Lord of the Flies: Fool's Gold? by R. C. Townsend Article Analysis Sample

R.C Townsend’s article “Fools Gold?” demonstrates the belief that William Golding’s thesis is wrong, and he manipulates young, naive minds into believing all people have evil within. By comparing Lord of the Flies to a similar, yet lesser-known book, A High Wind in Jamaica, Townsend “clearly” demonstrates the ways Golding’s book “obviously [violates]” literary codes of inserting self-beliefs and exploits “the thousands of students who are committed to the book”. Townsend believes that high uses of imagery and symbolism in Lord of the Flies is too explicit to be a mandatory book in schools as children are susceptible to these “impositions”. Golding’s novel, Lord of the Flies, explores the inherent nature of evil inside human beings, as his thesis is “‘an attempt to trace the defects of society back to the defects of human nature’”. Townsend comes from an understandable viewpoint, that Golding never needed to state his thesis so explicitly, however, the points Townsend’s argues remain faulty. He refuses to take into consideration the logistics of this story, only focusing on the students’ impressionable naivety. 

 Townsend uses Richard Hughes’ A High Wind in Jamaica to emphasize the point that Golding “[lures] his readers” into the belief that evil lives innately within everyone. Townsend explains that, “In [A High Wind in Jamaica] a young boy falls to his death, but no arbitrary symbolic value is placed upon his fall” (Townsend 158). The broken conch and the death of Piggy do have symbolic meaning to them, but they are not “arbitrary” as Townsend claims. The meaning suggests a clear point that the boys on the island have completely immersed themselves into their savage side. Even if this meaning was “arbitrary”, why does Townsend believe readers cannot determine their own belief’s towards these deaths? Lord of the Flies is only mandatory for those in High School. By this time readers are able to form opinions on Golding’s thesis and determine its plausibility for themselves. 

Though Golding does “[exploit] Ralph and Simon and Piggy” to convey his exact thesis to his audience, his only use is for that exact purpose. The belief that evil lies within everyone is proven by the fact that these are children who are clearly capable of murder as both Simon and Piggy died because of them. Golding emphasizes this when, “…Roger, with a sense of delirious abandonment, leaned all his weight on the lever” and killed Piggy (Golding 180). Roger finally learned that without parental figures, he cannot get in trouble. The only reason Roger killed Piggy was because he kept pushing to be civilized when no one wanted to; it was no fun the any of the boys. This further emphasizes Golding’s thesis on inherent sinful nature. Roger never learned from his parents to kill people, he just did it because he knew he could. Townsend’s focus on A High Wind in Jamaica in this article takes away (from) the fact that both stories explore the darkness of humanity. They just went about it in different ways, one not worse than the other. Townsend fails to disprove that “Golding’s thesis is wrong”, only commenting on the ways Lord of the Flies could be better in a classroom setting. These odd points made by Townsend raises two questions: can Townsend clearly explain why Golding’s thesis is incorrect and why he imposes his belief’s without the comparison to A High Wind in Jamaica? and, why does he believe readers are incapable of forming an opinion on the message of Lord of the Flies for themselves?