Filozófia | Felsőoktatás » Marie Waloszkova - Good and Evil in William Golding and Iris Murdoch

MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA FILOZOFICKÁ FAKULTA Katedra anglistiky a amerikanistiky Bakalářská diplomová práce 2015 Marie Waloszková MASARYK UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF ARTS Department of English and American Studies English Language and Literature Good and Evil in William Golding and Iris Murdoch Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis Marie Waloszková Supervisor: prof. Mgr Milada Franková, CSc, MA 2015 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. . Author’s signature I would like to thank prof. Mgr Milada Franková, CSc, MA for her advice and kind encouragement during the writing of this thesis. Also, I would like to thank my loved ones for their active and wholehearted support. Table of Contents Introduction. 2 1 2 Good and evil in Lord of the Flies . 4 1.1 On William Golding’s views . 4 1.2 The boys as a whole . 6 1.3 The tendency towards evil does not depend on age . 8 1.4

Ralphthe democratic voice . 10 1.5 Piggythe voice of reason. 11 1.6 Simonthe voice of revelation . 12 1.7 Jackthe voice of arrogance and obsession . 14 1.8 The Lord of the Fliesthe voice of evil . 16 1.9 The naval officerthe voice of naivety . 17 1.10 The “littlun” with the mulberry birthmarkthe lost voice. 18 1.11 A note on the conclusions . 19 Good and evil in The Sandcastle . 20 2.1 On Iris Murdoch’s views . 20 2.2 The easy to express the difficult . 23 2.3 Mor & Nanthe reality. 24 2.4 Mor & Rainthe sandcastle . 28 2.5 Evvy vs. Demoytethe good vs the popular 31 2.6 Bledyardat the core of the truth . 33 2.7 Further note on the characters. 36 Conclusion . 37 Works cited and consulted . 40 1 Introduction Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me. ― Immanuel Kant Good and evil are concepts each person deals with every day; often unconsciously. However differently each person perceives them, sometimes

one happens to wonder where one’s sense of morality comes from, and what the source of one’s particular actions or beliefs is. What leads one to make the very decisions one does? What are the motives of one’s actions? And what is one’s nature like? These are some issues this thesis aims to explore, though it cannot give definite answers. Furthermore, there is a question of why one should try to be good, for every person has limitations and somewhat tends to act wrongly. As Oswald Chambers remarks: “All noble things are difficult,” and one naturally and inevitably fails in one’s struggle for goodness. Yet, it seems that it can provide one with a sort of deep, inner happinessit seems to be worth it, although it is impossible to achieve. This is what the thesis particularly wants to consider and if possible, to prove Since it is considerably difficult to provide clear and general definitions of good and evil, the thesis is going to focus on how they are represented in

selected novels of William Golding and Iris Murdoch, two authors who were deeply interested in the issue of morality; the novels being Lord of the Flies and The Sandcastle. For good and evil are most visible in the actions of characters, the following chapters are going to be dedicated to character analyses with regard to possible motives and background of their behaviour. The thesis is not meant to judge; rather, it is meant to understand human nature a little more. Also, it aims to consider the differences in each author’s approach to morality, together with what each of them regards to be an ideal of goodness. 2 Thus, the first part of the thesis is going to be dedicated to Lord of the Flies; the second to The Sandcastle. Each part is going to be introduced by a brief presentation of the author’s views; then the discussion is going to proceed with the analysis of the author’s views as they appear in the novel, that is to say, in its characters. Whatever the conclusions,

the thesis wants to offer some hope and understanding to the reader, which may then encourage them to contemplate their own lives and actions. 3 1 Good and evil in Lord of the Flies Golding’s fiction has been too complex and many-sided to be reducible to a thesis and a conclusion. ― Mark Kinkead-Weekes and Ian Gregor 64 However simple might it seem concerning form, Lord of the Flies presents a challenge both to the reader and the critic regarding content and interpretation: its fable-likeor parableand mythic-likenarrative with some questions that are left unanswered, with symbols that are not concisely used throughout the story, and no clear conclusion, it requires a degree of effort on the part of the reader. It is not easy to decode William Golding’s precise message of a story like this; there is a good deal of ambiguity. Nevertheless, this does not have to be a bad thing, for this kind of writing, demanding the reader’s part in interpreting the story, embraces the

postmodern concept of death of the author. Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor comment that “even in his first novel, it is not explanation and conclusion, but imaginative impact which is finally memorable” (64). Before the very consideration of the novel, let the discussion begin with the introduction of some issues related to Golding’s writing as well as his life experience. 1.1 On William Golding’s views Golding describes his intention of writing Lord of the Flies as: “an attempt to trace the defects of society back to the defects of human nature. The moral is that the shape of a society must depend on the ethical nature of the individual and not on any political system however apparently logical or respectable” (qtd. in Spitz 22; Epstein) In other words, 4 according to Golding, man has to be ethical by himself; his morality must not be imposed upon him by any authority: social, political, or religious. In Lord of the Flies, he isolates his boys on an island, which appears

to be an ideal place concerning resources and safety, so that the true nature of the boys is revealed by itself, not interrupted by any external factors. He also “[keeps] them below the age of overt sex, for he wish[es] to exclude this issue as a causal factor. He exclude[s] too private property and the struggle for survival” (Spitz 23). Gradually, the boys abandon the ethical background of the society, which is a long way away, and almost all of them succumb to the evilthe beasthidden within them. The conclusions Golding reaches about the nature of man are very pessimistic; however, these assumptions come from his World War Two experience, which had a deep influence over him, particularly at the time he wrote the novel, for he had seen many brutalities a man was capable of doing to another man during his service in the Navy. Later, his attitude somewhat softened As he once stated in a lecture: Before the Second World War I believed in the perfectibility of social man; . It is

possible that today I believe something of the same again; but after the war I did not because I was unable to. I am thinking of the vileness beyond all words They [the bad things] were not done by the head-hunters of New Guinea, or by some primitive tribe in the Amazon. They were done, skilfully, coldly, by educated men, doctors, lawyers, by men with a tradition of civilization behind them, to beings of their own kind. I believed that the condition of man was to be a morally diseased creation . (qtd in Spitz 22-3) 5 Golding models his story on Coral Island, an imperial and idyllic story by R. M Ballantyne: there is also a group of English boys shipwrecked on an island; however, the boys are “without malice or wickedness”, and the evil comes from the outside by savage cannibals and pirates (Niemeyer 242). The ending is positive, with the victory of English order and religion enriching the lives of the barbarians. In Lord of the Flies, the story is alluded to a few

times, and Golding even borrows three characters from this novel: Jack, Ralph, and Peterkin (whose name he changes for Piggy). The aim of Golding is to “[correct] Ballantyne’s optimism” (243) and his “world of blacks and whites” (245), which he considers to be a “fake” (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 21). The easiest way to display Golding’s views on good and evil is the portrayal of his characters. However, it is going to be more about evil than good First, the group of boys as a whole is going to be considered, and then the most important characters individually, i.e Ralph, Piggy, Simon, Jack, the Lord of the Flies, and the naval officer respectively. Afterwards, the fate of a little boy who disappeared without trace, which is rather neglected in the story, is going to be touched upon. 1.2 The boys as a whole The key concepts of the story are revelation and transformation (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 17; 22). At the beginning, the boys perceive their condition as

