Chapter 8: Gift for the Darkness

[S2Lit2008HCI]

1) How does Jack use the idea of the Beast to control and direct the boys in his tribe?

2) How does the pig-hunt and subsequent robbing of Ralph's fire in this chapter show the difference between playing and reality for the boys?

3) Why do you think William Golding chose this point in the novel to include the episode of Simon's conversation with the Lord of the Flies?

[2balcanderseah01]

1) How does Jack use the idea of the Beast to control and direct the boys in his tribe?

I feel that Jack uses the idea of the beast to control his tribe by assuring everyone that the existance of the beast was true. By saying this, the members of Jack's tribe will thus be willing to obey him and as I have mentioned in my earlier posts, be willing to cast aside all their discontenement about Jack's arrogant and barbaric behavior for the sake of their own safety.

The more the members of Jack's tribe believe in the existance of the beast, the more they are manipulated by Jack as he gains more and more control over his tribe. Also, to further boost his status as a chief, he then challenges Ralph to hunt the beast at night, weakening Ralph's role as a leader as Jack called him a coward when he had hesitated. When they hunted for the beast at night, the dead parachutist was then mistaken for the beast by both Ralph and Jack, "confirming" the littluns' fear regarding the existance of the beast and had thus indirectly enabled Jack to gain more influence over his tribe.

All in all, Jack uses the idea of the beast to control and direct the boys in his tribe by confirming the beast's existance and from there, control them by claiming that he would protect them from the "beast" if they obeyed him and followed him.

I will be answering the other questions later. Thank You.

[2balcanderseah01]

3) Why do you think William Golding chose this point in the novel to include the episode of Simon's conversation with the Lord of the Flies?

I feel that William Golding chose to include Simon's conversation with the Lord of the Flies at this point as this is where Jack and Ralph split their groups apart, where those who support Ralph go to Ralph's side and those who support Jack goes to his side.

With this separation, it clearly stages where the boundaries of civilization and savagery are laid in the whole novel. This will also decide which side of the human instincts would emerge victorious. By including Simon's conversation with the Lord of the Flies at this stage, the lord of the flies therefore symbolises Jack's tribe, representing evil, violence and savagery etc while Simon on the other hand, represents Ralph's side with the morality of civilzation still rooted in them.

By having this confrontation, it shows the clashes between the two driving forces and when Simon faints after being overwhelmed by the power of svagery, it proves William Golding's point that the human instincts of savagery are more rooted when compared to the instincts of civilization if they were brought up through external factors to be correct.

All in all, William Golding included Simon's conversation with the Lord of the Flies to symbolise the clash between the two human instincts of civilization and savagery as this is also the point where Jack and Ralph spilt up their groups, separating those who support savagery and civilization from one and other.

Also, when Simon fainted later on, it also symbolised the abundance of evil overwhelming the little civilization left on the isalnd.

That is all I have to say for now. Thank You.

[2bmarcel16]

I think that alcander is not wrong, but he has failed to consider a more important question: What would have been the effect if Golding had put the conversation in the story earlier?

Think. If William Golding put the conversation in at the point where Jack was with Ralph and Roger on the mountain, would it have been as significant? While I do not believe that it was conveniently slotted into the story, I think the question should be considered from another perspective: Why not put it there when Piggy's specs were stolen? Please don't tell me that it was because Golding wanted to put Simon out of the story earlier.
It would definitely have been more impactful had Golding chose to put the conversation there, as it was where everything went wrong for Ralph and his cronies. You say that Simon's fainting symbolizes victory of savagery over civilization. I sit on the fence. Simon's fainting was not because he was overwhelmed by the forces of evil, but more because of the realization that Ralph and Piggy's causes were futile from the moment they set foot on the island. That happened to be his cause too. Putting the conversation at this point of the story would show and enlighten us about why Ralph and Piggy's cause would never work on the island. Before the conversation, I had completely no idea of what was the problem with the savages. At this point in the story is where Jack and his cronies is the most primitive, and the peak of their savagery.It would be wrong to say that even the littluns were 'possessed' by their base and savage self. Only a few were.Most still lived in fear and were controlled by Jack and Roger, for fear of being tortured. Alcander's point stands, but elaboration and perspective would be in order.
Furthermore, the encounter highlight is that Simon faints upon meeting the Lord Of the Flies, foreshadowing how Piggy is killed too.And that also links back to my point on Ralph and Piggy's efforts being futile.

