"To Kill a Mockingbird" comparisons with ..., "Lord of the Flies", "Animal Farm" others? |
 Aug 15 2008, 03:35 PM
Post
#11
|
|
Cauldron Bottom Measurer Posts: 98 Joined: 4:33am September 9, 2007  |
Am I the only one who thinks Arthur Weasley reminds them a wee bit of Atticus Finch? I can't put my finger on it but it's just something that struck me when re-reading GoF and OOTP.
|
 |
 
 
|
|
Aug 17 2008, 03:07 AM
Post
#12
|
|
Madame Pince's House Elf  Posts: 4,607 Joined: 5:46pm January 28, 2005 Location: In HP Book Club 4, awaiting the HBP film's release  |
QUOTE(momwitch @ Aug 15 2008, 11:32 AM)  QUOTE(WaggaWaggaWerewolf @ Aug 14 2008, 11:43 PM) Significantly, the leading characters of LOTF are called Jack, Ralph (the hero) and Piggy. I rather missed the idea of castrati being connected with this book. I see it only as a very indirect connection, and why I mentioned it strictly as conjecture.  To me, it seemed that Golding used choirboys to break stereotypical assumptions, to show that savagery is present in even the most "civilized" among us (ie. singing in a choir being a "most civilized" thing to do). I didn't mean that any of the characters in the story were castrati. I mentioned the castrati as they were the ultimate choirboys in their day - yet like Peter Pan, they never grew up - they never fully became men. I doubt I explained myself very clearly, as I was then in a hurry for real life reasons. I do grasp what you are saying. Some of the same idea comes out with a TV series we had here called 'The Sopranos', but the family concerned seemed more interested in violin cases containing guns, not violins. There are other similar tales eg 'The Choirboys' the characters of which I believe were anything but angelic. Although I think the connections you make are valid, and probably what Golding meant by LOTF, whether the connections are direct or not, what I was trying to say is that these were not necessarily the connections I made. I rather thought that William Golding, writing post WW2, was commenting somewhat pithily on the gung-ho attitudes of the likes of R.M.Ballantyne, who espoused the glories of the British Empire of the late 19th century, and who clearly was impressed with the brave efforts of missionaries who displaced with Christianity, some Islander belief systems which then included cannibalism and infanticide. As well, there were fallen pirates in Coral Island, of course, but they are all killed, with the most decent of them repenting of his sins, having been mortally wounded. R.M Ballantyne was a Scottish juvenile fiction writer who died in 1894, and therefore would be unaquainted with how WW1 and WW2 changed the picture somewhat, betraying Ballantyne's vision of Victorian Great Britain. R.M. Ballantyne's Coral Island castaways, aged 14, 16 and 18, were literate, though the only book they had available for reading was the Bible. But it was unlikely that their education was anything more than the most basic available in England of the time, unlike many of the somewhat younger castaways of LOTF who, it seemed, had attended a fancy Cathedral school, with all the implied Christian trappings. William Golding seems to be suggesting that, left to themselves, the boys simply went to the devil in a handbasket. Jack, the most forceful character, as leader of most of the boys, introduces another belief system, playing on the boys' superstitions and terrors, and in the process, displaces the Christian beliefs of their upbringing. Thus by following Jack, these boys never truly grow up, being locked into savagery, just as you are suggesting. Whilst the more open-minded and decent boys are either killed, like Piggy, obliged to join the larger group, like the twins, or are left running for their lives, like Ralph. The Naval officer at the end is a representative of UK's finest, who, along with others from the Commonwealth, laid down their lives in droves during those two World Wars. And so he says at the end: He would have expected better of British schoolboys. So would many others, quite frankly. QUOTE(birdie86) Am I the only one who thinks Arthur Weasley reminds them a wee bit of Atticus Finch? I can't put my finger on it but it's just something that struck me when re-reading GoF and OOTP. No you are not the only one though you are the first to draw attention to it. Except that Atticus is the more dramatic figure, defending his children and standing up for his beliefs. Atticus, moreover, has to do without the assistance of a Molly Weasley. But, I grant you, there is a distinct resemblance, now I think about it. --------------------  Check out the Beedle the Bard Book Club |
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2008, 03:11 PM
Post
#13
|
|
Doctor Filibuster's Junior Assistant Posts: 1,963 Joined: 8:57am March 12, 2005 Location: at Home or somewhere in between |
I understand where you are coming from (I think
