to pluck fruits.He seemed to appreciate the nature of this island. All of these traits were different from both of those of Jack's and Ralph's.

However, at the last few paragraphs, Golding employs imagery which includes Simon's appreciation for the beautiful scene, which seemed quite contrasting, as if something bad was going to happen to him. It can be seen that Golding was using the foreshadowing technique, and by doing this, also place the reader's attention on Simon. Simon seemed to be the focus of the story then, and kind of represented a civilised and rational person. This chapter would be vital to relate his death to something bigger, the loss of law and order, the boundaries which kept Jack and the rest from going savage still.

[2bterrechua29]

Hey all,

I will be attempting to answer question 2

Question 2

Why is there a focus on Simon at this point in the book?

This chapter reveals Simon as the mystic.

In this chapter, Simon feels the need to be sheltered from the other boys. “He’s queer. He’s funny,” says Ralph of his only work partner, which is the reaction mystics usually provoked from mainstream society.

Simon is different from the other boys not only due to the physical frailty of fainting spells but also in his consistently expressed concern for the other more vulnerable boys.

In the previous chapter, he sticks up for Piggy when Jack verbally attacks him for not gathering firewood, pointing out that the fire was started with Piggy’s glasses.

In this chapter, Simon takes the time to pluck from the trees the choice fruits that the littluns can’t reach and passing them down “to the endless, outstretched hands,” an almost saintly image.

Simon’s role as a visionary is alluded to in this chapter not only by his hidden place of meditation but also by William Golding’s description of his eyes: “so bright they had deceived Ralph into thinking him delightfully gay and wicked.”

While Piggy has the glasses, another symbol of vision, Simon has the bright eyes that later in the novel see the truth about the beast.

Cheers,
Terre Chua
2B29

[2balcanderseah01]

I agree with Terre's view that Simon yhis chapter reveals Simon as the mystic. However, no matter how queer or wierd he is, I personally feel that this is not the main focus what William Golding wanted to impose.

He probably wanted us to consider Simon as a totally different kind of personality from Ralph and Jack as their struggle for power escalated. Simon gives us a total different impression from all the other boys.

Although Ralph's commitment towards civilization is strong, he was still swayed a little towards savagery when he took part in the murder of Simon. Simon, on the other hand, feels that doing good is not something out of shame or guilt, but beacuse of his moral values. This character trait in him thus potrays Simon with a psersonality totally different from all the other boy on the isalnd.

All in all, I agree with Terre's point that this chapter reveals Simon as the mystic character but I feel that it is not the main focus what William Golding wanted to impose.

Thank You

[2bwenkang04]

I disagree with Terre's point about Simon being a mystic and furthermore, it was not the main focus of the story.
A mystic is a person who claims to attain, or believes in the possibility of attaining, insight into mysteries transcending ordinary human knowledge, as by direct communication with the divine or immediate intuition in a state of spiritual ecstasy. OR a person initiated into religious mysteries. (dictionary.com)
I don't think Simon is a person who believes in religious mysteries or has direct communication with the divine state of spiritual ecstacy. Perhaps you have used the wrong word, perhaps he is a very nice and helpful boy who is pretty intelligent as well. I think Simon has a good conscience to differentiate from right and wrong, and Simon himself represents the good side of all things. So I think that Simon is not a mystic but a nice and helpful person who has a good conscience.
Thank you
Chow Wen Kang.

[2btaytianwen28]

Hi all,

i write in support of wen kang's comment on terre's post.

"Simon as the mystic."

A mystic is a person who claims to attain, or believes in the possibility of attaining, insight into mysteries transcending ordinary human knowledge, as by direct communication with the divine or immediate intuition in a state of spiritual ecstasy. OR a person initiated into religious mysteries. (dictionary.com)

Mysterious and strange; arcane, obscure or enigmatic. ( wikipedia)

Terre is correct to a certain extent in his claim that Simon was potrayed by William Golding in this chapter as a mystic. Simon is indeed strange and mysterious, for he has a close relationship with nature, and , in the book, is often wandering in the forest admiring the beauty of nature.

Also, a mystic is also one who who is arcane is one understood by only a few, this being evident again from his frequent treks through the forest, his mysterious, queer yet gentle nature and also the part where ralphs states his "funny" and "queer".

But however, a mystic pertains more to religion and the supernatural, as Wen Kang has already stated. Simon is definitely not a person initiated into religious mysteries, nor does he possess supernatural "abilities" , thoughts whatsoever.

If you were lost for words, perhaps you should have used "kind", "gentle" , "weird" or any other words that do not strongly pertain to religion or the supernatural.

In conclusion, your point is totally out of line, and as such is also not the way William Golding had wanted to potray Simon the kind and gentle, but"queer" and "funny"as .

