George Orwell and William Golding Essay
George Orwell and William Golding
Orwell and Golding use vastly different writing styles, but their message is the same – that mankind is hopeless. Discuss this statement with reference to both “Animal Farm” and “Lord of the Flies”.
Since the beginning of time man has struggled to comprehend the difference between good and evil. Our ancestors spent their lives looking for truth, yet none could be found. Is there indeed a good of all goods and an evil of all evils? The two are so similar, and yet so different. The truth is, no one being is perfect, nor were we created to be. No one thing can be the source of all evil, or the source of all good. Yet man battles with himself, to determine what is right. But what, then, is truly right? If there is an evil, then Humans should be deemed to be the most evil of all creatures.
We are manipulative, egotistic and dominating. We have the urge to be the dominating force in the universe. We strive for superiority and aim for domination. Yet are such feelings to be considered wrong? Cannot they just be classified as instincts, which many other animals have? No, for we are indeed intelligent creatures and instead of exercising our superiority we should be learning of others greatness. We, as indeed intelligent beings should stray from the common selfishness and anger. Yet, they seem to be much easier to arouse, harder to abolish.
In his novel “Animal Farm”, George Orwell portrays the animals with human-like feelings and emotions. He uses satire to demonstrate the full extent of human emotion. Though the story is about animals, there are very few who think it is just that. The satire gives the story enough appeal to readers, but the message rings as solemn as ever. George Orwell uses little dialogue, but describes the characters and situations with great detail, paying attention to their characters and emotions.
It is easier to understand all the happenings, because the characters are animals. At the same time, when one compares them to humans, a striking similarity can be found. The book makes one think, and it hurts when one realizes that the story in the book is not far from our reality. It is a sad reality; however, it is necessary to acknowledge this for one to be able to overcome it.
George Orwell’s message is that humankind is hopeless. Perhaps we are, but a lost cause, we are not. For it is books like these, which help one to understand our faults so that one can correct them as best as one can. We were not created to be perfect, but we were also not created to be dominating and superior. All beings on this planet are created to be equals. Humans have forgotten such principles of nature. Humans battle to overcome cruelty. However, while we believe we have done so, the cruel, dominating and never ending cycle begins again. The truth is we are prisoners of our own characters, and perhaps that can never change.
William Golding, the author of “Lord of the Flies” uses fictional portrayal of human emotional conflict to reach the reader. He takes a situation, which could quite realistically occur in life, and elaborates upon it. He uses complex vocabulary and original sentence structure to show the complexity and variation of human emotions. He uses the little boys as characters in the story to prove a very valid point. The fact that such small children can turn on each other so rapidly is a sobering thought.
Golding shows, that no matter how good the intentions are at first, our inner feelings of selfishness can overcome us very easily, especially in a critical situation The book makes the reader contemplate their own actions in such a situation. Whereas as no one can be brutally honest with themselves, it is possible to relate to others. That is what Golding is trying to create. Regardless of whether they planned to do so or not, they will think, and perhaps that may bring us one step closer to understanding a very important character – ourselves.
Although their writing styles are prominently different, both George Orwell and William Golding show similar views on the human character. Their honest portrayal of humans as we are by nature leaves the reader thoughtful. So, are we then indeed bound for eternal struggle? Are we indeed as hopeless are the authors suggest? That is one question, which will not be answered with the advance in technology or by new scientific discoveries. We are our own judges, but can we trust ourselves?