In Lord of the Flies, how is the brutality within each individual often more dangerous than evil from an outside source?

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

In the final chapter, Ralph "argue[s] unconvincingly" with himself that the hunters will leave him alone or, perhaps,

make an outlaw of him.  But, then the fatal unreasoning knowledge came to him again. 

Too late, Ralph recognizes the evil that men do is innate, and is quite dangerous because it is so often not recognized.  For, if Ralph and Piggy were to recognize the innate sadism in Roger when he picks up the stone--"that token of preposterous time," as Golding writes--and throws it and others all around little Henry at the water's edge in Chapter Four, they may have prevented Roger's sadistically gleeful hurling of the pink granite boulder that takes Piggy's life.  

Similarly, were Ralph capable of recognizing in Chapter One the threat that Jack's statement "of simple arrogance"--"I ought to be chief"--suggests, he may have been able to avert the regression of the boys to even and all the conflicts involving the hunters and his followers, the groups that formed after this confrontation.  Certainly, Ralph and Piggy would have been more attentive to the message that Simon attempted to communicate that the Lord of the Flies provides him in Chapter Eight:  "I'm part of you....I'm the reason why it's no go?  Why things are what they are?"  Then, perhaps, Simon would not have been bludgeoned to death, or SamnEric terrorized and Ralph hunted.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team