 ) WWW. I can definitely see your point - but I'm wondering if it was the Cathedral upbringing the boys had, which left them susceptible to the superstitious manipulation employed by Jack? Piggy and Ralph (especially Piggy) in my understanding of the high school reading I made of this book, represented reason, it was Piggy's glasses that gave them the use and power of fire ... Jack was willing to kill for this power, but he didn't value the source or understand it.In bringing this around to a comparison between the two books, while I was reading TKAM, I came upon this quote on page 157 of my paperback edition: QUOTE "So it took an eight-year-old child to bring 'em to their senses, didn't it?" said Atticus. "That proves something - that a gang of wild animals can be stopped, simply because they're still human. Hmp, maybe we need a police force of children...you children last night made Walter Cunningham stand in my shoes for a minute. That was enough." bold mineIn comparing LOTF and TKAM I think this point is significant. In LOTF, the boys never matured to adulthood - they never became men in their own right. There were the "Little 'Uns" and the "Big 'Uns" and for the "Big Ones" the power to influence went to their heads. It is a human ability to be able to put yourself in someone else's shoes, to suppose, to posit "what if", and since they hadn't matured to that level, created an "us vs them" survival code: "If you aren't with us, you are against us." Walter Cunningham was shamed into remembering when Atticus helped him , and another time when Jem helped his son, and so was able to realize quite clearly, that although he didn't agree with what Atticus was doing, he was still one of them. This was in direct contrast to the episode of the mad dog, who was a lovable "town pet" that became a ticking time bomb. The dog was an animal who had no memory of anything before the madness, and would have lashed out against a friend in its sickness. Contrast this further with the situation of the morphine addicted Mrs. Dubose who knew that it was the drug that exaggerated the mean streak of a once "Great Lady", yet wanted to die "clean" and in full grasp of her mental faculties. Her gift to Jem of the fresh white flower represented this "clean slate" - and that a new life was waiting for her past the misery - and that he helped get her there. As for Atticus being like Arthur Weasley, I can see some similarities, but I mostly see Dumbledore in many of his characteristics and mannerisms. When I read on page 222 : QUOTE Atticus's eyes twinkled. , that kind of nailed it for me. 
This post has been edited by momwitch: Aug 17 2008, 03:15 PM -------------------- Avatar made with Poser 6 and Photoshop Elements
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 18 2008, 06:37 AM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Madame Pince's House Elf Posts: 4,607 Joined: 5:46pm January 28, 2005 Location: In HP Book Club 4, awaiting the HBP film's release |
QUOTE(momwitch @ Aug 18 2008, 06:11 AM) I understand where you are coming from (I think ) WWW. I can definitely see your point - but I'm wondering if it was the Cathedral upbringing the boys had, which left them susceptible to the superstitious manipulation employed by Jack? Piggy and Ralph (especially Piggy) in my understanding of the high school reading I made of this book, represented reason, it was Piggy's glasses that gave them the use and power of fire ... Jack was willing to kill for this power, but he didn't value the source or understand it.If this analysis is any guide, LOTF discusses how any man-made culture fails in the end. So of course you are right to suspect the Cathedral upbringing most of the boys would have had (with the notable exceptions of Piggy and Ralph, himself). Piggy, at any rate, is a good reader and teller of yarns, whose value Jack, but not Ralph, utterly fails to appreciate. But then it isn't just a matter of the Cathedral upbringing that is at fault but the way the boys blundered on, relying on animal instincts and failing to think about how they were brought up. Perhaps it isn't even the upbringing itself, but what is made of it, and how much thought, reasonable or not, is put into it. QUOTE(Momwitch) In bringing this around to a comparison between the two books, while I was reading TKAM, I came upon this quote on page 157 of my paperback edition: QUOTE "So it took an eight-year-old child to bring 'em to their senses, didn't it?" said Atticus. "That proves something - that a gang of wild animals can be stopped, simply because they're still human. Hmp, maybe we need a police force of children...you children last night made Walter Cunningham stand in my shoes for a minute. That was enough." bold mineIn comparing LOTF and TKAM I think this point is significant. In LOTF, the boys never matured to adulthood - they never became men in their own right. There were the "Little 'Uns" and the "Big 'Uns" and for the "Big Ones" the power to influence went to their heads. Where LOTF might be comparable with TKAM is the treatment of children and what they are capable of doing, whether in defence of or in denial of ethical principles. Piggy and Ralph might compare well with Scout, Jem and Dill. But I can't agree with Atticus' idea about children making a good police force, however altruistic they might be or however animalistic the adults are behaving . His children were special, having been reared by himself, and having understood his values. Most other children of eight or ten would go along with whatever older children or adults would say, just like Jack's followers in LOTF. QUOTE It is a human ability to be able to put yourself in someone else's shoes, to suppose, to posit "what if", and since they hadn't matured to that level, created an "us vs them" survival code: "If you aren't with us, you are against us." Walter Cunningham was shamed into remembering when Atticus helped him , and another time when Jem helped his son, and so was able to realize quite clearly, that although he didn't agree with what Atticus was doing, he was still one of them. And it is just this human ability to be able to put oneself in another's shoes which is so lacking in LOTF, especially in Jack, Roger and their cohorts, in marked contrast to the events of TKAM. -------------------- Check out the Beedle the Bard Book Club |
|
|
|
|
