Macbeth declares an impassioned phrase when he feels that he is caught in all the turmoil he has created. He says, "It will have blood they say. Blood will have blood... (Act 3). What did Macbeth mean? How does this ring true for Macbeth? How does this also connect to the situtation Jack and Ralph find themselves in Lord of the Flies.
Also, include any final impressions of LOF. What did you think? How did the annotating go for you? Did you feel as though there was a change in your learning/ understanding of the text? Are you seeing big connections to Macbeth?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
55 comments:
The book wasa very odd. I thought it was sad that the only good people either died or were forced to change to evil. Sam and Eric, for example, had to change to Jack's tribe. They still helped Ralph but weren't on his side completely. Macbeth was a nice guy, until the Weird Sisters, who are almost like the Lord of the Flies in the fact that they create evil and chaos, changed him. It was like this for Jack, Roger, and most everyone else. They were good until a wrench got thrown into their lives. This reading after the one I did in Sixth Grade changed my understanding.
I thought the book was very good, but painfully slow to start. It also left somethings open, like what the beastie was that hung from the trees. I thought there was going to be a big snake attack the kids. The dead parachute dude was kinda cool. I thought some of the boys would ditch Jack when they found out he made them kill Simon. Jack was a freak. We wouldn't get along. I couldn't decide who was the "devil" in each story, or at least until the pig's head started talking. It was a toss-up with Roger though. Whe nthe twins said he had a stick sharpened at both ends, it reminded me of the quote, "A sword with no handle". This is saying you hurt yourself to hurt your enemy.The annotating was weird, cuz I've never written in a book before. I don't think it helped me understand the text, because I already made the connection in my head, so it didn't make sense to me to write it down. I also read the wohle book before I did any annotating, because I can't enjoy books when I'm trying to relate nude hand-stand to my life. I think Macbeth is being an idiot. I mean, ya, I'd freak out if I killed my king too, but then again, I wouldn't. I don't know if Lady Macbeth leaked crazy juice on him, but he seemed mentally sane for the ten seconds before he met the Weird Sisters.
I think "It will have blood they say. Blood will have blood", means the murder of Duncan will lead to the murder of the one they thought killed him. Then that guys friend will kill his bud's murderer, and so on. In LOF, it's similar, because Jack slowly aquires a taste for blood. Even after the death of two boys, he shows no remorse. I think Roger was his "Lady Macbeth", cuz he was crazy too, and acted all delicate and quiet.
I have not read Act Three in Macbeth yet, so I will be posting again to comment on that, but I wanted to blog my final impressions of LOF. I was surprised at the ending, how evil it got. It seemed unatural that twelve year old boys could become so unhuman and evil. There is really no other way to describe it - Jack and Rodger are evil. They were hunting down Ralph for no good reason, hurting fellow members of their tribe and killing innocent boys. The shock a the end with the naval officer and how they suddenly got zapped back to the normal world amazed me with it's irony. Here is this man fighting in a war that ipitimizes the cruelty of human nature and he comes across these boys who have gone so animalistic and malevolent that you can hardly tell they're human. The boys almost forgot how to talk they had been without grown-ups for so long. Even then, it surprised me how Jack let Ralph do all the talking - as if he knew that Ralph was a better person than he after all.
This quote is actually quite confusing. I'm not really sure what it means but I have a guess. Maybe it means that evil breeds more evil. I think this because in Macbeth blood seems to stand for evil. In relation to Lord of the Flies, this is very true. Ralph is not evil in the beginning. Roger is really the most evil but you do not see this until the end. When he starts filling Jack's head with evil, he becomes evil. This goes on and trickles down into the minds of everyone but Ralph, Piggy, and Samneric. However, Samneric eventually get caught in the evil as well with the rest of Jack's tribe and Piggy dies. The only non-evil one left is Ralph. However, there is no where else for the evil to breed to except for him. For this reason, and for his survival, he becomes a savage in the very end. He stabs people with his stick and thinks only of destroying them in order to survive. Even though this is technically self-defense, it is still evil because it involves hate towards another person. This "ladder of evil" is shown clearly in both LOF and Macbeth.
