Option 1: Character Analysis
Look deeply into one character from Lord of the Flies. What archetype do they follow? What
symbolic meaning do they add to the allegory? Find a song that would serve as the character’s
theme song and explain the connection. The song should add to the understanding you have of
a particular character. There should be numerous quotes from both the song and the text to
show the connection and your understanding.
Option 2: Theme Analysis
What is William Golding’s statement on mankind? Do you agree with this assessment of
human nature? Why or why not? Use evidence from the book and real life to support your
opinion. This will involve you looking into history and present day news to support your
reasoning.
Option 3: Leadership
There are different types of leaders in the novel. Ralph, Jack, and Piggy all serve as some type
leader with their own strength and weaknesses. What statement is Golding making about each
of the different types of leaders? How do you see similar leaders in our world’s history?
Lord of the Flies
Lord of the Flies is written by famous contemporary novelists William Golding (1911-1993). Lord of Flies depicts the transformation into savagery of a group of English schoolboys stranded on a desert island without adult supervision in the aftermath of a plane crash. Golding puts symbolism in a delicate blending of fable, allegory and adventure story. The characters in Lord of the Flies possess recognizable symbolic significance, which make them as the sort of people around us. All of them efficiently portray the microcosm of that society. Simon, for example, is the incarnation of goodness and saintliness. Simon represents saintliness and a kind of innate, spiritual human goodness that is deeply connected with nature and, in its own way, as primal as Jack`s evil instinct. In the eyes of William Golding, Simon is a saint as he has described, “Simon is a Christ-figure…a lover of mankind, a visionary” (Alastair Niven: 49).
Next, Gottfredson and Hirschi offer sociogenic explanations, that criminals have lower self-control and therefore make conscious choices to commit crimes (Friedrichs, 2010). White collar crimes are not crimes of passion; they are calculated, conscious decisions people make as a means to an end.
Sutherland, Clinard, and Yeager finally make the important distinction between crimes of corporations and crimes of individuals within the corporations (Olejarz, 2016). It is important to distinguish between these points when considering theory, causes, and consequences. In fact, there has been a recent push in theory to focus on offense criteria instead of individual offenders of white collar crime (Maguire et al., 1994). Sykes and Matza’s techniques of neutralization come into play here. The five techniques – deny responsibility, deny injury through rationalization, deny the existence of a victim, condemn the condemners, and appeal to higher loyalties – are contributed to the structural problems with white collar crime (Friedrichs, 2010, p. 237; Ruggiero, 2015). Powerful white collar offenders use these techniques to distance themselves from the corporation and to shirk themselves of any blame.
Criminal justice.
A core assumption of white collar crimes is that law promotes these crimes, favoring the privileged and failing to criminalize these activities: the powerful will protect their own, and capitalism has inherent crime-producing features that require social transformations to quell crime and deviance (Friedrichs, 2010; Taylor et al., 1973). Lawmakers and government officials are not likely to criminalize activities that their cohorts may partake in, so legislation here is thin (Friedrichs, 2010). Research has pointed out the causes of white collar crime related to the capitalist system and power hierarchies, with top managers blamed for setting the tone of ethics in the corporation, and supervisors accused of knowing about crimes and pressuring those below them to do whatever it takes to make profits and cut costs (Henry & Milovanovic, 1994). This unconnected nature of business facilitates criminal activity and shifts blame within the corporation, with the power hierarchy supporting an isolating and competitive environment. Within this setting, it is not just an individual who is guilty; sometimes, the entire corporation is at fault. But, since we cannot imprison a corporation, general control penalties do not apply to white collar crime (Gottschalk, 2016). The obedience to authority and the multi-faceted issue of all the d