a game: “This is our island. It’s a good island Until the grown-ups come to fetch us we’ll have fun” (Golding 34). Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor call this stage a “glamour” stage: the boys are excited about the island, and by the “real exploring” 6 the real adventure (Golding 26). In this stage, they elect their chief, divide the responsibilities among themselves, and establish some rules, following the example of the society that is left behind them. Soon, however, their optimism is overshadowed, and evil is slowly revealing itself: by sheer irresponsibility, the boys burn part of the wood while making a signal fire, and a little boy disappears without trace. Here, “we are made aware that innocence which consists largely of ignorance and irresponsibility may be far from harmless” (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 26). Nightmares and fear too are introduced. Later on, the differences between the boys’ characters and intentions emerge: whereas Ralph cares for the signal

fire so that they can be rescued, Jack is only interested in hunting. Thus, the concept of fellowship is gradually weakening, with Ralph and Jack becoming “two continents of experience and feeling, unable to communicate” (Golding 53). The turning point comes when the hunters kill the sow and shed her blood in a rather brutal way: it is then they finally and openly overcome the inability to do harm to a living creature, which has been gradually revealing itselfnow they are transformed. The killing is described in terms of bloodlustin the literal meaning killing is no longer a means to get meat, or a tendency to do harm, but also a means to satisfy their “bloodthirstiness” (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 42-3). Many critics look at this passage as a reference to the Freudian sexuality1; however, Golding himself disclaims such an interpretation (42-3; Dick 481; Epstein). What contributes to this transformation are the masks that the hunters wear: “[they are] safe from shame or 1

C.f: “The sow staggered her way ahead of them, bleeding and mad, and the hunters followed, wedded to her in lust, excited by the long chase and the dropped blood.” Roger put his spear “[r]ight up her ass” (Golding 129; my italics). 7 self-consciousness behind the mask[s] of [their] paint” (Golding 134). With this paint on, they are able to do what they would not be able to do without it. It is worth noting that the boys tend to act recklessly as a crowd on several occasions; as Piggy puts it, they act “like a crowd of kids” (Golding 171). When Ralph tells the others Piggy’s nickname, “a storm of laughter arose and even the tiniest child joined in. For the moment the boys were a closed circuit of sympathy with Piggy outside” (21). When Ralph mentions making a fire on the mountain top, everybody goes there without thinking whether it is wise enough or not except for Piggy. Next, when Jack asks the others to vote for him as a new chief, nobody does so, for

they are afraid. However, Jack persuades the boys individually, as it is easier to persuade one than to persuade the whole group with the chief present, whatever his authority. Next, there is the death of the sow and the bloodlust, strengthened by the common excitement: “we see how ritual motion and corybantic chanting bring about the psychological birth of the aliens” (Baker 322). Crowd’s folly reaches its peak with the death of Simonone beats because the others beat as well, that is the justification. This tendency is only confirmed by the further development of the story 1.3 The tendency towards evil does not depend on age In chapter four, Golding provides the reader with a few episodes on the “natural man”, showing that the nature of man is corrupt without exception; that even small children tend to behave badly (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 32). First, the older boys destroy the sandcastles built by the smallest boys, and one of these boys, Percival, is crying because

Maurice has thrown some sand into his eyes. Then, another one of these boys, Johnny, who is “well built, with fair hair and a natural 8 belligerence,” starts to throw sand as well: “Percival finished his whimper and went on playing, for the tears had washed the sand away. Johnny watched him with china-blue eyes; then began to fling up sand in a shower, and presently Percival was crying again” (Golding 57; my italics). Then Henry, who is a little older than Percival and Johnny, plays with small sea-creatures: “This was fascinating to Henry. He poked about with a bit of stick . and tried to control the motions of the scavengers He became absorbed beyond mere happiness as he felt himself exercising control over living things” (58). Finally, there is Roger, throwing stones at Henry: this time, he does not aim at him, for he is bound by the norms of society: he does notand cannotthrow stones at him because it is wrong, but, at the same time, he plays with the thought of

doing so: “Roger’s arm was conditioned by a civilization that knew nothing of him and was in ruins” (59; my italics). “[T]hat last sentence shows that the restraint is only a taboo, a social conditioning or superstition, not anything innate” (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 32). However, Johnny is too small “to have been conditioned” (31). The point of these episodes is to show that there is a tendency towards evil in every man, however young he might beevil is present within as if it was sleeping, and the only way to prevent it from waking is to cultivate natural morality, i.e good for the sake of good, not social conditioning. Therefore, it is important to bear in mind that Roger’s behaviour is only a stronger version of Johnny’s and Henry’s (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 32). 9 1.4 Ralphthe democratic voice According to Spitz, Ralph presents the voice of democracy; he is the “symbol of consent” (26): “there was a mildness about his mouth and eyes that proclaimed

no devil” (Golding 10). There is goodwill in Ralph’s actions, “charm and warmth”, and respect for the rules that have been established. He tries to maintain this order within the group, cares for the common good, and is anxious about being rescued (which requires an active and pragmatic approach). He feels responsible for the “littluns”ie little onesand is capable of being a good leaderhe has a “gift for leadership”. These qualitiesof responsibility and capabilityare, however, limited, “incomplete” (Niemeyer 243-4). For Ralph is not more intelligent nor is he more capable than the other boys; the aura that surrounds him is the result of him blowing the conch, the symbol of “democracy” (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 21). Ralph does not promise the boys an easy life; he keeps reminding them about the necessity of maintaining the fire burning, and of work to be done. Many times, he is not successful in attracting the boys to his objectivesthey soon disappear to play or

enjoy themselves. This, together with the fading importance of the conch, and a strange “veil” obscuring his ideas, cause the boys to leave not only him, but also his principles of democracy, favouring Jack’s promise of food and fun (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 18; 21; Spitz 26-7). On the other hand, Ralph is not always kind and “warm”: at the beginning of the book, he appears to be quite proud: he neglects Piggy quite openly, not paying attention when he is speaking, and judges him by his appearance. When he expresses his initial dislike of the boy on a couple of occasions, it seems that he does so in order to impress the 10 others (e.g when he reveals Piggy’s offensive nickname despite his wish) In other words, he belittles Piggy in order to be enlarged himself. This is a rather common device of (school)children. Moreover, in the mock hunt with Robert playing the pig, “Ralph was too fighting to get near, to get a handful of that brown, vulnerable flesh. The desire to

squeeze and hurt was overmastering” (Golding 109). Similarly, Ralph is present at the murder of Simon, though he is outside the circle of the beating boys: “Piggy and Ralph, under the threat of the sky, found themselves eager to take place in this demented but partly secure society” (144). These examples, again, show Golding’s assumption that there is a capacity for evil in every man. What is important, however, is that Ralph chooses civilizationhe prefers to be good. 1.5 Piggythe voice of reason Piggy has been described in a variety of ways. Undoubtedly, he represents intelligence, reason, and common sense; he is very practical. Unlike Ralph, who sometimes does not know what to do, he can appreciate the situation, and does not hesitate to make quick decisions, or to give advice. According to Spitz, Piggy resembles Socrates: “he is ugly, fat, andto men unappreciative of reasona bore, with a disinclination for manual labor” (26). He continually seeks inspiration and advice