I agree with hannahl about the quote. Blood has been representing evil so this quote would be "It will have evil they say. Evil will have evil..." I interpret this as evil will be punished, but the punishment is evil in itself. This is true for Macbeth and in LOF because the evil seems to be a disease, an addiction, spreading slowly. Macbeth seems to be turning on his friend, Banquo, and the boys on the island slowly starts to spread from boy to boy until the whole island has resorted to this evil, except Ralph. I agree that Ralph did turn evil at the end, but who wouldn't resort to self-defense when they are on an island with a pack of savage boys that are trying to kill him. One of my annotations at this part of the book was "Ralphs mind is racing- it seems like he is going crazy"
My annotating went okay, but it kind of deteriorated over time. At the beginning, I was doing way too much, and towards the end, I had 1 or 2 every 5-10 pages. I am normally an extremely fast reader but I was constantly thinking, Oh should I write that down? There were more connections with Macbeth at the end of the book when everybody was crazy.
I agree with parkerh, lof left a wierd feeling on me. By killing Simon the boys were basically killing hope of sanity and once Sam and eric changed sides, you knew Ralph would have no chance. Same with in Macbeth, the wierd sisters prophecy along with the influence of his wife made him crazy. He knew it was wrong but decided to go through with it anyway to rush his reward. These books were both good, and had many connections between them.
I think it is weird how the book ends. I think it is ironic how the most sane person on the island ends up getting murdered by the rest of the boys, but not because he agrees wityh their tactics of killing. It almost seemed out of place it was just so odd how someone had to just yell It's the beast and as if all their eyse were closed and they couldn't see who it was they were attacking they kill Simon. It shows how this idea of survival and the beast has twisted their minds enough for even Ralph, Piggy, and Samneric, to get involved in the killing of Simon. I also think it is ironic that Piggy ends up dyinh as well and Samneric switch sides on Ralph, and then when it seems he has no hope due to the destruction that Jack of the island by lighting it on fire, to kill Jack, endned up saving them because a Naval Cruise saw the island and steered towards it.
I had some trouble with the annotatign I haven't done it for the last 4-5 chapters becuase after I talked to Mrs. Smith about how to do it, I have figured out that I haven't really been doing it right. I made a few world self and text to text connections, but then sometimes I end up just adding a note that talks about what I think about that part.
The biggest connections that I have seen between Macbeth and Lord of the flies, is Lady Macbeth and Jack, and Macbeth and Ralph. Jack and lady Macbeth have always been power hungry and they both will do anything to anyone or anything that gets in their way to achieve their goals. Then Ralph and Macbeth are alike becuase they are both kind of tragic heroes. Ralph holds his composure better than Macbeth, but still falls apart a little bit by forgetting what the fire is important for and sometimes becoming phased by Jack. On the other hand Macbeth has completely forgotten what is right for him, he sometimes has little inner conflicts, but basically lady macbeth has corrupted his mind.
I think that Macbeth ment that the others thought the killer was going to kill again, so if the tried to kill Banquo or the King's sons, then there would be people ready to catch the killer then they would discover that he killed Duncan.
My impression of LOF was that it was really gorey. I never fully understhood what happened to the man that parachuted onto the top of the mountain. I also don't get why Jack's tribe was hunting Ralph and why they were burning down the forest in the process.
I read LOF in sixth grade, so this will have been my second time reading through it, and I really think that the annotating helped. A lot of the time it felt pointless to do, but I understood so much more annotating this time than when I first read it. It was easier to keep track of who the characters were, and what was going on plot-wise in the book. It took twice as long to read the book while annotating it, but it definitely helped me understand the book.
I love the ending, and yet I absolutely hate it. I love how as they all run onto the island, planning on killing Ralph, the naval officer sees them and suddenly civilization is brought back into their lives. As they realize this, it finally hits them as to what they truly are; just kids. Here they were having wars and killing, when they forgot that they were only little boys, separated from the comforts of the world. I didn't like the ending because it just seems so unlikely that a ship happened to be close by at the exact moment the island was set on fire. Sorry, maybe I'm just an OC realist, but I found that annoying.