Have a nice day.Ha!

[2balcanderseah01]

I quote from Marcel's sentence "I think the question should be considered from another perspective: Why not put it there when Piggy's specs were stolen? Please don't tell me that it was because Golding wanted to put Simon out of the story earlier." and "At this point in the story is where Jack and his cronies is the most primitive, and the peak of their savagery."

The reason why Golding had chose to include Simon's conversation at this point was exactly because Jack and Ralph's contrasting instincts between civilization and savagery was at the peak. When Piggy's glasses were stolen, the climax was not at that stage of the novel already and that was the reason why Golding chose not to include Simon's converstion at that point of time.

To conclude, I feel that Golding chose to include Simon's conversation at this stage beacuse as you have mentioned, was where the conflict bewtween Jack and Ralph had reached the peak, and the suggestion that you have made of Why not put it there when Piggy's specs were stolen is out of question.

Thank You

[2bterrechua29]

Hey all,

I would like to comment on Marcel's post and Alcander's post.

Basically, i agree with Alcander that the episode of Simon's conversation with the Lord of the Flies should not have been included at the point of time when Piggy's specs was stolen.

This is because if Simon's conversation with the Lord of the Flies had been included at the point of time when Piggy's specs was stolen, the impact of this conversation on the story would not have been as significant as the part which William Golding had included Simon's conversation.

This is because at the part whereby Piggy's specs were stolen, the conflicts between Ralph and Jack were not as serious as the part that William Golding had included Simon's conversation.

Hence, to make Simon's conversation have a stronger impact on the story, this conversation has to be included at the part when the conflicts between Ralph and Jack have been very serious, Jack and his tribe have turned to savagery and when Jack and Ralph's contrasting instincts between civilization and savagery was at the peak, which i agree with Alcander.

Hence, the part where William Golding had included Simon's conversation with the Lord of the Flies is perfect as Jack and Ralph's contrasting instincts between civilization and savagery was already at the peak.

Therefore, the part where William Golding had included Simon's conversation with the Lord of the Flies makes the impact of Simon's conversation on the story great and that including this conversation at the part where Piggy's specs was stolen instead, was actually not a very good idea.

[glow=red,2,300]Never Give Up [/glow]

Cheers,
Terre Chua
2B29

[2bongyuhao17]

1) How does Jack use the idea of the Beast to control and direct the boys in his tribe?

Jack makes the beast into a godlike figure, a kind of totem he uses to rule and manipulate the members of his tribe. He attributes to the beast both immortality and the power to change form, making it an enemy to be feared and an idol to be worshiped. The importance of the figure of the beast in the novel cannot be overstated, for it gives Jack’s tribe a common enemy (the beast), a common system of belief (their conviction that the mythical beast exists), a reason to obey Jack (protection from the beast), and even a developing system of primitive symbolism and iconography (face paint and the Lord of the Flies). As hunters the people in Jack's tribe take on a more ferocious and courageous personality. This was what the boys needed to fight this beast. Ralph on the other hand was just trying to stay away from savagery, which means they wouldnt be picking up spears and kill the monster. This wasnt what they wanted. They wanted a sense of security and they needed something which could protect them from the beast. Jack had the upperhand. He convinced the boys that becoming a part of his hunter tribe, the whole tribe would protect one another from the monster.

[2bmarcuschong03]

Hey all, I will have my take on question 1.

