wgolding.lordoftheflies-第35部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


en　years；　so　I　may　be　a　bit　off。　I　intended　a　Christ　figure　in　the　novel；　because　Christ　figures　occur　in　humanity；　really；　but　I　couldn't　have　the　full　picture；　or　as　near　as　full　a　possible　picture　of　human　potentiality；　unless　one　was　potentially　a　Christ　figure。　So　Simon　is　the　little　boy　who　goes　off　into　the　bushes　to　pray。　He　is　the　only　one　to　take　any　notice　of　the　little　'uns…who　actually　hands　them　food；　gets　food　from　places　where　they　can't　reach　it　and　hands　it　down　to　them。　He　is　the　one　who　is　tempted　of　the　devil：　he　has　this　interview　with　the　pig's　head　on　the　stick；　with　Beelzebub；　or　Satan；　the　devil；　whatever　you'd　like　to　call　it；　and　the　devil　says；　〃Clear　off；　you're　not　wanted。　Just　go　back　to　the　others。　We'll　forget　the　whole　thing。〃
　Well；　this　is；　of　course；　the　perennial　temptation　to　the　saint；　as　I　conceive　it；　to　just　go　and　be　like　ordinary　men　and　let　the　whole　thing　slide。　Instead　of　that；　Simon　goes　up　the　hill　and　takes　away　from　the　island；　removes；　discovers　what　this　dead　hand　of　history　is　that's　over　them；　undoes　the　threads　so　that　the　wind　can　blow　this　dead　thing　away　from　the　island；　and　then　when　he　tries　to　take　the　good　news　back　to　ordinary　human　society；　he's　crucified　for　it。　This　is　as　far　as　I　was　able　to　find　a　Christ　parallel；　you　see。3
　Q。：　You　mentioned　that　you　couldn't　give　any　omniscient　judgment；　and　you've　earlier　said　that　an　author　cannot　really　say；　after　he　has　written　a　work；　what　he　has　given　from　himself　or　created。4　What　do　you　feel　the　role　of　the
　
　4。For　a　further　discussion　of　the　role　of　Simon；　see　Donald　R。　Spangler；　〃Simon；〃　p。　211　in　this　volume。…Eds。
　5。　pare　Gelding's　remarks　here　with　his　statements　in　the　interview　with　Frank　Kermode；　p。　199　in　this　volume。…Eds。
　
　critic　is　here？　Do　you　feel　the　critic　has　the　right　to　bring　these　things　out？
　A。：　Well；　isn't　this　really　a　question　without　much　meaning？　Because　whether　a　critic　has　rights　or　not　he　is　going　to　do　these　things　to　a　book　which　has　got　out　of　the　author's　control；　and　therefore　you　might　just　as　well　ask　whether　a　man　has　a　right　to　five　fingers　on　each　hand。　This　is　a　thing　that　happens。　Are　you　really　meaning　do　I　think　the　critic　has；　by　his　nature　or　by　his　training；　a　better　chance　of　saying　what's　in　this　book　than　the　author　has？　Is　that　at　all　it？
　Q。：　Yes；　that's　mainly　it。　As　an　artist；　do　you　feel　the　critics　are　justified？
　A。：　Some　of　them。　As　a　practical　matter　some　of　them　say　things　which　I　agree　with　and　some　say　things　which　I　don　t　agree　with。　I　don't　see　there's　much　generalization　that　can　be　made　here。　The　critic　has　as　much　right　as　any　man　to　get　what　he　can　out　of　a　book；　and　I　would　say　that　I　think　some　critics　that　I've　read　have　been　extremely　perceptive　…or　else　I've　been　very　lucky…in　that　they've　seemed　to　put　their　fingers　on　certain　things　which　I　had　deliberately　intended　and　which　I　would　have　thought　were　rather　subtle；　and　they　have　contrived　to　get　hold　of　these。　Equally；　I　would　have　to　say　that　some　critics　seem　to　me　to　be　miles　off　beam。
　Q。：　Well；　perhaps　Mr。　Gindin5　was　a　little　off　beam　in　his　article　which　discusses　your　use　of　gimmicks。　He　mentions　the　saving　of　the　boys　as　a　gimmick　that　didn't　quite　fulfill　the　manifestations　that　were　opened　in　the　book　。。。　it　didn't　resolve　diem；　I　should　think；　as　well　as　he　would　have　liked。　Do　you　feel　this　is　justifiable　criticism？
　A。：　I've　been　haunted　by　that　word；　〃gimmick；〃　ever　since　I　used　it　in　an　interview　explaining　that　I　liked　a　sharp　reversal　at　the　end　which　would　show　the　book　in　an　entirely　different　light　so　that　the　reader　would　presumably　be　forced　to　rethink　the　book；　which　seems　to　me　a　useful　thing　to　do。　I　don't　know；　in　that　event；　whether　the　saving