I just finished reading the book. I really liked the ending, but I couldn't believe just how savage the boys really got! I mean from the start it was obvious that they were going crazy, but they just completly lost all saneness when they killed Simon. The boys felt some false comfort, when they did that dance, and they were just got so into the evilness of it that they couldn't even distinguish the difference between Simon and a beast. And then when they killed Piggy I was SOOOOO mad. I mean they couldn't just tye him up like Samneric, they had to crush him. Because they were truely evil. And then at the end when they surrounded Ralph, I was just disgusted. They were willing to destroy the island that they lived off, torture Samneric, all to kill Ralph who didn't do anything but try to talk some sense into them. I think if that naval officer hadn't come they all eventually would have killed each other or starved to death because there was nothing left to eat.
About the annotating... I am really bad at it. I love to read books, and I naturally make connections in my head, I just really struggle to write them down. This is hard for me because, I always just want to keep reading, and never want to take the time to stop. Because of this I still have to go back and annotate around seven chapters, but I think it will be easier going back and writing down my thoughts.
Throughout the entire book I have seen a couple of connections between LOF and Macbeth ut towards the end of LOF, I was amazed how similar the story lines really are. Both tell the story of a poltical struggle for power and how just a couple of small things can change the line of power. In LOF I think that Jack was like Macbeth. He really wanted power, but was okay with being second best next to Ralph who was clearly more suited for the job. I think that Rodger is like Lady Macbeth. He wants power, and is willing to get it through any means possible, but wants someone else to do the dirty work. He has Jack do the dirty work so that if they do get caught, Jack will be the one to blame. Then I think that Simon is kind of like Duncan because he is the first to be killed, and with his death, all goodness and normalcy leaves the island. Ralph is similar to Malcolm, because he is the one incharge, but can't really create peace because of what Jack has done. Piggy is like Banquo, because Jack knows that he is the bearer of common sense, and therefore a threat, so Jack wants to kill Piggy. The final connection that I see between LOF and Macbeth is the mulberry birthmarked kid. he is similar to the three witches, because he prophecies that this beast will come, and that is kind of the basis of the entire story. Speaking of the mulberry kid I'm pretty sure that he is dead, but I really want to know what happened to him. I think that Ralph should've said that three people died, because, the poor kids parents won't know what happened to him.
As for the quote, I agree with hannahl. I think that this quote means that once evil is established, there is only room for it to grow. Kind oflike if you plant mint in your garden. It will start out small and seem like no big deal, yet once it starts to spread it can take over your whole garden, unless you completely uproot it.
I agree with most everybody as far as the interpretation of the quote goes. I think
acbeth is referrin to his personal downward spiral into evil. He knows that it started out with the killing of Duncan, and then that left him to try to divise a way to prevent Banquo's decentdants from becoming Kings. Instead of merely naming his successor as someone other than Banquo and Fleance, he insists on killing them as well. Jack and Ralph start out as at least allies, maybe not so much friends, but they're not out to kill each other, and by the end they're at each other's throats looking for blood. In both LOF and Macbeth the blood lust develops that drives the characters off the edge.
The annotating went pretty well for me. It took me a couple chapters to get into it, but once I did it really helped me analyze the text and helped me to create alot of connections between
Macbeth and LOF as well. At the end of the book I got too into the story to annotate much, but even without the annotating it was easier to create connections. If I didn't annotate it into my book I would often add it into my Macbeth notations or blog it, depending on where I thought it was most relavent.
I agree with what Hannah L. said about the quote. Evil stirs up more evil.
This was true for Macbeth, because Macbeth had a very difficult time killing Duncan, but now that he's done that evil deed, he seems to have no problem with killing Banquo.
The boys in Lord of the Flies were extremely evil at the end of the book. They don't have any problems hurting each other. Jack and his tribe could care less that they killed Piggy and Simon.
