Nature Vs. Nurture In Lord Of The Flies, By William Golding

Nature’s power can dominate the life of any being, completely modifying how they were raised. This sense of nature’s superiority in the notion of nature versus nurture, is displayed in William Golding’s “Lord of The Flies.” The novel bespeaks of how young boys, whom are required to to survive in the depths of a jungle, transform when being deprived of adult presence and civilisation. This theme of human evolution fulfils Golding’s authorial intention of depicting Jack, one who starts off as being overly confident, to being entirely consumed by nature; more specifically, uncovering his manipulative and impulsive character through his viscous behaviour.

Jack’s narcism is made evident from the onset of the novel, unveiled through the emphasise

As weeks pass, nature becomes a more dominant part of Jack’s life. Eventually, nature drastically alters the way in which he was nurtured, to an extent where he evolves into an animal. This is represented in: “Jack was bent double…uncomfortably on all fours yet unheeding his discomfort”(48). The animalise imaginary in “all fours”, strips him of his human identity whilst exposing him to reckless behaviour. Thus whilst he encourages the group to shout: “Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood”(150), he, with no sense of remorse, kills a boy as well as his consciousness. Moreover, his dictator like behaviour, unveils his manipulative side. When telling the boys to “listen. The beast is sitting up there, whatever it is…hunting”(126), the way in which he maintains power through fear as, instead of reassuring others is illustrated. Moreover, sharing the motif of the beast and its “hunting” tendencies, scaring the boys, highlights his calculative character. The boys hence experience serve pain due to Jack’s aggression. Not only does he use the boys to aid him in his unjust actions, he also punishes them for no reason. Whilst not usually considered pleasing, nature has controlled him to an extent where he behaves as a predator, causing him to “beat Wilfred” (176) unreasonable. Conclusively, not only does he portray a dominant character who manipulates others, but his characterisation is also

Further verification of Jack’s distance from society is developed through physical details. When described how he wears a mask which “Jack hid, liberated from shame and self conscious” (89), the insecure tone instils a sense of sympathy. Conversely, it also foreshadows unjustified violence that will be inflicted upon the other characters at the hand of Jack’s rule. Moreover, the escalation of his impulsive behaviour is portrayed through his fight with Ralph, in which he “swung his fist” and “hurled his spear” (287). The contrast between his initial use of solely verbal abuse and his subsequent physical fights, underscores his immaturity as he lacks awareness about the consequences. Despite this, he is constantly supported, as he gives them opportunities, unlike Ralph does, engaging others in a feast, full of “piles of meat on green leaves […] and fruit, and coconut shells full of drinks” (170). More importantly, the excitement spread of killing a pig and the thrill given by “saying I hit him all right. The spear stuck in,” makes the boys want to take part in acts of violence as they are aware of the absence of consequences when hunting with their leader. Lastly, when Jack causes the jungle to “burst into flames” (299), his recklessness is affirmed as he is wiling to endanger both the lives of the other boys as well as his own, thereby fabricating a tone embedded in