Is Jack (in Lord of the Flies) actually 'bad'?

Question

For me, the real 'evil' in *The Lord of the Flies* was Roger. From the beginning the story shows how he has 'revelations' about how there is no one to stop him bullying and hurting.Jack, for me, simply goes mad, and the apparent lack of punishment suggests this. Fear, hunger and pride drive Jack to savagery, a way to forget all the bad things (the beast) and to have the power his pride needs. Jack's new way of life allows Roger to unleash the 'badness' in him.Is my interpretation correct? Or did Golding mean for Roger and Jack to be equally 'bad' and Roger simply the more physical one of the two?

Answer 1

You're on the right track by first defining what behaviors or motivations you consider "bad" for the purposes of argument and why. The boys divide themselves into tribes based on what motives and actions each considers acceptable or preferable, then the story shows how those differences play out.

Golding didn't write a blunt allegory with obvious good and bad archetypes. His characters are realistic because they are morally complex humans. There is an element of a thought experiment, asking how would children, (specifically white, prepubescent males from a mid- 20th century British background during wartime,) make ethical decisions under stress in the absence of adult intervention? Like a simulation program, the point is to set up parameters and then see what results, not to have a predetermined conclusion.