in the adult world, and in what he thinks adults would do under such circumstances. He tries to persuade the others that there cannot be any beast on the island, as this is purely irrational, “unless we get frightened of people” (Golding 80). Little by little, Ralph is able to see this intelligence in him, and at the end, he realizes that Piggy was a “true, wise friend” (192). For Golding, however, Piggy is 11 of a different kind: “Piggy isn’t wise. Piggy is short-sighted He is rationalist My great curse, you understand, rationalismand, well he is that. He is naïve, short-sighted and rationalist, like most scientists” (qtd. in Baker 319) Furthermore, Piggy is unpopularan outsiderdue to his appearance, and physical limitations: “he is forever being betrayed by his body”. Therefore, his ideas can only be realized through Ralph; without him, “he is powerless” (Niemeyer 243). He knows the dark side of man since he has experienced bullying, derision, and injustice

before; thus his compassion for the “littluns”, eagerness to be accepted, and, conversely, his indignation, stubbornness, and fear of Jack. He is a “tragic hero”, but still, there is a good deal of ambiguity surrounding the significance of him as a character: on the one hand, he represents Golding’s criticism of scientific humanism; Baker even argues that there is a lot of “misunderstanding” on the part of the reader and the critic, whogenerallywrongly perceive Piggy as a positive character (318-9). However, this might be too strong a claim, as there should definitely be some space left for the reader’s interpretation. As Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor comment, “like the other characters Piggy does embody meaning of various kinds, so that we become aware through our imaginative response to the boy of wider horizons and deeper problems beyond him” (20). 1.6 Simonthe voice of revelation In Spitz’s terms, Simon is “the voice of revelation” (25). Unlike Ralph, Piggy,

or anyone else, he is the character who is good by nature. He tries to do good simply because it is good, not for the sake of other people or society. He is a gentle and sensitive boy: he 12 somewhat helps Jack and Piggy to be more united, and the “littluns” like him, not only because he provides them with the fruit from tall trees. He is always referred to as a “saint”, a “mystic”, or a “Christ-figure” (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 21; Spitz 25; Niemeyer 243; Baker 317), for he can appreciate the beauty of nature, even if its only purpose is to please one’s eyehe has the sense of the “poetic and mystical” (KinkeadWeekes and Gregor 29). Furthermore, he devotes his time to contemplation in a serene place in the jungle he likes, which is often perceived as a prayer. Also, he has a “quality of sheer faith” (40): he lifts Ralph’s spirits by assuring him that he will certainly come home safe. According to Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor, “he is outside the hunter

mentality [Jack’s], the leader mentality [Ralph’s], outside even himself. He exists in terms of his sensitivity to what is outside him. This allows him to know comprehensively” (30; my italics) This knowledge is a crucial factor in his understanding of the true nature of the beast that troubles the boys: he has the inkling that the evil is not external, but rather internal, which is later fully revealed to him by the Lord of the Flies: “‘Maybe,’ he said hesitantly, ‘maybe there is a beast . What I mean is maybe it’s only us’” (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 35; 38; Golding 85). Similarly, he does not believe in the alleged beast, the dead parachutistwhom Spitz calls “the false god”at the top of the mountain (25). Nevertheless, he is not understood by the boys when he mentions his view on the nature of the beast during the assembly; he is not able to express himself clearly, and the boys laugh: “Simon became inarticulate in his effort to express man’s

essential illness” (Golding 85). Even Piggy, who thinks that one might be “frightened of people” (see above), despises his remark. “ Simon, the dreamer who bashes into a tree because he isn’t looking where he’s going, cannot be accepted uncritically” (Kinkead-Weekes 13 and Gregor 38). This non-acceptance leads the boys into the fatal error on the night of the storm. “ Simon’s failure is the inevitable failure of the mysticwhat he knows is beyond words; he cannot impart his insights to others” (Niemeyer 243). It is quite remarkable that Golding somewhat hides the true nature of Simon: he is too often referred to as “batty”, and his “black coarse hair” tends to be more memorable than his sensitivity and natural goodness. When he is killed, Piggy raises the issue by saying “He was batty. He asked for it” (Golding 149) Is it a deliberate choice on the part of Golding, or does it express the idea that the saint cannot be understood by the common folk?

That is the question (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 55). One explanation for Simon’s extraordinariness might be his way of seeing“he exists in terms of his sensitivity to what is outside him”which differs from the others’ view, which appears to be much more self-centred. 1.7 Jackthe voice of arrogance and obsession Jack might be the most experienced of the boys since it is only him whose surname is referred to. However, he is “arrogant and lacking in Ralph’s charm and warmth” (Niemeyer 244). He seeks such power and authority that Niemeyer calls “naked ruthless power, the police force or the military force acting without restraint” (244). He is obsessed with huntingthe idea of exercising power over living creatures. First, he obeys the rules as he is satisfied with leading the hunters; later, however, he breaks them to the point of leaving the group entirely, making his own tribe with his own rules. He knows how to influence the crowd, but despises the “littluns”

since they are “useless” for him (Spitz 27). According to Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor, he has the “knowledge that Ralph singularly 14 lacks and would be better for having”: Jack can imagine himself in the shoes of the others, who have troubles with nightmaresthis quality later helps him persuade the boys to join his tribe: unlike Ralph, he manages to attract them by promising meat and fun, which are definitely more enjoyable than working (29). It is then that he can finally exercise his authority, achieving his objectives because the boys fear him. Sometimes, Jack is called a “Satanic” and devilish “figure”, “a villain”, or “a personification of absolute evil” (Spitz 27; Niemeyer 244). Given his red hair, an ugly face, and a black choir uniform, it seems to be an apt description. What might be more important, however, is the cause for his transition from a schoolboy to a savage. First and foremost, it is the mask: “He looked in astonishment, no longer at

himself but at an awesome stranger. He began to dance and his laughter became a bloodthirsty snarling He capered towards Bill, and the mask was a thing on its own, behind which Jack hid, liberated from shame and self-consciousness” (Golding 61). Thus, Jack is able to kill once the mask is on. Nevertheless, first, “his face-painting starts off as a reversion to civilization, not to savagery” (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 33; my italics). Second, his violence and hatred can be partly caused by rejection: when the first pig is killed and everyone enjoys their chunk of meat, Jack’s success is notfor him acknowledged sufficiently: “Jack looked round for understanding but found only respect” (Golding 71). When Jack parts after having been rejected with his idea of a new election, “the humiliating tears were running from the corner of each eye” (121). However right Jack is in feeling this, this rejection hardened his mind, changing the feelings of hurt into a desire to hurt in

turn. Unlike Simon, who pays attention to what is outside him, Jack is too concernedor obsessedabout being recognized himself, which makes him blind and mad. 15 At the end, with the arrival of the naval officer, the reader suddenly sees that Jack is only “a little boy” as the perspective shifts from Ralph’s to the officer’s. Thus, the officer embodies a “superior power”, which defeats Jack’s (Niemeyer 244). 1.8 The Lord of the Fliesthe voice of evil What may be quite ambiguous is the nature of the Lord of the Flies. Literally, “Lord of the Flies” means Beelzebub. Rather than the Devil, however, he is the very “personification of evil” that is within man. According to Spitz, “he is the beast that is part of man Having rejected God, man can look only to himself. Having rejected reason [Piggy] and consent [Ralph], what remains within himself is only savagery and force [Jack]. The boys are [both] the flies and the beast, the evil, the senseless passion that is

in man; in each and every man . is the Lord” (28) As the Lord himself says to Simon: “this is ridiculous You know perfectly well you’ll only meet me down there [in the boys] – so don’t try to escape!” (Golding 137). Correspondingly, Baker notes that “Beelzebub, the fly lord, [is] present in the ‘buzz’ of conflicting voices at the parliaments on the platform rock” (321). In Epstein’s view, the Lord of the Flies represents a modern Devil rather than the one “in any traditional religious sense”“the anarchic, amoral driving force that Freudians call the Id . ” What is relevant, however, is that “the pig’s head is not a symbol of anything abstract or outside the boys . ; it is, like the parachutist, a solid object with a history ” (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 43). The Lord of the Flies, therefore, cannot be the Devil because the Devil is the incarnation of evil that is external. At the same time, the Lord of the Flies is not abstract, for he is