Aug 18 2008, 10:38 AM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Doctor Filibuster's Junior Assistant Posts: 1,963 Joined: 8:57am March 12, 2005 Location: at Home or somewhere in between |
QUOTE(WaggaWaggaWerewolf @ Aug 18 2008, 12:37 PM) QUOTE(Momwitch) In bringing this around to a comparison between the two books, while I was reading TKAM, I came upon this quote on page 157 of my paperback edition: QUOTE "So it took an eight-year-old child to bring 'em to their senses, didn't it?" said Atticus. "That proves something - that a gang of wild animals can be stopped, simply because they're still human. Hmp, maybe we need a police force of children...you children last night made Walter Cunningham stand in my shoes for a minute. That was enough." bold mineIn comparing LOTF and TKAM I think this point is significant. In LOTF, the boys never matured to adulthood - they never became men in their own right. There were the "Little 'Uns" and the "Big 'Uns" and for the "Big Ones" the power to influence went to their heads. Where LOTF might be comparable with TKAM is the treatment of children and what they are capable of doing, whether in defence of or in denial of ethical principles. Piggy and Ralph might compare well with Scout, Jem and Dill. But I can't agree with Atticus' idea about children making a good police force, however altruistic they might be or however animalistic the adults are behaving . His children were special, having been reared by himself, and having understood his values. Most other children of eight or ten would go along with whatever older children or adults would say, just like Jack's followers in LOTF. Most children who were brought up to "respect your elders" or "do as your elders tell you", might not make the best police force, but that is what made Scout and Jem so different. As a real life example, my husband was the 8th of 9 children, brought up with a very "Cathedral" like setting (his father was a religious for 20 years before he left the order and got married). It was stressed in their house to "respect your elders", which was easy enough for him to do for his aunts and uncles and much older cousins (some of his first cousins are in their 70s now!), but it also applied to his older brothers and sisters, who were often not more than a year apart! He was at the end of a long list of orders himself, so that by the time his younger brother was born (when he was 14) he decided to forget the whole "elder" thing, and just enjoy having a brother on equal terms, not as a fledgling subordinate to do his bidding. I think that Jem and Scout's calling Atticus by his first name is a profound indication of this mutual respect that Atticus tried to convey to his children. To get real respect (not just begrudging acquiesence), you must first give respect - it is a give and take and give again. It must be constantly practiced. It is also doing what you say you are going to do, especially for a child, which is why it is so important to not threaten things which you would never do (as a punishment). A follow through is needed, and if you remain a person of your word, a mutual respect will eventually develop. It isn't something that happens overnight, it is built upon one step at a time - and though it might seem naive at times (as Atticus appears at the end, with Bob Ewell's death and who was responsible for it), it can only be done through being honest with yourself. QUOTE(WaggaWaggaWerewolf @ Aug 18 2008, 12:37 PM) QUOTE It is a human ability to be able to put yourself in someone else's shoes, to suppose, to posit "what if", and since they hadn't matured to that level, created an "us vs them" survival code: "If you aren't with us, you are against us." Walter Cunningham was shamed into remembering when Atticus helped him , and another time when Jem helped his son, and so was able to realize quite clearly, that although he didn't agree with what Atticus was doing, he was still one of them. And it is just this human ability to be able to put oneself in another's shoes which is so lacking in LOTF, especially in Jack, Roger and their cohorts, in marked contrast to the events of TKAM. And is exactly why these two works can be compared to each other. They examine two different approaches to the same problem, giving you the choice of how you want your story to develop over time.
This post has been edited by momwitch: Aug 18 2008, 10:39 AM -------------------- Avatar made with Poser 6 and Photoshop Elements
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 18 2008, 03:15 PM
Post
#16
|
|
Knight MacMod The Great Protecting The Memory Of Sense Posts: 2,430 Joined: 7:17pm February 17, 2006 Location: 3rd door on the left, Hogsmeade  |
QUOTE WaggaWaggaWerewolf: The Khmer Rouge seemed to think children with automatic weapons (and plastic bags) made a good police force. After all, children are very idealistic, and unspoiled by the corruption of civilization. "Show me your hands..."[...] But I can't agree with Atticus' idea about children making a good police force, however altruistic they might be or however animalistic the adults are behaving . His children were special, having been reared by himself, and having understood his values. Most other children of eight or ten would go along with whatever older children or adults would say, just like Jack's followers in LOTF. [...] --------------------  click the Q "And, if there is need to speak in brief summary of this power, we shall find that none of the things which are done with intelligence take place without the help of speech, but that in all our actions as well as in all our thoughts speech is our guide, . . ." Isocrates, Antidosis |
|
|
|
