wgolding.lordoftheflies-第54节

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！


　miss　a　good　part　of　the　author's　intent；　it　is；　indeed；　to　leave　us　with　nothing　but　horror。
　
　2。Thomas　M。　Coskren；　O。　P。；　in　〃Is　Golding　Calvinistic？〃　America；　109　（July　6；　1963）；　18…20；　also　speaks　to　this　point　at　length。　The　essay　is　reprinted　on　pp。　253…260　in　this　volume。…　Eds。
　3。　Golding　seems　to　attach　no　particular　significance　to　the　historical　Beelzebub　but　to　regard　him　as　simply　another　manifestation　or　creation　of　the　human　heart。　（See　James　Keating　and　William　Golding；　〃The　Purdue　Interview；〃　p。　192　in　this　volume。）　It　is　difficult　to　see　how　the　〃historical　background〃　for　the　title　enhances　understanding　of　Golding's　basic　fable；　although　it　certainly　figures　as　a　due　to　the　theme。…Eds。
　
　At　the　conclusion　of　the　fourth　hunt；　after　the　boys　have　hacked　the　multiparous　sow；　they　place　its　head　on　a　stick　as　a　sacrificial　offering　for　some　reputedly　mysterious　and　awesome　beast…actually　a　dead　parachutist　who　had　plummeted　to　the　ground；　now　unrecognizable　as　his　body　rises　and　falls　each　time　the　wind　fills　the　parachute　and　then　withdraws　from　it。　Meanwhile　Simon；　whose　love　for　his　panions　and　desire　to　protect　them　instill　a　courage　extraordinary；　leaves　them　to　search　out　the　darksome　creature。　He　finds　himself　confronted　by　the　primitive　offering；　by　〃the　head　grinning　amusedly　in　the　strange　daylight；　ignoring　lie　flies；　the　spilled　guts；　even　ignoring　the　indignity　of　being　spiked　on　a　stick。〃　As　he　is　impelled　to　stare　at　the　gruesome　object；　it　undergoes　a　black；　unholy　transfiguration；　he　sees　no　longer　just　a　pig's　head　on　a　stick；　his　gaze；　we　are　told；　is　〃held　by　that　ancient；　inescapable　recognition。〃　And　that　which　is　inescapably　recognized　by　Simon　is　of　primordial　root。　Its　shrewdness　and　devastation　have　long　been　chronicled：　it　is　on　center　stage　in　the　third　chapter　of　Genesis；　it　gained　the　rapt　attention　of　Hosea　and　Amos　and　the　prophets　who　followed　them。
　As　Simon　and　the　Lord　of　the　Flies　continue　to　face　each　other；　the　nature　of　the　latter　is　clearly　and　explicitly　set　forth　in　an　imaginary　conversation　which　turns　into　a　dramatic　monologue。　The　head　speaks：
　
　〃What　are　you　doing　out　here　all　alone？　Aren't　you　afraid　of　me？〃　Simon　shook。
　〃There　isn't　anyone　to　help　you。　Only　me。　And　I'm　the　Beast。〃　Simon's　mouth　labored；　brought　forth　audible　words。　〃Pig's　head　on　a　stick。〃
　〃Fancy　thinking　the　Beast　was　something　you　could　hunt　and　kill〃　said　the　head。　。　。　。　〃You　knew；　didn't　you？　I'm　part　of　you？　Close；　dose；　close！　I'm　the　reason　why　it's　no　go？　Why　things　are　what　they　are？〃
　
　A　moment　later；　the　Beast　goes　on：
　
　〃I'm　warning　you；　I'm　going　to　get　angry。　D'you　see？　You're　not　wanted。　Understand？　We　are　going　to　have
　fun　on　this　island。　Understand？　We　are　going　to　have　fun　on　this　island！　So　don't　try　it　on；　my　poor　misguided　boy；　or　else…〃
　Simon　found　he　was　looking　into　a　vast　mouth。　There　was　blackness　within；　a　blackness　that　spread。
　〃…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