I didn't really like Lord of the Flies. I thought the beginning of the book was really slow, and when it did pick up the action, it was very gorey, like Brian C said, and almost disturbing to read.
The annotating went pretty well. In the beginning of the book I made a lot more annotations than I did towards the end. At the end of the book, I have more notes about my thoughts of what was going on in the story.
A connection between Macbeth and LOF is Macbeth and Jack both going crazy and becoming evil, because they want more power.
I thought that LOF was an okay book. It wasn't my favorite. I didn't really like annotating. I absorb the book better when I just read it. I don't need to write connections down. When I'm reading, all I'm really looking for is what I can make a connection to. I like just reading and absorbing as I go along. I thought the book ended quite abruptly. I mean, they were trying to kill Ralph, then all of a sudden they are found. I mean, then they all start crying. I thought it was kind of wierd. I was happy that they were found, but I just thought it was a wierd ending. Maybe that's just me.
I saw a lot of huge connections between Macbeth and LOF. One connection lies within the beast. The beast in LOF represents power in Macbeth. Jack wants that power so bad that he resorts to evil ways, and so does Macbeth. Of course, Macbeth's wife perpetrates the murder of Duncan, but Macbeth did it.
I think that quote means that if you murder, you will have to murder again and again. It is like a chain reaction. DON'T READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T READ ACT 3!= This is like when Macbeth kills Duncan then kills Banquo because he might find out. It creates a chain reaction. DANGER OVER. YOU CAN READ. This also relates to LOF. Once a bad act has happened, more happen and more happen. Again, it creates a chain reaction. If one thing happens, more have to happen in order to follow up. That is what I think this quote means.
My impression of LOTF was that it was a very strange book that made me think about things I had never really thought about before. Such as that we call our selves civilaized but it wouldn't take much for us to revert back to animal insticts.
Also annotating the book was weird for me. I agree with MattH. I already made the connextions in my head and i have issues with writing in books.
I havn't read the 3rd act of Macbeth yet so i will post on that later.
I think this qoute means what goes around comes around (blood will have blood.) This is true for Macbeth because he feels guilty for killing Duncan and people suspect him. This connects to the boys in Lord of the Flies because when they were found they were ashamed that they were acting so savagely. I thought LOF had a weird ending and I thought the book was kind of gross. Annotating was really hard, because I would write something down and have to reread the page, chapter,or paragraph. I thought it was easier to make connections. The boys in LOF become savage and blood thirsty and Macbeth wants to kill more people after he murdered Duncan. For example, the servants, Banquo and Fleance.
I also agree with ryad and matth. I already did make connections in my head. It was hard for me to make notes in the book and get the whole story.
I think that the "blood" quote references how blood begets blood within the human psyche: the more we spill, the more we want to kill. If you notice, Macbeth is talking about all the killing he thinks he has to do to protect his position as king. In LOF, Jack thinks that killing is good, so he starts to do more of it, in the process, turning himself into more of a bloodhungry animal than a true human being. One notable thing is that Ralph meets what's left of the Lord of the Flies, and even though he doesn't hallucinate like Simon does, even he can sense the corruption of Human beings that this form of Beezlebub represents. I personally disagree with the book's message, but oh well...
Annotating was horrible. I seriously could not do it. Then I ran out of stickies for a while. I still have to reorganize all of my stickies!! It took me hours to make good annotations, and I mostly had to read the three paragraphs on Sundays. Really, the depth of my connections annotating was not that big: I just remembered them a bit more. I'm seeing big connections when it comes to BLOOD and KILLING.
I totally agree with Hannah because that quote kind of makes me think of the phrase "two bads don't make a right". When people get angry they always want revenge and then those people want revenge for what the other people did for revenge and it gets very confusing but it all turns into a whole bunch of evilness! This quote makes me think of a part of the book Pretties because they have this separate resort for people who have not been "Utopianized" and those people are real savages and always want revenges. Has anyone else read those books? Anyways, this quote rings true for Macbeth probably because what he did is causing more and more deaths. The people who suspect him have to be killed and the people who get in his way have to be killed. When it comes to Lord of the Flies this quote comes into place with how Jack and his new "tribe" became more and more savagely and in the end got way out of control. Too many deaths! Its way to depressing.