concretely manifested in the actions of man. 16 1.9 The naval officerthe voice of naivety The naval officer appears at the scene at the very end of the book: when Ralph emerges from the woods and thinks he will shortly be killed, he sees the officer on the beach, who then interrogates him about the situation on the island. Since he is an outsider, he is very much surprised to see little, dirty savages; and somewhat does not understand the gravity of the situation. He speaks to the boys as if they were little but does not realize the transformation they have undergone on the islandhence his naivety. His arrival very much resembles the concept of deus ex machina of the Greek drama (Dick 481): his sudden appearance resolves the situation that would otherwise lead to gradual “self-destruction”. With his arrival, a new, “superior power” is introduced, and his very figure is a sufficient cause for the boys to realize and abandon their savagery (Niemeyer 244). “The timely

arrival of the British Navy is less theatrical than logically necessary to make Golding’s point. For civilization defeats the beast It slinks back into the jungle as the boys creep out to be rescued; but the beast is real. It is there, and it may return” (245; my italics). Yet, the fact remains that the officer is also corrupt, for the ship which is to rescue the boys is going to hunt and kill in turn since it is war. Unlike the boys, however, the officer does not realize the significance of what he doeshe lacks the key knowledgeand this makes him even less mature than the boys (Dick 481): “in thinking himself as not only superior to, but even other than the children, it is the man that is the child. It is Ralph who is ‘grown-up’, but he shows his adulthood by weeping” (Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor 63). Thus, despite the relatively positive ending, there is a touch of irony. 17 1.10 The “littlun” with the mulberry birthmarkthe lost voice What is worth mentioning is

the character of the “littlun” with the mulberry mark on his face, and what his significance in the story is. He is first introduced in chapter two during the second assembly as “a shrimp of a boy, about six years old . He [stands] now, warped out of the perpendicular by the fierce light of publicity, and he [bores] into the coarse grass with one toe. He [is] muttering and about to cry” (Golding 34) He is about to say that he saw a “snake-thing”, “a beastie” who “wanted to eat him” “in the woods”. Ralph dismisses his remark as “. there isn’t a beast!”, which seems to be very likely concerning the relative safety of the island (35-6). At the end of this chapter, the “littlun” goes missing, and nobody sees him again. There is not any hint regarding his fate, nor is there any explanation for “the beastie”, except for a note: Three [“littluns”] were playing now – Henry was the biggest of them. He was also a distant relative of that other boy

whose mulberry-marked face had not been seen since the evening of the great fire; but he was not old enough to understand this, and if he had been told that the other boy had gone home in an aircraft, he would have accepted the statement without fuss or disbelief (57). This element only increases the ambiguity in the story with mystery. A few allusions to the “littlun” arouse feelings of fear and awe among the boys; yet, at the end, they acknowledge that only two boys were killed, completely forgetting this boy. The question therefore remains unresolved, raising other questions instead. 18 1.11 A note on the conclusions The sudden ending of the storywhen the reader is still in tensionpresents a challenge to them: what is the conclusion? According to Baker, “Golding’s allegory, Lord of the Flies, offers no real hope for redemption. Golding kills off the only saint available (as history obliges him to do) and demonstrates the inadequacy of a decent leader (Ralph) who is at

once too innocent and ignorant of the human heart to save the day from darkness” (325). Although there is not any clear conclusion on the part of Golding, his intention was probably what Baker suggests. However, as Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor remind us throughout their study, it is the reader who is to decide what the conclusion is for them: Ralph’s weeping, they argue, might be Golding’s “response, [but] not an answer” (64). Some scholars, however, consider the end to be positive, e.g Niemeyer who sees the arrival of the naval officer as the force of civilization that is stronger than the beast (see above). Baker’s essay, nevertheless, continues with the comment that Golding himself later reconsidered his view, coming close to what Niemeyer believes. Let this discussion be ended with Kinkead-Weekes and Gregor’s note: “both too much and too little has been claimed for Golding’s first novel. That is why it is often so difficult to be fair to it (20) 19 2 Good and

evil in The Sandcastle We are not isolated free choosers, monarchs of all we survey, but benighted creatures sunk in a reality whose nature we are constantly and overwhelmingly tempted to deform by fantasy. ― Iris Murdoch, Against Dryness 20 Iris Murdoch, too, is deeply interested in the issues of good and evil. Her views, however, differ from Golding’s in some respects. Interested in philosophy as she was, it is naturally present in her fiction. Therefore, before beginning with the discussion of The Sandcastle, a brief introduction of the basic, recurrent concepts she deals with might be useful. 2.1 On Iris Murdoch’s views In the essay Against Dryness, Murdoch criticizes the tendencies of the 20th-century novel-writing: according to her, the 20th-century novel may be divided into two groups the “crystalline” novel and the “journalistic” novel. The first is described as “a small quasi-allegorical object portraying the human condition and not containing

‘characters’ in the 19th-century sense”; the second as “a large shapeless quasi-documentary object, the degenerate descendant of the 19th-century novel, telling with pale conventional characters, some straightforward story enlivened with empirical facts.” For both, the key “virtue” is “sincerity” (17-18). There seems to be a striking resemblance between the crystalline novel and the novels of William Golding. On the other hand, novels such as Mrs Dalloway may be attributed to the characteristics of the journalistic novel. This literary “dryness” emphasizes “sincerity”; and “solitude”, “isolation”, and “self-centredness” of characters. Against sincerity, Murdoch puts the idea of truth, and against isolated individualism, the 20 idea of interconnectedness of people and respect for others: “we need to return from the self-centred concept of sincerity to the other-centred concept of truth” (Against Dryness 17-20; Byatt 3-5). The struggle for

truth equals the struggle for realism (as opposed to fantasy). Murdoch tries to portray realistic charactersin the 19th-century senseand stresses the idea of “complexity” and “opacity” of real people, as well as the “incompleteness” of reality as a natural phenomenon. The crucial concept here is contingencyacceptance of the unexpected (Byatt 20). As Byatt summarizes and explains, We need, she [Murdoch] says, ‘a respect for the contingent’, for imagination as opposed to fantasy, and an essential part of the concept of the contingent is seen to be an awareness of ‘the real impenetrable human person’. ‘Real people are destructive of myth, contingency is destructive of fantasy, and opens the way for imagination.’ Imagination, a quality Miss Murdoch exemplifies in Shakespeare and the Russians, ‘those great masters of the contingent’, is an attempt to apprehend truth . ” (5) Contingency, that is to say, leads to truth through imagination, and destroys fantasy.