　
　5。James　Gindin；　〃　'Gimmick'　and　Metaphor　in　the　Novels　of　William　Golding；〃　Modern　Fiction　Studies；　6　（Summer；　1960）；　145…152。…Eds。
　
　of　the　boys　at　the　end　is　a　gimmick　or　not。　The　reason　for　that　particular　ending　was　twofold。　First　I　originally　conceived　the　book　as　the　change　from　innocence…which　is　ignorance　of　self…to　a　tragic　knowledge。　If　my　boys　hadn't　been　saved；　I　couldn't…at　that　time；　at　any　rate…see　any　way　of　getting　some　one　of　them　to　the　point　where　he　would　have　this　tragic　knowledge。　He　would　be　dead。　If　I'd　gone　on　to　the　death　of　Ralph；　Ralph　would　never　have　had　time　to　understand　what　had　happened　to　him；　so　I　deliberately　saved　him　so　that　at　this　moment　he　could　see　…look　back　over　what's　happened…and　weep　for　the　end　of　innocence　and　the　darkness　of　man's　heart；　which　was　what　I　was　getting　at。　That's　half　the　answer。
　The　other　answer　is　that　if；　as　in　that　quotation　there；　the　book　is　supposed　to　show　how　the　detects　of　society　are　directly　traceable　to　the　defects　of　the　individual；　then　you　rub　that　awful　moral　lesson　in　much　more　by　having　an　ignorant；　innocent　adult　e　to　the　island　and　say；　〃Oh；　you've　been　having　fun；　haven't　you？〃　Then　in　the　last　sentence　you　let　him　turn　away　and　look　at　the　cruiser；　and　of　course　the　cruiser；　the　adult　thing；　is　doing　exactly　what　the　hunters　do…that　is；　hunting　down　and　destroying　the　enemy…so　that　you　say；　in　effect；　to　your　reader；　〃Look；　you　think　you've　been　reading　about　little　boys；　but　in　fact　you've　been　reading　about　the　distresses　and　the　wickednesses　of　humanity。　If　this　is　a　gimmick；　I　still　approve　of　it。
　Q。：　I　think　it　fulfills　what　you　said　about　the　use　of　the　gimmick　at　the　end　of　a　novel；　making　a　reader　go　back　and　take　another　look　at　things。
　Did　the　work　by　Richard　Hughes；　High　Wind　in　Jamaica；　have　any　influence　on　your　writing　Lord　of　the　Flies？
　A。：　This　is　an　interesting　question。　I　can　answer　it　simply：　I've　read　this　book　and　I　liked　it　but　I　read　it　after　I'd　written　Lord　of　the　Flies。　And　if　you're　going　to　e　around　to　Conrad's　Heart　of　Darkness；　I　might　as　well　confess　I've　never　read　that。
　Q。：　Then　if　you　hadn't　read　High　Wind　in　Jamaica　until　you'd　written　Lord　of　the　Flies；　how　do　you　feel　about　the　thematic　presentation；　the　parallel　between　the　two　works？
　A。：　There　is　a　parallel；　I　think；　but　like　so　many　literary　parallels　it's　the　plain　fact　that　if　people　engage　in　writing
　about　humanity；　they're　likely　in　certain　circumstances　io　see　something　the　same　thing。　They're　both　looking；　after　all　at　the　same　object；　so　it　would　really　be　very　surprising　if　there　weren't　literary　parallels　to　be　drawn　between　this　book　and　that。
　
　？？？？？
　
　Q。：　I　have　one　more　question　about　Lord　of　the　Flies。　Mr。　Epstein　talks　about　sex　symbols　in　this　work。6　You　have　recently　said　that　you　purposely　left　man　and　woman　off　of　the　island　to　remove　the　。。。
　A。：　Remove　the　〃red　herring。〃
　Q。：　Yes。　I　wonder　if　you　concur　with　Mr。　Epstein's　observations。
　A。：　You're　probably　thinking　of　the　moment　when　they　kill　apig　。　。　。
　Q。：　Yes。
　A。：　And　I'm　assured　that　this　is　a　sexual　symbol　and　it　has　affinities　of　the　Oedipadian　wedding　night。　What　am　I　to　say　to　this？　I　suppose　the　only　thing　I　can　really　say　is　there　are　in　those　circumstances；　after　all；　precious　few　ways　of　killing　a　pig。　The　same　thing's　just　as　true　of　the　Oedipadian　wedding　night。
　
　6。See　below；　p。　279。…Eds。
　
　
　
　
　
　The　Meaning　of　It　All1
　Broadcast　on　the　BBC　Third　Programme；　August　28；　1959
　