Chapter 8, during the vicious and bloody hunt following Jack’s rise to power and formation of his new tribe. Jack’s ascent arises directly from the supposed confirmation of the existence of the beast. Once the boys, having mistaken the dead parachutist for a monster, come to believe fully in the existence of the beast, all the remaining power of civilization and culture on the island diminishes rapidly. In a world where the beast is real, rules and morals become weak and utterly dispensable. The original democracy Ralph leads devolves into a cult-like totalitarianism, with Jack as a tyrant and the beast as both an enemy and a revered god. We see the depth of the boys’ growing devotion to the idea of the beast in their impalement of the sow’s head on the stake as an offering to the beast. No longer simply a childish nightmare, the beast assumes a primal, religious importance in the boys’ lives. Jack uses the beast ingeniously to rule his savage kingdom. Jack and the hunters manipulate the boys’ fear of the beast to their own advantage. Jack continues to hint that the beast exists when he knows that it probably does not—a manipulation that leaves the rest of the group fearful and more willing to cede power to Jack and his hunters, more willing to overlook barbarism on Jack’s part for the sake of maintaining the “safety” of the group. In this way, the beast indirectly becomes one of Jack’s primary sources of power. Having a sense of security and assurance of being protected, the boys are controlled by Jack and being led in his tribe.

Regards,
Marcus Chong 2B03

[2cjamesquah28]

Hey all, will be attempting Question 1 now.

Question 1

How does Jack use the idea of the Beast to control and direct the boys in his tribe?

As the story accelerates and hits Chapter 8, things are becoming more and more out of hand. In this part of the novel, Jack is undergoing a intense transformation of bloodlust. This is evident from page 148,

"I'm going up the mountain."
" The words came from Jack viciously, as though they were a curse. He looked at Ralph, his thin body tensed and his spear held as if he threatened them."

Personally, i feel that Jack has made use of the idea of the beast to instill fear into the other boys in his tribe. By doing this, he then EXPLOITS the boys by their fear of the beast by appearing brave. This then creates a physcological effect on the other boys that "Jack is the only one that can stand up to this beast". Hence, they listen to Jack as they think of him as their "safeguard" from all dangers.

Let us look back at the first few chapters. In one of the meetings, the boy with the mulberry-mark face was actually declaring there was a beast on the island. Ralph had rebutted that there wasn't any, but Jack, on the other hand, insisted that he would find it and kill it if there was.

This reflects that more boys would rather side with Jack as he presents a potential "protection" against the beast IF there was one instead of siding with Ralph. The boys needed a shield against the beast.

In conclusion, as Jack instills the idea of a fearsome beast in their minds, yet acting strong, he actually is able to exploit the other boys into siding with him and gain their support.

Regards,
James Quah 2C28

[2cpekjiehui27]

Hi everyone

I shall post my views on question 3.

3) Why do you think William Golding chose this point in the novel to include the episode of Simon's conversation with the Lord of the Flies?

At this point of the novel, Jack's patience and tolerance has reached the maximum, thus, he could not take it anymore and left Ralph's group. He gives the excuse that Ralph only gives orders and taunting Ralph of being a coward. However, the most impactful excuse was that Ralph "said" that Jack's hunters were no good. This caused some of the boys to leave Ralph and join Jack's tribe. Most importantly, this was the turning point of Ralph's authority and power over being the leader of the boys.

Hence, at this point of the book, the conflict between Ralph and Jack was at the peak. This was due to Jack being too domineering and also the craving for power and authority. Besides that, his savagery mentality has also overtaken his mindset. These represent the evil and the ugly side of the human sight --- hence, the Lord of the Flies. It was represented by a pig's head, to show evil, hatred, and blood lust of the human heart. The author had also chosen Simon, a saintly figure, to have an encounter with the lord of the flies at this point of the book. This was the point a when the purity and kind side of the human heart clashes with the evil and corrupted side of the human heart.

Hence, the encounter with the lord of the flies at this point of the book.

Regards,
Jie Hui

[2cisaacng23]

Hey all. I'll be commenting on Question 1.

Question 1: How does Jack use the idea of the Beast to control and direct the boys in his tribe?