Another important feature of Murdoch’s writing is her emphasis on seeing and accepting the “otherness” in people“otherness” as opposed to samenessin love-relationships in particular: seeing the partner “as another person, not an extension of [oneself]” (Byatt 77). This is closely connected with the concept of freedom For Murdoch, “. real freedom is a total absence of concern about yourself” (The Sandcastle 215) Thus, one can see the world outside oneself as “an enlargement and enrichment of one’s own personality” (Woo 11). 21 What connects all the concepts is love. That is what those 20th-century novelists lack when they portray theirfor Murdochunrealistic characters in the crystalline or journalistic manner. John Bayley, Murdoch’s husband, argues: “what I understand by an author’s love for his character, is a delight in their independent existence as other people, an attitude towards them which is analogous to our feelings towards those we love in

life; an intense interest in their personalities combined with a sort of detached solicitude, a respect for their freedom” (qtd. in Woo 5) This love should also lie at the core of human relationships: to be able to see the true “otherness” in people, one has to forget one’s self first. However, this true apprehension of people is often damaged by fantasy: one idealizes the other person and therefore “does not see the loved object as a real, free human being, unique and contingent, but as an idea of [one’s] own making” (Woo 10). Here, it seems, Golding’s and Murdoch’s ideas equal, for this love and acceptance of “otherness” in people are represented in Simon’s “[existence] in terms of his sensitivity to what is outside him”. These features are clues to understanding Iris Murdoch’s fiction. To put it in a nutshell, what leads to good is the acceptance of the world as a contingent world, as well as the acceptance of contingency in othersthey might act

unexpectedly because they perceive the world differently. Furthermore, denial of self leads not only to freedom, but also to a true image of reality and people one lives with, and therefore to successful relationships. What might lead to evil is, by contrast, isolation, one’s perception of reality distorted by fantasyi.e idealizationand too much reliance on one’s own needs and desires. All this is going to be considered shortly in the discussion of The Sandcastle 22 2.2 The easy to express the difficult The Sandcastle is, generally speaking, one of the less successful novels of Iris Murdoch. It is often criticized for its simplicity that comes close to a “woman’s novelette”an ordinary story about ordinary people, not really outstanding concerning narrative, whose aim is to “console”, primarily, married women by encouraging them to appreciate the real life of fidelity and family duty rather than the dreamy and “nasty” world of romance. Besides, the symbols Murdoch

uses are seen as distorting the realistic tone of the novel since they are too transparent and purpose-built (Byatt 65-6). However, this very simplicity is attractive to Murdoch “precisely because of its ordinariness and triteness”, for it is close to real lives, real issues, of real people. She perceives that people are so much absorbed in “abstract studies of the ‘state of man’” that they tend to overlook the concrete issues of human relationships. Therefore, she meant The Sandcastle to “[contain] a problem which is a ‘real moral issue’ and involves ‘ordinary moral virtue’, which again, Miss Murdoch feels we neglect” (Byatt 67). Although not as much critically evaluated as her other works, The Sandcastle may be attractive to the reader simply because of its close relation to the concrete issues they face in their lives. After this introduction, let the case proceed with the close consideration of the relations and characters of the novel. First, Mor’s

relations with his wife and girlfriend respectively is going to be analysed, and then the role of other characters in the development of the story, especially in the decisions that are made. Special attention is going to be paid to the role of goodness of the individual in the people around them by the consideration of the characters of Evvy, Demoyte, and Bledyard. 23 2.3 Mor & Nanthe reality In Murdoch’s view, what is crucial to bear in mind is respect for the reality one lives in. Willingly or not, one is dependent on reality, for one is interconnected with other people through social relations. Therefore, one must consider one’s actions because they are not just important for oneself; they also inevitably influence others. That is what Mor deals with when he has to decide which woman to continue his life with. Mor is not described in detail in the novel since the story is, generally, told from his perspective. Nevertheless, from what is in the book, the reader assumes

that he is not particularly attractive, nor is he especially intelligent and outstanding as a character; he appears to be an ordinary man. Some, such as Dooley, regard him even as a “coward” who has several limitations (422-3). Yet, it is this ordinarinesshere meaning normalitythat befriends him with Rain. Concerning other characters, their eccentricities in appearance or behaviour do not allow her to come close enough to understand them, for they may even be annoying: “‘Do you mind if we talk for a minute or two? . I really feel knocked out by that conversation [with Bledyard]. It’s a great relief to be able to talk to you” (The Sandcastle 82). Also, Dooley argues that Mor possesses the quality of “openness to others”, which later, however, betrays him as it goes too farhe falls in love with Rain (422). Limited and ordinary as he is, however, Mor is fairly attractive to the reader because they may identify themselves with him, for everyone has limitations (Byatt 75).

Therefore, they are generally sympathetic towards him. Nan, by contrast, is portrayed in the way that makes her highly unpopular. As Dooley notes, “it certainly would be a different novel if Nan excited the reader’s empathy to a greater degree” (423). Similarly, Conradi notes that “we begin to understand Nan’s 24 disappointment but insufficiently to want Mor to return to her” (56). The reader is thus close to thinking that she deserves being abandoned by Mor. Undoubtedly, Nan’s behaviour is not the best. She seems to be an example of the opposite of Murdoch’s ideals: she constantly and deliberately destroys her husband’s ego, does not respect his male dominance in marriage, does not consider his needs and wishes, and, also, continually enters and rearranges her children’s rooms, not respecting their privacyshe enjoys imposing her influence over others. Moreover, she does not seem to respect other people at all; she perceives their faults only, and that is why

she has few friends. In public, she promotes a positive image of herself but at home, she criticizes people openly. As Mor observes, “she [often] behave[s] as one surrounded by her inferiors” (The Sandcastle 58). However, the beginning of the book reads that “she deliberately related herself to the world through him [Mor] only, and then disliked him for it. She had few friends, and no occupations other than housework” (14). It seems, therefore, that it is she who is largely responsible for the way her world is organized, for she is not willing to cultivate it, blaming the others for the imperfections instead. The Mor marriage is pictured as a “dry world”, with love that is gone, consumed by routine (Woo 27). Both partners quite miss each other’s personality as they are affected by the years spent together, supposing that they know their partner sufficiently to be surprised by them in any way, shape, or formthere is little hope for water, metaphorically speaking, that

would enliven their relationship. Nevertheless, sunk in the routine as they are, they do not realize this, which leads to gradual detachment, since they do not focus their attention to the “otherness” of their partner. In other words, there is not much space for contingency in their marriage. This dryness is also symbolized by Liffey, the dog the family used to have. It is dead, for it was killed by a car two years before “This animal had 25 formed the bond between Mor and Nan which their children had been unable to form. Half unconsciously, whenever Mor wanted to placate his wife he said something about Liffey” (The Sandcastle 9). Thus, as it is dead, being only a memory which may be forgotten in timedried out, metaphorically speakingit symbolizes the dryness of the marriage, for a dead bond cannot last long. However, despite the imperfections, the marriage represents the reality that Murdoch emphasizes in her fiction. It is this world of actuality that leads to good, as

Murdoch expresses through Bledyard: ‘. I think you are acting wrongly You are deeply bound to your wife and to your children, and deeply rooted in your own life. Perhaps that life that life (sic) will hold you in spite of yourself. But if you break break (sic) these bonds you destroy a part of the world. There is such a thing as respect for reality You are living on dreams now, dreams of happiness, dreams of freedom. But in all this you consider only yourself. You do not truly apprehend the distinct being of either your wife or Miss Carter’ (The Sandcastle 213-4). At the end, Mor is able to see this but only through Rain “who, by respecting the ‘otherness’ of the other partner, breaks the impossible fantasy” (Byatt 75). Nan, by contrast, manages to distinguish reality from fantasy herself. After having discovered Mor with Rain in their house, she, surprisingly enough, comes to visit Tim Burke despite her knowledge of his love for her. Taylor notes that while Mor