Did anyone else think the ending was kind of weak? I mean, it was kind of a happy ending and all, but I thought it just kind of ended with no real wrap up. Personally, I found that I wasn't making very many Macbeth comparisons in LOF which is saddening, but by the end of the book I could really see everything that was similar. The annotating of the book was definitely different, and it kind of made it hard to get into that "reading mode" where you're in a completely different world with the book, but it did kind of help me understand the book more in being able to see the book from different views.
While reading LOF, particularly towards the end, I a made many connections to Macbeth. To begin when the witches say fair is foul and foul is fair this also relates back to LOF because there is such a fine line between savagery and civilization, just like there is such a fine line between good and evil in Macbeth. Also there is this rise of evil (Jack setting the forest on fire to try and flush out/kill Ralph) that gives way to the rise of good (the boys rescue). I think that this ending in LOF is almost foreshadowing in Macbeth. I think that the rise of evil is Macbeth obviously killing the king and having this ambition for power, will be followed by the rise of good. We are unsure exactly how Macbeth will end but I think when you draw a parallel to LOF there will be a rise of good to follow the rise of evil.
In the last few chapters of LOF Golding uses several examples of irony. It was ironic that evil lead to good, it was also ironic that this officer is unable to understand why the boys acted in such an “uncivilized” way but yet he is out there fighting in a war, killing people for who knows what reason.
There is also an example of appearance vs. reality, the beast appears as this huge thing that is casting weird shadows and scares the boys and creates chaos, but in reality it was just a dead parachutist and the beast turns out to be this “creature” that lives within all the boys and is this savagery side to these boys.
As far as annotating the book I think it is very helpful personally just to remember little things and connections that pop into your head while reading, but I don’t think that we should be graded on it.
The quote “It will have blood they say. Blood will have blood..” Macbeth means that blood will have blood, blood and savagery is like this domino effect or like a tree where one branch leads to another that leads to another branch. Once you have these evil thoughts and actions it falls to more evil thoughts and actions. This quote relates back to LOF because Jack wants blood and so others want blood and Jack went so far as to lighting the forest on fire to get blood. Also, the beast and the Lord of the Flies is almost the beginning of the blood because it is representing the savagery within all the boys. Soon that savagery leads to more blood and to murder.
I think that LOTF sort of applies to Macbeth in the whole gaining power category, but I think that the scenes around that outlining theme are very different. In LOTF, there are a bunch of kids stranded on an island trying to figure out what to do, while in Macbeth, Macbeth is trying to kill the king for power in a clear power system.
Last night I watched the premiere of "Kid Nation," a reality show on CBS where 40 kids try to make their own government. This has a little more structure to it than LOTF, but it's still very interesting. I think this is a good parallel to LOTF If you haven't scene commercials for it or want to reserch more, here's the link: http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation/
To be honest, I'm actually thinking of appling to the show...
I think that the blood quote means that of all the people that macbeth has killed to ecome king, he will still need o kill more people, or have more blood to stay the king. This is true for macbeth because in the witches' prophecy, thay say that banquo's sons will become king, so macbeth needs to kill them so they don't, but if he children die, then Banquo will know that macbeth did it so he can stay king, so he'll need to kill Banquo as well.
This can relate to lof because jack really wants to become leader of the islnd, nd i think he was willing to kill Ralph for this position, because he did send people to kill him, and he tortured the twins to tell him where ralph was hiding.
I actually liked this book, and i thought that it did represent some things that happen in our society even today. this book can relate to macbeth real well, because i think that macbeth is portrayed s ck in this book, because jack is the lead hunter, just ike mabeth was the best soldier. Jack wanted to be the leader s macbeth waned to be king. I also thought that simion could be he Duncan, even though simion wasn't a leader, he was still a very good person, and didn't do anything wrong he was still killed like Duncan, and if simon hd told everyone that there wasnt a beast and had proof, then people would want jack as a leader so jack would be the leader just like Duncan made his son heir and not macbeth, so macbeth killed Duncan
I agree with Morgan T. LOF did end rather abruptly. After I read the last page, I just sat there thinking "...that's it?" I wish we knew what happened with the boys after they left the island.
