Simon Lord Of The Flies Quote Analysis

William Golding's book Lord of the Flies, shows how evil humans are at heart. The book is about a group of British boys who crash on an island and slowly turn savage. Jack and Ralph are split into two groups and after all the conflict ends up with people dead. William Golding in his book Lord of the flies tells us that people are more evil than good. This is shown in the killing of Simon, the killing of Piggy, and the killing of the sow.
Simon’s death serves as a way to prove that people are more evil than good. Simon was in the forest, and learned how the beast was false and didn't exist. When he comes out of the forest at night, Jack and his group ritualistically murder him. Even though at first it seems like it's a mistake, a later quote

Up until this point we knew that the beast normally didn't speak. From this we can assume that Jack's group really didn't fully know if Simon was the beast but rather they were so bloodthirsty they decided to kill him, proving how evil people are at heart. Second, Ralph and Piggy are also not clean. Ralph and Piggy are known to be more civilized and structured. They were also near Simon at the time of his murder but did not try to intervene. Ralph says “ Don’t you understand, Piggy? The things we did-“He may still be-”“No” (Golding 160). This shows that they knew that it was Simon who was getting murdered but decided to not help him. This proves that even people considered to be civil can still be evil. Finally Jack uses Simon's death to fear-monger people. This is very evil as not only did Jack's group kill Simon for no reason, Jack will use his death to later kill more people for probably no reason as well. He does this to Wilfred, “He’s going to beat Wilfred”“What for?” “I don’t know. He didn’t say”(Golding163). Jack

The killing of sow proves this in many ways. First the killing of a piglet shows how the island is morally gone. “One piglet, with a demented shreak, rushed into the sea trailing Roger’s spear behind it” (Golding 137). This is morally wrong for numerous reasons, a piglet is a young pig so not only is Roger attacking a young pig but there is also no reason. The pig most likely had no food value so there is no reason to kill him. Second Jack and his group also kill the sow brutally. After the kill, “Jack held up the head and jammed the soft throat down on the pointed stick” (Golding 138). Jack and his group had again no reason to perform this action other than blood lust. This brutality again shows how all morals have gone out the window. Finally a sow is a mother pig. “ Sunk in deep maternal bliss” (Golding 137). This inconsideration for a sow while she is caring for her piglets also proves again how far gone the boys are. In conclusion the killing of the sow was brutal, unnecessary, and proves that the boys are generally more