“is consumed by guilt”, Nan and Timwhich for Mor is unthinkable“come as close to adultery as anyone in the book ever comes; which is to say that Nan goes a great deal further than Mor, apparently, would ever dream of going” (138-9). However, “the reality of her 26 situation touched her, the irresponsible silliness of her present conduct” (The Sandcastle 196). Thus, she realizes that what she does is wrong, and if she succumbed to the temptation of fantasy, it would make the whole situation much worse. Nevertheless, she does not seem to feel guilty, which could be attributed to her present distress. This foolishness of her may even make her more human to the reader, softening her image of the one always in control of herself. The reality of Mor’s marriage is the reason for its success over Mor’s relationship with Rain, however loving and fulfilling it is. Nevertheless, it is the reality rather than the traditional values that Murdoch wishes to stress (Woo

35). What contributes to the victory of the marriage is also the active approach of Don and Felicity, which reminds Mor of his “roots”. The turning point, however, is Nan’s speech at the presentation dinner This act of hers is perceived as a perfectly planned, clever gesture to destroy Mor’s affair, as well as the last, desperate effort to save her marriage which forces her to change her mind fundamentallyan act of bravery; the result of her “reflection” (Byatt 77). Naturally, Mor is surprised: Who would have thought that Nan would be so ingeniousor so desperate? . Nan had attempted to corner him by a public gesture. She should be answered in the same way. To rise and go out with Rain would set the seal on all his intentions. He knew he ought to follow Rain outbut again, he could not The scene held him prisoner; his wife’s presence and her words pinned him to his chair; his whole previous life contained him like a straight jacket (The Sandcastle 295-6). 27 In

the crucial moment, the reality decides the situation for Mor, for it is stronger than his feelings for Rain. It is then that the actuality emerges and enlightens the direction of Mor’s life. Thus, since the whole Mor family is shaken and changed by the affair, there is a promise of a new, better life, though not faultless. They again come to accept the distinctness of each other, for they realized and experienced that the others may act contingently. This not only helps them to communicate and understand each other better; it also leads them to their own freedomby “a withdrawal from the normal”which is symbolized by the shining sun and the idea of buying a new dog (Byatt 67; 77). 2.4 Mor & Rainthe sandcastle Mor’s relationship with Rain is, by contrast, portrayed in a way that the reader wishes it to proceed: “we experience her [Murdoch’s] sympathy for Rain and the duller Mor, and therefore hope for the success of the affair” (Conradi 56). Yet, despite all

likelihood, the ending is different, and the initial perspective on the affair changes, the affair appearing as a fragile, fleeting sandcastle. What distinguishes Rain from Nan fundamentally is her freedom, portrayed as sheer spontaneity and independence from conventions; as well as respect for and interest in others. Rain carefully observes people around her, not only for the practical purposes of her painting. Being with her inspires Mor, and enables him to perceive differentlyher presence, and later their relationship, represents the “contingent world”, whose “almost magical quality . is seen on the night Mor and Rain enter the garden” (Woo 26-7) 28 Furthermore, Rain awakens “lightheartedness” and sensitivity towards what is outside him in Mor; and she respects and promotes his masculinity: . then it seemed to him that in some strange way it was Miss Carter who had been responsible for his ability to decide, having given him, by her mere existence, a fresh sense

of power and possibility. He seemed to enjoy the warmth and light of the evening with a simplicity which he had not known for many years; and he wondered why so much of his life was passed in fretfulness, and why moments such as these were so very rare (The Sandcastle 68; 114). Rain is a source of water for the “dry world” of his marriageher very name is a symbol. Every time they meet and are happy together, there is a reference to water or freshness (Kemp 5): when he cycles towards Demoyte’s house where he is to meet her together with other schoolmasters, there is a reference to “a soft breeze which seemed to bring, from not so very far away in the south, the freshness of the sea” (The Sandcastle 69); on their Riley outing, they are in search of a river; when Rain visits Mor’s house for the first time, there is a great storm which ends a long period of heatwave; similarly, on their outing to London, “it was raining steadily” (243). Conversely, in the morning

following their last encounter and Rain’s departure, “there was no rain” (306), only “dew” (309), and “the sun was shining” (312). Undoubtedly, Mor’s life is very much enriched through the personality of Rain. Nevertheless, their relationship is doomed, for they both do not truly apprehend the real personality of each other. “Rain’s love for Mor is based on a misreading of his character”: although she does not realize it at first, she is most probably influenced by the recent loss of her father, whom she seeks in Mor (Taylor 139). As for Mor, Demoyte 29 remarks: “I just wonder whether you can really see her” (The Sandcastle 120), which is later developed by Bledyard, who says to him, as quoted above, that he is very much influenced by fantasy, not seeing the “otherness” of neither his wife nor Miss Carter, thus being considerably selfish (214). As it was already hinted, it is Rain who realizes their position: “‘But now I can see. I see that it was

you that tricked meand I too that deceived myself . I had not seen that I would break so many, many things’ ‘If you love me’ he said ‘That word cannot guide us any more’” (303). Thus, Rain can see that love is not enough to hold them togetherto provide them with happiness, and to repair the damage that would be done should Mor leave his family: “‘You would be happy with me for a short while,’ said Rain, ‘but then what would happen? It’s all dry sand running through the fingers’” (302). Mor, by contrast, as Byatt puts it, “makes the standard self-centred appeal” (76) saying: “What do you think will happen to me if you leave me now?” (The Sandcastle 302). Rain, however, can see more clearly, and denies herself for the greater good of both of them: she fully apprehends and embraces Mor’s “otherness” as well as the reality, though it has painful consequences (Byatt 75). That Mor is acting wrongly by dating Rain, despite all the benefits from the

union, can be seen from his feelings of guilt: when he invites Rain to his house, he realizes that “he was in a terrible fix. He had behaved wrongly and he had involved another person in his wrong behaviour.” Rain also acknowledges that “this is wrong” (The Sandcastle 175) Later on, both suffer from nightmares as well as other psychosomatic disorders: “during those days Mor learned what it was to have a mind diseased. Part of his torment was the knowledge that Rain was tormented equally.” Furthermore, “he had taken to drinking quite a lot lately”, and “he saw that he had now definitely and irrevocably parted company with the truth”. What may be most striking is that “he realized, with a spasm of pain, that 30 in order to come to his beloved he would have to summon up not his good qualities but his bad ones: his anger, his hatred of Nan, his capacity for sheer irresponsible violence” (231-4). Also, what is worth mentioning, is a seeming conspiracy against

