Similarities Between Lord Of The Flies And 1984

World War Two was a defining moment in the history of mankind, a time when man first began to realize his own mortality in the grand scheme of the world. It was a nervous time for the human race when man feared for their lives and their future. Nothing reflects this more than the literature of the time, including two of the most influential books of the time, George Orwell’s 1984 and William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. Both were inspired by the tragedy of the war and the continued uneasiness that resulted from the Cold War, and therefore many fundamental themes and messages were shared by both books. However, the tones of the books and the plot devices that created the atmospheres sometimes differed greatly between the two pieces of literature.

Inherently, both 1984 and Lord of the Flies share many themes, including fear, identity, and abuse of power, but the genres that they belong to and the morals they attempt to communicate can differ greatly between books, as each author had different interpretations.
Evidently, the themes developed by the two novels share many similarities, as both were inspired by the struggles of humanity during the Cold War. The two novels share three specific main themes; power and the abuse of power, loss of identity, and fear.

All three of these themes are evident in the novels, and most of the ideas and patterns used to describe these themes are analogous. For example, one could observe the usage of fear by the ruling parties in both novels. Jack, uses fear in two ways to provide stability to his rule. Firstly, he uses the fear of an alternate power to unite his tribe members, while holding a sense of protection in his own stature, as seen when he shouts, “If there’s a beast, we’ll hunt it down.” (Golding 99) The boys fear the beast, so he takes advantage of this by using it to highlight his own stature. However, he also enforces using a second, more prominent power, using a developed fear of the chieftain in all his tribe members. This fear of him forces loyalty out of everyone beneath him, and he uses it to retain power. This can be seen in his treatment of Samneric, as the two boys allude to the torment that Jack and his tribe inflicted on them when they say that “they made us. They hurt us-”, in fragmented, worried sentences. This was successful, as Samneric reluctantly joined the tribe. Meanwhile, two forms of enforcement through fear are used in very

similar ways by the party in 1984. The first form, fear of others, is used extensively by the party and is embodied in the two minutes of hate that are broadcasted every day. The party creates fear of the Eurasian/Eastasian armies and Emmanuel Goldstein with the marching of armies and the preaching of “alien” ideals, and then, during the two minutes of hate, they unite the population against these “threats”, thereby giving the average comrade a sense of protection by remaining holding themselves to the party and its laws. However, the other form of fear manipulation is even more prevalent in 1984. The party uses the monitors to constantly watch every member of the party, ensuring that no treachery can occur, and making sure that everyone knows that there are severe repercussions for committing actions that the party deems inappropriate. They also are sure to create a sense of mystery around that details of detainment and punishment, which can be seen by the quote “People simply disappeared, always during the night. Your name was removed from the registers, every record of everything you had ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten. You were abolished, annihilated: vaporized was the usual word." (Orwell 19) The party uses fear of death and worse fates as a deterrent to treachery, just as Jack uses the threat of torture as a deterrent to disobedience. In this way, both novels exhibit a similar theme and develop this theme in a similar way.
However, it would be unreasonable to assume that these novels are similar, based solely on the themes, and, when examined with a critical eye, it is obvious that these novels are very different, firstly in the genres to which the novels belong. On one hand, Lord of the Flies, in its simplest form, is an adventure story, and with this genre, there are many common tropes that make their way into the novel. Golding successfully differentiates his novel with the use of themes and the overall darker tone placed on the plot, but elements of survival and exploration are all found in the novel. This theme is set at the beginning of the novel when Ralph states that “three of us will go on an expedition and find out.” (Golding 20). Immediately, the plot is defined by an expedition or an adventure into new lands. Regardless of what occurs later on, this remains true. Alternatively, 1984 is, at its core, a dystopian novel, as it concerns technology, evil empires, and bleak outlooks. Again, Orwell provides an interesting take on the genre, but the novel, for all intents and purposes, can be classified as a dystopian novel. Despite the similarities that arise regarding the development of themes, this simple fact distances the two novels, as these genres bear their customary plot devices, character tropes, and motives, and these important story elements are not easily compared. For example, one could compare the villains that occupy these respective genres. Jack deviates from the standard adventure villain a bit, but summatively he is a greedy individual that seeks to benefit from the riches on the island and cares only for himself and those he calls friends. He is unorganized and immature. All of these traits complement the story that he abides in, but his lack of calculation and intelligence would not serve him well in a dystopian world. On the other hand, the party uses their immense wealth and resources to execute detailed, complex movements, but rely mainly on technology and would not integrate well with an adventure story. The motives of these characters are very different, as are their methods and quirks. The villains embody the summative comparison of the two novels; they share similar traits in their simplest forms but differ greatly in their implementation.
Finally, there is a mode by which one can differentiate the two works even further; the examination of the moral or message that the author attempts to communicate.

