In both Lord of the Flies1 and To Kill a Mocking Bird2, composers explore human condition and the ambiguity surrounding the ability to resolve good and evil from mans inner self. Mulligan’s interpretation of Lee’s novel suggests a philosophy that explores and questions human morality. Where on the other hand Golding believes that evil is at the roots of human condition and that experiences, society and culture do not influence a mans inner evil.
Lord of the Flies reflects conflicting perspectives regarding evil being preconceived within us through the character of Jack. When the boys are marooned on the island they need to form a society that includes law and order. To do this they need a leader or a “chief” (page. 30), someone to look up to and enforce rules that keep the boys in line. Jack is repeatedly rejected as chief despite endeavouring to obtain this role. As society gradually degrades and law and order start to fail, we see Jack’s unsatisfiable bloodlust and rebellion against the rules “Bullocks to the rules!” (page114). As time progresses, Jack breaks away from Ralph’s dominion and forms his own tribe. Though Jack has rebelled against the rules that make up society on the island, in his own tribe he attempts to obtain law and order. He does this by making consequences consisting of torture and violence for a tribe member’s disobedience. Through the character of Jack, Golding portrays ambiguity surrounding the honest nature of human condition.
Contrasting to this, To Kill A Mocking Bird presents the idea of an inherent innocence through the exposure of the victimisation of innocence that is represented by the character of Tom Robinson and the fight against prejudice. Tom Robinson, being a negro is unjustly charged for a crime he did not commit. Throughout the court session there are numerous wide shots of Tom Robinson standing in front of many uncoloured people that make up the audience and jury. These shots emphasise the power and the social status of...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document