Mor which contributes to his problems even before they start: “Everything seemed to be conspiring against him to make something which was really unimportant look like something important. Now both Tim Burke and Demoyte would be thinking that something was going on, whereas in reality nothing was going on” (116-7). Certainly, this raises the importance of the situation by the incidental involvement and judgment of other people the reality is spoilt by the element of fantasybut whether it influenced Mor to proceed as he did or not, that is the question. Dooley, however, raises a different question, considering Murdoch’s ideas she discusses in The Sublime and the Good: what if Mor’s dilemma is not “a conflict between good and evil but between two goods” that are “incompatible”? (qtd. in 423) It is definitely worth considering, but this interpretation does not seem to be the case here, for it is the difference between reality and fantasy that is meant to be stressed through

this novel. Nevertheless, though it may be regarded as wrong behaviour, the affair has a positive impact on those who have been involvedthe Mor family at the very least. 2.5 Evvy vs Demoytethe good vs the popular Concerning other characters, it is rather remarkable that Murdoch somewhat contrasts goodness with popularity and acceptance: those who are closest to goodness appear to be 31 quite awkward in social relations; their goodness does not gain them acceptance implicitly. The contrast is most visible in the characters of Evvy and Demoyte. Evvy “. seems a man without any malice in him” which “is both rare and good,” Rain observes (The Sandcastle 31). Evvy’s life was not constructed, it seemed to Mor, in such a way as to leave any place in it where he could store things for himself. He lived in the open, with simplicity, seeming to lack altogether the concepts of vanity or ambition, weaknesses which he was equally incapable of harbouring within himself or of

recognizing in others (69). Evvy is portrayed as an unselfish man opened to others. Yet, as Byatt notes, he “is seen as a figure of fun”, unable to perform his role of the headmaster successfully neither at school nor on social occasions (70). “He [Mor] wondered too how it was that while Mr Everard was so gentle and unselfish, and Mr. Demoyte so much the reverse, he felt deep love and tenderness for Demoyte and could hardly summon up any affection at all for poor Evvy” (The Sandcastle 69). A sort of explanation, as Byatt suggests (71), is given through Bledyard: “. we cannot really observe really observe (sic) our betters. Vices and peculiarities are easy to portray. But who can look reverently enough upon another human face?” (The Sandcastle 78). Similarly, Conradi argues that in Murdoch, as well as in Socrates, what is closest to truth is often greeted with “mockery”as a kind of “disguise” (57). Another explanation might be provided by the biblical: “His lord

commended the dishonest manager because he had done wisely, for the children of this world are, in their own generation, wiser than the children of the light” (Luke 16:8). This parable is meant to point 32 out that the good often do not benefit from their situation, position, or mere disposition because they concentrate too much on humbleness and struggle for virtue rather than on application of the ideals they follow to their everyday lives and social relations. Such may be the reasons why Evvy’s goodness is unpraised, whereas Demoyte is being loved and accepted precisely as he is. “Yet the deeds [are] not less valiant because they are unpraised,” suggests Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings (1027). Recognition and acceptance, therefore, should not be important criteria for distinguishing people, although they might affect (as they do) one’s actions and opinions a great deal. 2.6 Bledyardat the core of the truth Bledyard is an extraordinary character, who may appear as a

fool who does not understand and is not understood at first sight. However, he provides other characters with valuable insights, and they respect him for his non-conformity. Therefore, some of his characteristics and actions deserve to be commented on in order to understand him better. Although Bledyard is ridiculed for his speech impediment by others, he isunlike Evvyrespected by them at the same time. Demoyte, “who tolerates very few people” (Woo 33), says that “. at any rate Bledyard is a man He’s got some stuff inside him” (The Sandcastle 30) Mor is of the same opinion: “he agreed with Demoyte that Bledyard was undoubtedly a man. There was something exceedingly real about him” (73) Furthermore, “Mor felt curiously wounded by Bledyard’s coldness [as a sign of his disapproval with the affair]. Although he rarely reflected upon it, he valued Bledyard’s good opinion” (162) Similarly, his good opinion of her work is important to Rain. Also, she considers him to

be 33 a good painter, and welcomes his comments regarding not only the portrait in progress, but also the affair (Woo 33-4). Next, Bledyard has a remarkable characteristic of “total lack of self-consciousness”, for “unlike most people, he is not concerned with projecting a particular kind of image of himself” (Woo 32). His first namea sign of one’s identityis not given, he lives in a plain room with no adornments, and wears plain clothes as if he does not want “to impose his personality on anything” (32-3). Bledyard, too, is not bound by convention: when at lunch at Evvy’s house, “Bledyard sat as usual, quite at his ease in saying nothing . [He] was sitting abstracted from the scene, as if he were a diner at a restaurant who had by accident to share a table with three complete strangers” (The Sandcastle 72-3). “Abstracted from the scene”, he is also completely untouched by the mockery of his performance. This lack of concern for himself enables him to

care for others insteadhe is compassionate. At that lunch, for example, he comforts Rain who begins to cry at the memory of her father by saying that he admires her father’s work, thusironically enough, for he tends to be fairly clumsy on social occasionspreventing a faux pas (Woo 33). Therefore, since “. real freedom is a total absence of concern about [one]self”, Bledyard is an example of a free man (The Sandcastle 215). This freedom enables him to see reality as it is, for his sight is not damaged by fantasy; and he does not hesitate to communicate the truth to others, even though they may despise him for this. As Woo puts it, “. he is not afraid to risk his reputation by doing what he considers his moral duty” (36). He is, thus, “Iris Murdoch’s spokesman and practitioner of her ethics”he “represents goodness. He is not sentimentalized however, for he is presented as an object of comedy with a speech impediment that makes him human as well as making all his 34

speeches ludicrously funny” (36). Again, the closeness to truth is disguised by “mockery”, which Conradi compares to Christ who was also “mocked” (57). Nevertheless, such pure ideals he represents may seem too “other-worldly” to be lived or praised (Conradi 57). Mor says to him: “such an austerity would be beyond me” (The Sandcastle 215), and also some critics emphasize the oddity of them rather than the truth: Byatt argues that “. Bledyard has too much moral force for the events he is set against, and this diminishes him as well as them” (68). In a similar way, Conradi remarks: “he is the would-be saint who represents an intolerable, charmless ‘best’, the puritan an-aesthetic world of silence and truth” (57). This might be right were it not for loveif the ideals were not backed by love, they would be “brutal”, even fanatic2. Yet, this does not seem to be the case with Bledyard: he tells Mor that he is acting wrongly, but at the same time, he is

close to him when Mor’s son, Don, is in danger to support him: He [Mor] turned his head and accepted some of the brandy [someone was offering him]. Bledyard was kneeling somewhere between them and trying to say something. Mor got down from the window He subsided again onto the floor Two figures were leaning over him. They were Rigden and Bledyard, who were the only people left in the room. They were saying something Mor did not know what they were saying (The Sandcastle 268-9). 2 “Truth without love is brutality, and love without truth is hypocrisy” (Warren W. Wiersbe) 35 Therefore, although Bledyard’s points may appear to be too difficult and extreme, they show the way towards truth as Murdoch sees it, since “goodness, for Murdoch, depends on striping away the consolations of a private world” (Conradi 59). 2.7 Further note on the characters Another clue to the characters of The Sandcastle may be paying attention to their “aesthetic preferences”, as Conradi

suggests (58). Nan combines colours and patterns that do not really match together, and enjoys re-arranging the rooms “as an expression of her need for control and territory.” Demoyte’s house is stuffed with books, vessels, various kinds of objects, and, above all, heavy, “magnificent” Persian rugs; all this, however, creates a pleasant atmosphere and harmony (58). Evvy’s house is, by contrast, simple and light, and there are paintings by French impressionists there. It is “a bachelor establishment” (The Sandcastle 76), which Conradi considers to be “drably unimaginative” (58). Finally, there is Bledyard whose bedroom is mere plainness. Thus, some more insights into the characters may be gained through their taste. “Taste, after all, is self-expression,” as Woo remarks (33). 36 Conclusion Oswald Chambers notes that no good thing is easy to achieve (see above), and both William Golding and Iris Murdoch confirm that. Golding shows that goodness as imposed by