Humorously, Lord of the Flies and 1984 deal with a similar issue, in the nature of evil, yet the two authors’ takes on this issue are opposites. The first idea is that evil comes from within the human race, embodying one’s goal as an individual to surpass all others, and one’s need to feel dominant and prosperous. The argument is that these feelings are instinctual, and that societal pressures force the average person away from these actions. Nothing embodies this idea with more accuracy than Lord of the Flies. The novel explores this idea by isolating a group of boys from society, and the reader observes the groups slow descent away from the values that they were taught in society. The boys are obviously worse off due to this, which is easily observed from the actions of Roger, who, “with a sense of delirious abandonment, leaned all his weight on the lever.” (Golding 200) This action kills an innocent person and was caused by Roger’s complete opposition to the ideals of society. Golding ensures that the reader understands his view, that evil comes from inside us, in his use of the Lord of the Flies speech, in which the pig’s head says “Fancy thinking the Beast was something you could hunt and kill!...I’m part of you?” (Golding 158) This shows exactly where Golding stands on the nature of evil. For a

conflicting standpoint, one must only look at 1984 and Orwell’s ideas on the nature of evil. In 1984, the novel that Winston reads, entitled The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, showcases the historical significance of societal structure and its three major classes; high, medium, and low. It explains the fluctuations involved in these classes and their importance to society as a whole. After this, the book outlines the approach that the party takes to exploit this societal hierarchy for its own benefit. It illustrates the evil standards that the party enforces by its exploitation of the public resources and manpower, for the sole purpose of sustaining the upper class. The book by Emmanuel Goldstein states that “society regrouped itself, as always, into High, Middle, and Low. But the new High group, unlike all its forerunners, did not act upon instinct but knew what was needed to safeguard its position.” (Orwell 206) This concept illustrates the great evils that society manufactured, the circumstances involving oppression and sustained fear that could not exist in an anarchic land. This is the opposing argument of Golding’s idea; that evil comes from the society we live in, and that man, untainted by others, is pure. Orwell’s devotion to his idea does not compare to Golding’s stronger devotion to his belief, but Orwell manages to present a composite explanation of the pitfalls of society and man’s blind trust in its rule. In this way, the two novels will forever be separated, as their morals do not coincide.
By the comparisons made between of genres and moral ideas, it can be determined that Lord of the Flies and 1984 are very different novels and should be treated as such, despite the latent similarities. If anything, it is odd that these two very differently established novels should have any similarities at all. The Cold War and all event prior drew passionate reactions from all humans living through the time, and the two novels, although grounded on the same premise, show two distinct interpretations of human nature and our response to strife. There will always be a place in society for these two works of literature, as they teach man to question his nature, and allows him to make a decision. Some may think Golding’s take was right, or Orwell’s, or perhaps that both contained some truth, but the most important aspect of life that all should draw from their experiences with Cold War era literature is that thought facilitates progress, and without progress, the world will deteriorate into either of the bleak futures that Golding and Orwell depict.