When Macbeth says “It will have blood they say. Blood will have blood…” I think that he means that because he spilled the Kings blood, now people are thirsty to spill more blood in revenge for the Kings murder. So he has caused a chain reaction in murdering that would never have come up if it had not been for his selfish ambitions to become King. Also it could mean that because he called for blood once, he will have to spill more blood in order to keep people from suspecting him. This is true for him because he ends up having to kill Banquo in order for his closest friend not to find out. Also my prediction is that people will kill Malcolm and Donaldbain because they are suspected for killing King Duncan. So Macbeth realizes when he says this line, that it is impossible to spill just a little blood, or once that blood is spilled, it will call for more blood in order to right things. For blood is never satisfied and always lusts for more. This relates to Jack and Ralph’s situation because Jack becomes obsessed with spilling blood through hunting pigs. But soon the warmth of pig’s blood is not satisfying enough for him, therefore he lusts for human blood. He fills this by murdering Simon. But clawing and biting to spill blood soon is not enough, so he pursues Ralph to cut of his head and put it on stick just like he did to that mother pig.
I personally really like this book. It is difficult to understand at first, but once you realize what the book is portray, it’s amazing how deep the meaning is. Also with the knowledge that the author wrote this after his experiences in World War I further exults the importance of this books meaning. The message that humans all contain an evil inside them that is usually awakened through lust of power or domination over other human beings and once awakened, it is very hard to quiet for it soon possesses the human. Also, as depicted through Simon, humans have the ability to resist this evil and yet they usually get destroyed by the people who do let the evil control them.
I LOVED recognizing all the connections between Lord of the Flies and Macbeth because it really helped me to understand the message and also the story in both.
Annotating the book was very difficult for me. I think that this was because I am used to just pulling out the important parts of books that are going to affect the ending rather than picking those things out and then relating them to something else. Also I really didn’t understand how they were going to be graded and so I felt a little lost. They sometimes helped me understand the story but not too much. Only when I compared it to Macbeth did it help me understand the story better.
I think that the ending to this book is phenomenal. Just the idea that they are seconds from destruction and that Ralph has just turned savage and is about to die, and then he sees a naval officer is such a huge paradox. It is also very ironic becuase the very fire that would have destroyed them saved their lives. Also, I think that the ending dialogue between Ralph and the officer is very telling of how much people do not beleive in the savagry of human nature and how nobody is immune to it. Also, I think the last sentence is very telling because it shows how much humans look away from how much of beasts we actually are. It said he turned away to let them collect their feelings. That means that he didn't want to even believe that this savagry was possible.
I have to say that I am definately not a big fan of annotating. It think of reading as a very personal thing. If I am reading a book, I don't want to have to stop my train of thought and the plot that is going on just to say how that connects to my life. I find those kind of connections a little pointless. I would much rather write a comparison paper about Macbeth and LOF after finishing it along with writing short summaries of what we thought of each chapter after reading it, including important parts and what we thought they meant. This would be much more beneficial to me. I have to say that the connections between Macbeth and LOF were very important, but again I would rather talk about those connections on blog or in class than in the actual book.
I think that when Macbeth says this he is talking about how evil will repay itself with evil. Since he did the act of killing Duncan, evil will now come and haunt him. Hence the,"blood will have blood." However, I am not completely sure because our class has not completely got through Act 3 yet. I am really not sure how it has anything to do with Lord of the Flies... atleast it is not coming to me.