I definitely agree with what James has said about making use of the boys psychologically and exploiting their fear.

I would like to add on that Jack's leadership style blends manipulation, fear and violence into a single iron-fist rule over his trible. The fact that Jack uses the idea of the Beast, which is meant to be something ominous and foreboding, to his advantage suggests much about his careful thoughts and scheming ways. By turning something that strikes fear in the boys to affirm his leadership by showing that he is not afraid, he actually masks his insecurity about his leadership and offers comfort for the boys.

As the idea of the Beast instills a certain and obvious fear in the boys, Jack uses this as a double-pronged spear that masks his insecurity and offering a kind of assurance and protection against the beast for the boys. By having the support of the boys, his leadership is less in jeopardy and he also gains the ability and manpower to defeat the Beast.

Jack taking the initiative to lead the boys against the Beast is a smart move, and definitely plays a part in the chapters ahead.

Thanks all.

[2balcanderseah01]

Quoting from "his leadership is less in jeopardy and he also gains the ability and manpower to defeat the Beast. "

I will like to clarify that the presence of the beast felt by the boys were false as you read on in the stoy, the beast is actually the innate human evil that exists within every boy on the island, and certainly not something that you can hunt down, thus making the factor of manpower irrelevant.

All in all, I disagree with you that Jacks gains the ability and manpower to defeat the Beast as the beast that they were supposed to defeat did not just amount to manpower alone. Rather, it is the will to overcome their rising instincts of savagery.

Thank You

[2chuyongda10]

1) How does Jack use the idea of the Beast to control and direct the boys in his tribe?

Jack had convinced the boys that he was very competent by hunting pigs. He managed to show to the boys that he was very good and provide protection to the boy since he could sucessfully hunt and kill a pig. Then, the existence of the beast was confirmed by the witness by Ralph, the initial leader of the group. Thus, Jack made use of the fear and his seeming ability to give protection to the boys to control them.

[2b27pangshiang]

2) How does the pig-hunt and subsequent robbing of Ralph's fire in this chapter show the difference between playing and reality for the boys?

The pig hunt is shown not to be a game as it involved real killing of living animals. The robbing of Ralph's fire was also not a game as it involved harming others.

During the pig hunt, they had to really kill the pig through cruel and sadistic means. They beat the pig, cut its throat and did all sorts of things to kill it. Hence this shows that it was a serious matter and they were not playing games.

When they robbed Ralph of his fire, they were also not kidding around. They planned carefully on how to carry out the job and also harmed others on their way. The item they gained was not carried as a trophy, but was of use. This shows that robbing Ralph's fire was not out of leisure ar for the fun of tormenting him. Hence these activities were not games and therefore drew a line between playing and reality

[2c30sunyu]

I would like to answer question (2)

(2) How does the pig-hunt and subsequent robbing of Ralph's fire in this chapter show the difference between playing and reality for the boys?

Basically, during the pig-hunt, Jack and his hunters killed the pigs cruelly and maliciously. Readers may think that was alright as the pigs are not humans. However, that was already a foreshadow of what is going to happen next.

As the book progresses on, Jack and his hunters became more and more barbaric and savage-like. They even killed the sow in this way:

“Right up her ass!”
“Did you hear?”
“Did you hear what he said?”
“Right up her ass!”

This shows that the boys are out of control of themselves and had turned into a savage, losing all the civilisation within them.

Later in the story, the time finally came for Ralph's and Piggy's turn as a pig. This time is not to a pig but to a real human. Jack and his hunters was so obsessed and bloodthirsty that they had planned each and every actions carefully to kill Ralph. With Jack using his intelligence in a bad way, Jack thought of a good idea to kill Ralph by burning the whole forest. This was a very serious matter as Ralph's flimsy life may be gone with one misdeed.

Hence, the major difference is that Jack and his hunters now cannot differentiate between human and animals as they had became very savage-like and barbaric that killing a human to them is like killing a pig, nothing big to them.


Cheers,
Sun Yu