civilization or any other authority is not enough to prevent man from evil actions; it is in the individual’s heart and mind where goodness should lie. In other words, man must be ethical by himself, otherwise he is capable of terrible actions under certain circumstances such as war, totalitarian regime, or mass hysteria. Also, one should be aware that one really tends to be evilthat evil is not outside but rather inside one. This awareness then enables one to choose to be good and thus try to defeat the “beast”the evil that lies within. Since Golding was influenced by his World War Two experience a great deal, the conclusions he reaches in Lord of the Flies are very much pessimistic: the only good character is killed, the boys would probably perish in “self-destruction” were it not for the “timely arrival” of the naval officer, the authority who rescues them; however, the officer, ironically enough, is corrupt as well, for he hunts and kills other people because it is

war. However, some critics do not perceive the ending to be so negative, since the emergence of the officer may be seen as the force of civilization that is stronger than the “beast”, which in the book revealed itself through the folly of the crowd, which altered the norms from the civilized to the savage. Thus, there appears to be some hope there Nonetheless, ambiguous as it is, Lord of the Flies cannot be interpreted clearly and give definite answers. It is very much the reader who is to draw the conclusions for themselves. Even Golding himself later in his life reconsidered his views, believing again that the “beast” can be defeated by cultivating good manners and respect for others. 37 Concerning Murdoch, she emphasizes respect for reality and contingency a great deal in her workthe concepts that are often distorted by fantasy and idealization. Should one misinterpret the reality one lives in, one somewhat damages other people’s lives as well, for one is not an

isolated individual; rather, one is interconnected with other people through social relations, and one’s actions therefore inevitably influence the others’ lives. In The Sandcastle, Murdoch presents these issues through Mor’s dilemma whether to stay with his wifehowever disappointing and “dry” this relationshipand children, or to abandon them for Rain, a free and understanding young painter, whose name is highly symbolic. Despite strong likelihood of the success of the affair, given, too, by the negative portrayal of the character of Nan, Mor’s wife, it is the marriage that finally wins, for that is the reality, whereas the affair is gradually seen as a fragile sandcastle, the result of fantasy on the part of both Mor and Rain. Both authors see the ideal in perceiving others and their needs rather than one’s own: Golding’s Simon is attentive to the other boys as well as nature and environment: he is “[sensitive] to what is outside him,” as quoted above. This is

where Murdoch’s Mor and Nan initially fail, Evvy and Bledyard being the opposite: goodness and freedom lie in self-denial and compassion. Yet, it seems that both authors somewhat mask this goodness and closeness to truth in misunderstanding and a sort of rejection: Simon is considered to be “batty”, Evvy is referred to as “poor Evvy”, and Bledyard is ridiculed for his speech impediment and seen as too austere by many. This might represent the idea that the saint cannot be understood by the common folk, as well as what Conradi suggests above: in Murdoch’s fictionwhich here corresponds with Lord of the Flieswhat is closest to truth is often “disguised” by “mockery”as Christ was “mocked”. This, however, does not lessen its quality or righteousness, for acceptance, popularity, and people’s approval should 38 not be important criteria for approaching people or adjusting one’s behaviour towards them. Thus, it appears that although goodness may sometimes not be

understood (which may be regarded as a touch of humanity that is imperfect not only in actions, but also in perception), it really is worth it, for it gives one a sense of freedom and inner happiness, together with a glimpse of truth, the actual reality. Although it is impossible to achieve and one has to be aware of that, for one is limited as Golding suggeststhere seems to be no better (and easier) way that would provide one with that freedom and inner happiness than the struggle for goodness. 39 Works cited and consulted Primary Sources: Golding, William. Lord of the Flies Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1960 Print Murdoch, Iris. The Sandcastle New York: Warner Books, 1973 Print Secondary Sources: Baker, James R. “Golding and Huxley: The Fables of Demonic Possession” Twentieth Century Literature 46.3 (2000): 311-327 JSTOR Web 24 Feb 2015 Byatt, A.S Degrees of Freedom: The Early Novels of Iris Murdoch London: Vintage, 1994 Print Conradi, Peter J. “‘Against Gravity’: The

Early Novels and An Accidental Man” Iris Murdoch: The Saint and the Artist. Houndmills: Macmillan P, 1986 52-74 Print Dick, Bernard F. ““The Novelist is a Displaced Person”: An Interview with William Golding.” College English 266 (1965): 480-482 JSTOR Web 24 Feb 2015 Dooley, Gillian. “Iris Murdoch’s Novels of Male Adultery: The Sandcastle, An Unofficial Rose, The Sacred and Profane Love Machine, and The Message to the Planet.” English Studies 904 (2009): 421-434. EBSCO Web 16 Mar 2015 Epstein, E.L “Notes on Lord of the Flies by EL Epstein” WordPresscom Blog at WordPress.com, nd Web 24 Feb 2015 40 Franková, Milada. Human Relationships in the Novels of Iris Murdoch Brno: Masaryk U, 1995 Print. Golding, William, and James R. Baker “An Interview with William Golding” Twentieth Century Literature 28.2 (1982): 130-170 JSTOR Web 24 Feb 2015 Kemp, Peter. Iris Murdoch: The Sandcastle London: British Council, 1972 Print Kinkead-Weekes, Mark, and Ian Gregor. “Lord

of the Flies (1954)” William Golding: A Critical Study. London: Faber and Faber, 1967 15-64 Print Murdoch, Iris. “Against Dryness: A Polemical Sketch” Encounter Jan (1961) Unzorg Web 16 Mar. 2015 Niemeyer, Carl. “The Coral Island Revisited” College English 224 (1961): 241-245 JSTOR Web. 24 Feb 2015 Spear, Hilda D. Iris Murdoch Houndmills: Macmillan, 1995 Print Spitz, David. “Power and Authority: An Interpretation of Golding’s “Lord of the Flies”.” The Antioch Review 301 (1970): 21-33 JSTOR Web 24 Feb 2015 Taylor, Griffin. ““What Doth It Profit a Man ?”: Three British Views of the Null and the Void.” The Sewanee Review 661 (1958): 132-146 JSTOR Web 16 Mar 2015 Tolkien, J.RR The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King London: HarperCollins, 2007 Print. Woo, Elizabeth Annette. The Enchanter Figure in the Novels of Iris Murdoch Vancouver: U of British Columbia, 1974. OAIster Web 17 Mar 2015 41 Résumé This work is dedicated to contemplation of the

concepts of good and evil as they are represented in selected novels of William Golding and Iris Murdoch, Lord of the Flies and The Sandcastle. Since each of them approaches the issue slightly differently, the perspectives of the novels differ accordingly. Thus, their views are first introduced, followed by analyses of the most important characters, for the characters display the ideas and intentions of their authors most clearly. The aim of such analyses is to explore and understand the background of people’s behaviourwhat the motives for their actions might berather than to judge and evaluate. The thesis’ focus is not only to understand, but also to encourage the reader that struggle for goodness is worth it despite its considerable difficulty. 42 Resumé Tato práce se zamýšlí nad tím, jak je dobro a zlo zobrazeno ve vybraných románech Williama Goldinga a Iris Murdochové, Pán much a Hrad z písku. Oba autoři se ve svém díle otázkou dobra, zla a morálky

zabývají poměrně do hloubky, avšak přístup každého z nich se trochu liší. Práce tedy nejdříve krátce uvádí jejich myšlenky a pohled na věc, a poté se zamýšlí nad tím, jak je autoři obsáhli ve svých postavách a jejich činech. Cílem těchto zamyšlení je hledat a pochopit to, co jednotlivé postavy vedlo k tomu, proč se zachovali právě tak, jak se zachovali, ne je kritizovat a hodnotit. Práce chce také poukázat na to, že snaha o dobro má význam, přestože je velice obtížná. 43