For LOF, I thought that it had a really bizarre ending of the book. They pretty much all became blood thirsty and evil and started fighting each other. Also, was it a planned crash that occured? The boat captain said something about it being a better show or something along those lines. What esactly happened with that? The annotating went fairly well but it is really hard for me to put my exact thoughts on paper. Also, I didn't have anything to say for the last 2 chapters because that is when they are chasing Ralph around to try and kill him. Personally, I would have understood the story better if I did not have to annotate at all. With books it works better for me if I read it straight through and let in process in my mind. I had a hard time actually understanding the book because I read it in segments and I had to stop and write my thoughts down. Lastly, the only huge connection I see between this and Macbeth is that there is a lot of inner conflict occuring. Hopefully I will gain a better understanding in class.
Blood will have blood... an interesting quote to choose for final analysis of LOF. I think it means that the killing of one person will cause the death of another. In the case of Macbeth, the death of Duncan probably attracts people to kill to avenge him. In LOF, the killing of the pig caused much controversey between Ralph and Jack which ultimately led to Piggy's death.
All in all, LOF was really weird. Everyone was partially insane by the end, which made it increasingly easy to relate it to Macbeth. The annotating was hard for me because I wasn't sure what was relevant and what was not.I found the end very abrupt and I didn't quite understand what happened. I know they were rescued, but how? I saw many connections between the books about how nature reacted to the imbalance in the natural order. Because I could understand Macbeth, relating the two books really helped me understand LOF as well.
I think that the quote means that that when you are hurting others, you are really just hurting yourself. You are trying to bring yourself up, but in turn you are actually just doing the opposite. You are actually just bringing yourself down, too. We had to write a whole paper about this in social studies last year. Macbeth is trying to make himself look better by and become king by killing Duncan. If the royalty board or whatever they are called finds out that he killed Duncan, he will immediately be taken off the throne. He didn’t think far enough ahead to think of the possible consequences that he will have. This can connect with LOF because Jack hasn’t thought far enough ahead about killing Ralph. If they kill Ralph, who was the one in charge of the fire, then they will have to have someone else tend to the fire if they want to be rescued. The boys need to compromise to insure their chance of survival.
I did not like the book Lord of the Flies. I thought that it was very odd. It did not quite seem plausible for that many boys (less than 12 years old), to be there all at once, and have a majority of them all against one boy. I was surprised how dark and evil it got in the end. I thought that it was sad that the boys all broke up, and went their own separate ways. I thought that it was sad, just like parkerh said that all of the good people like Piggy and Simon died. I also thought that it was sad that some of Ralph’s friends were forced to turn against him, or that they chose to go to the other side with Jack. I found it very odd that the boys couldn’t just work it out, or compromise. I agree with mattw when he said that the twins said that Jack had a stick sharpened at both ends, it reminded him of the quote, "A sword with no handle" from Macbeth. I thought of the same thing. I guess that you could say that Samneric weren’t actually against Ralph. They were just focusing more on themselves surviving than trying to help their one friend who was left. If you had to relate some of the LOF characters to Macbeth, I guess that the Lady Macbeth would be Roger, because he is pretty crazy and brutal. I would say that Simon was like Macbeth because he hallucinated a lot. Piggy reminded me of Duncan because he was the innocent one, and he completely trusted Ralph. Ralph related to the sons of Duncan-Malcom and Donalbain because they are fleeing the country because they think that everyone will suspect them of killing their father. In the end, Ralph has to flee too because the tribe is after him, and they want to kill him. The brothers were afraid that the killer of Duncan would want to kill them because they were the next in line for the throne. I thought that Jack was most like the Witches. He told his hunters things to make them join his side, instead of Ralph’s. He seemed to be able to almost control the boys so that they would do anything that he said, or what he told then to do. He was very persuasive, and a good talker, if you know what I mean. I think that the Lord of the Flies was like the Witches, in the sense that it caused the boys to think strange thoughts, and think that it was telling them what to do. I agree with morganw when she said that it seemed odd that Jack let Ralph do all of the talking to the naval officer. They were all hunting him down, but then suddenly forgot about the hunt when the naval officer arrived. The annotating went well, but I don’t think that it necessarily helped me better understand the book. I was constantly making the connections in my head. By reading two books though, I was able to make more connections to Macbeth. These were some of my thoughts about the final three chapters of Lord of the Flies.