Do post any comments.

Thanks,

Tian Wen

[2bterrechua29]

Hey all,

I agree with Wen Kang and Tian Wen about 'mystic' being a wrong word to be used to describe Simon.

Perhaps, I am lost for words.

But the word i wanted to use is mysterious. NOT kind NOT gentle like what Tian Wen mentioned.

However, i do feel that Wen Kang's point is quite good about Simon being helpful who has a good conscience, which is what i wanted to say. BUT NOT TIAN WEN'S about kind and gentle

TO TIAN WEN:
you mentioned that my point is Simon being kind and gentle.
Let me ask you.
What makes you think that i wanted to say that Simon is kind and gentle?
Did i ever say that in my post?
This is just your assumption. ASSUMPTION.

Furthermore, Tian Wen you stated that "If you were lost for words, perhaps you should have used kind, gentle , weird or any other words that do not strongly pertain to religion or the supernatural. "

This shows that you feel that i should have use words like kind and gentle.

THen you said "In conclusion, your point is totally out of line, and as such is also not the way William Golding had wanted to potray Simon the kind and gentle, but queer and funny as . "

This shows that you feel that I should not use kind and gentle.

HMMMMM

Firstly, i had never wanted to say Simon is kind and gentle. Secondly, you are contradicting yourself.

Hence, tian wen, next time when you post things please do not post them based on your assumption. You should post things based on facts of the original post from the poster.

I have seen this case about your problem many times.

Sorry if i have been too rude.

[2bwenkang04]

Terre, lets don't get too worked up about things.
Perhaps Tianwen described Simon as gentle and kind due to the fact that Simon being a nature lover, gentle seems to be the right word to be used, instead of rough.
Tianwen would you like to clarify? I kind of agree with Terre that the words are a little bit ambiguous.
Regards,
Wen Kang.

[2cjiangshen14]

Hi,

I will answer Question 2 first.

2) In my opinion, I think that this is to stop the writer from developing the plot (Conflict between Ralph and Jack) to the climax of the story rapidly. Instead, the writer gives us a twist here, by talking about Simon, who represents a kind of natural goodness, as opposed to the unbridled evil of Jack and the imposed morality of civilization represented by Ralph and Piggy. Here, the writer is trying to tell us that despite Ralph and Jacks’ intensified conflict and the fact that all the other children are on the island doing nothing but swimming and playing, there is still one good side of human nature and that is Simon. He is portrayed for the purpose of comparing and contradicting the other characters of the book that signifies human nature.

Regards,
Jiang Shen

[2btaytianwen28]

Hi all,

Terre, you have totally misunderstood my post.

"If you were lost for words, perhaps you should have used "kind", "gentle" , "weird" or any other words that do not strongly pertain to religion or the supernatural.

In conclusion, your point is totally out of line, and as such is also not the way William Golding had wanted to potray Simon the kind and gentle, but"queer" and "funny"as . "

Here, i'm saying that William Golding potrayed Simon as kind and gentle, and this is NO ASSUMPTION. This is evident from how Simon is closely linked with nature, how peacful and beautiful it is described as and how he helps the littluns pick fruit. Thus YOU are making an assumption, not me .

Also, you have misunderstood the meaning behind my statement.YES, YOU should have used such words , for he IS so, and the last part states that William Golding wanted to potray Simon as kind and gentle and thus, YOU SHOULD use "kind" and "gentle".

Hopefully you understand what the two sentences mean now.

Tian Wen.

[2bterrechua29]

Hi all,

I will comment on Tian Wen's post.

Firstly, i would like to say Tian Wen you have misunderstood my point.

In your previous post, you said "Here, i'm saying that William Golding potrayed Simon as kind and gentle, and this is NO ASSUMPTION. "

However, in my previous post, i'm not saying that you are assuming Simon as kind and gentle. What i have been trying to say all this while is you have been assuming things from my post.

You assumed i am trying to say Simon is kind and gentle.
I am not trying to say you are assuming Simon as kind and gentle since Simon do portray thease features but i am trying to say You assumed i am trying to say Simon is kind and gentle.

Hence, you are the one who have started all these misunderstandings, not me.
You are the one assuming things, not me once again.

Furthermore, you said i should use kind and gentle.
But now, i am here to say I disagree with your point that i should use these two words.

Hopefully you understand what i have been trying to say now.

Cheers and relax,
Terre Chua
2B29

[2btaytianwen28]

Hi all,

Terre, you have misunderstood my point. I am trying to put across to you, that YOU are assuming from MY post, and not the other way round. Please straighten things out first.

In conclusion , simon can be described as a "mystic", but to a certain extent.

Do post any comments.

Thanks,

Tian Wen