　KERMODE：　I　should　like　to　begin；　Golding；　by　talking　about　an　article　on　your　work　which　I　know　you　liked　which　appeared　in　the　Kenyon　Review2　about　a　year　ago　in　which　he　says　many　admiring　things　about　all　your　books　but　introduces　a　distinction　between　fable　and　fiction　and　puts　you　very　much　on　the　fable　side；　arguing；　for　example；　that　in　Lord　of　the　Flies　you　incline　occasionally　not　to　give　a　full…body　presentation　of　people　living　and　behaving；　so　much　as　an　illustration　of　a　particular　theme；　would　you　accept　this　as　a　fair　ment　on　your　work？
　GOLDING：　Well；　what　I　would　regard　as　a　tremendous　pliment　to　myself　would　be　if　someone　would　substitute　the　word　〃myth〃　for　〃fable〃　because　I　think　a　myth　is　a　much　profounder　and　more　significant　thing　than　a　fable。　I　do　feel　fable　as　being　an　invented　thing　on　the　surface　whereas　myth　is　something　which　es　out　from　the　roots　of　things　in　the　ancient　sense　of　being　the　key　to　existence；　the　whole　meaning　of　life；　and　experience　as　a　whole。
　KERMODE：　You're　not　primarily　interested　in　giving　the　sort　of　body　and　pressure　of　lived　life　in　a　wide　society；　obviously　not；　because　all　your　books　have　been　concerned　with　either　persons　or　societies；　unnaturally　isolated　in　some　sense。　It　is　legitimate　to　assume　from　that　that　you　are　concerned　with　people　in　this　kind　of　extremity　of　solitariness。
　
　1。The　following　interview　was　reprinted　in　this　form　in　Books　and　Bookmen；　5　（October；　1959）；　9…10；　and　is　printed　in　part　here　by　permission　of　Frank　Kermode　and　William　Golding。
　2。John　Peter；　〃The　Fables　of　William　Golding；〃　Kentyon　Re…view；　19　（Autumn；　1957）；　577…592。　Reprinted　below；　pp。　229…234。…Eds。
　
　GOLDING：　Well；　no；　I　don't　think　it　is　legitimate。　My　own　feeling　about　it　is　that　their　isolation　is　a　convenient　one；　rather　than　an　unnatural　one。　Do　you　see　what　I　mean？
　KERMODE：　Yes；　I　do　see；　but　I'm　not　sure　about　the　word　〃convenient〃　here。　Convenient　to　you　because　you　want　to　treat　boys　in　the　absence　of　grown…ups；　is　this　what　you　mean？
　GOLDING：　Yes；　I　suppose　so。　You　see　it　depends　how　far　you　regard　intentions　as　being　readable。　Now；　you　know　and　I　know　about　teaching　people；　we　both　do　it　as　our　daily　bread。　Well；　you　see；　perhaps；　people　who　are　not　quite　as　immature　as　those　I　see；　but　my　own　immature　boys　I　watch　carefully　and　there　does　e　a　point　which　is　very　legible　in　their　society　at　which　you　can　see　all　those　things　（as　shown　in　Lord　of　the　Flies）　are　within　a　second　of　being　carried　out…it's　the　master　who　gets　the　right　boy　by　the　scruff　of　the　neck　and　hauls　him　back。　He　is　God　who　stops　a　murder　being　mitted。
　KERMODE：　Yes；　this　is　why　one　of　your　boys；　Piggy；　often　refers　to　the　absence　of　grown…ups　as　the　most　important　conditioning　factor　in　the　situation。　The　argument　is；　then；　that　out　of　a　human　group　of　this　kind；　the　human　invention　of　evil　will　proceed；　provided　that　certain　quite　arbitrary　checks　are　not　present
　GOLDING：　Yes；　I　think　so；　I　think　that　the　arbitrary　checks　that　you　talk　about　are　nothing　but　the　fruit　of　bitter　experience　of　people　who　are　adult　enough　to　realise；　〃Well；　I；　I　myself　am　vicious　and　would　like　to　kill　that　man；　and　he　is　vicious　and　would　like　to　kill　me；　and　therefore；　it　is　sensible　that　we　should　both　have　an　arbitrary　scheme　of　things　in　which　three　other　people　e　in　and　separate　us。〃
　KERMODE：　This　makes　it　interesting；　I　think；　to　consider　the　place　among　your　boys　of　the　boy；　Simon；　in　Lord　of　the　Flies；　who　is　different　from　the　others　and　who　understands　something　like　the　situation　you're　describing。　He　understands；　for　example；　that　the　evil　that　the　boys　fear；　the　beast　they　fear；　is　substantially　of　their　own　invention；　but　when；　in　fact；　he　announces　this；　he　himself　is　regarded　as
　evil　and　killed　accordingly。　Are　we　allowed　to　infer　from　your　myth　that　there　will　always　be　a　person　of　that　order　in　a　group；　or　is　this　too　much？
　GOLDING：　It　is；　I