I agree with mitchl that the quote means that Macbeth will have to keep killing people to secure his position as king. As the play goes on, he keeps killing more people all so his position will be secure. And like chelseas said, he's only hurting himself by doing this. This connects to LOF because the boys continue to get more dark and evil throughout the book because of their circumstances, and it only hurts them because they can't find common ground and compromise to make their lives on the island easier.
I thought LOF was a weird book because the boys became really violent and vicious. It did have some powerful themes about humans, such as appearance vs. reality, as does Macbeth. It also resembles Macbeth with the ambition causing evil because of the thirst for power. The annotating went well for me and it helped me think more about what was going on and the underlying themes in the book, rather than just reading the words simply to get the book done. It made me read slower but ended up helping me.
The qoute in queation "It will have blood they say. Blood will have blood..." Banquo was Macbeth's best friend but ever since the witches had spoken to them he questioned Macbeths ability to not make an attempt to control fate. But Macbeth did so anyway and killed King Duncan.which Banquo suspected all along. Then Macbeth, in his twisted mind, after killing Duncan became jumpy and trusted no one, not even his best friend. then Macbeth hired some men to kill Banquo and his son. The friendship was destroyed in the same way between Jack and Ralph. They were friends Ralph was chief Jack grew jealous adn grew angry and spitefull towards him. While all this was going on Simon began to feel the evil creeping onto the island.
I felt that LOF was an interesting book. I found that it was hard to follow and some of the writing didn't make sense. I htink the book was written to be read and taken at a fast pace which I feel is poor writing. Books are made to be read and understood or written exclusivley for learning pruposes. LOF doesn't fit into these categories. I feel the plot was pretty good but it could have been better devolepment. there are some connections to Macbeth such as the ifluence of evil and evil itself.
I think that the quote "Blood will have blood..." means that every action sets off a domino effect of reations. Specifically, I think this quote means that murder and pain will just lead to more pain. This is perfect for Macbeth because after killing Duncan, he is always going to have to run from the consequences of his actions, until they finally catch up to him. Jack and Ralph are in a very similar situation because once they started reverting to primitive states of mind, there was no turning back. They were essentially doomed the second that the believed in the beast because that belief made them fear and that fear led to choas. When everything caught up to them, people had died- something they could never change.
Overall, I liked Lord of the Flies. I found it interesting the way the boys changed so rapidly but it was believable at the same time. I think I annotated pretty well and I didn't find it hard. It's strange because the biggest connections I see in Macbeth and Lord of the Flies are so unexpected. Mostly, I connected similar character traits or quotes instead of actual plot.
i believe that the quote "Blood will have blood" means that some people can't stop at one murder. It begins with one and continues until blood runs thick. i see this in both Macbeth and Lord of the Flies. Macbeth started with the murder of Duncan and is now ready to murder Banquo and his son. Simon is murdered and from there the piggy is murdered as well with Ralph next on the list.
I thought that Lord of the Flies was a very interseting book. The idea that is one theory of what could happen when boys are stranded on an island was fascinating to me. The ending was very powerful. The annotating helped me to many amny connections to macbeth and to better understand the story.Annotating is very tedious but i believe the end justified the means
I think that the Macbeth quote can be interperted as a statement saying that onceblood has been shed, there really isn't an end. for example, when macbeth kills Duncan, blood is shed, and it never stops. Blood just keeps sheding-Macbeth feels guilty forever, there is bleeding from the murdered Feudal system. So I think that the first blood is literal-when blood is actually shed, and the second is more figurative. This also describes the stuggle between jack and ralph. Once Piggy dies, tensions are high, and things will never be the same.
the LOF is an odd book, to agree with parker, but i think that i realized for the first time how symbolic it is. I had read LOF and Macbeth in 6th grade, but i never thought that they were a little bit similar. I've made connections in my head, through annotaions, through papers, and through discussions that I have never created. Annotations for LOF were difficult to make, and i still think that i ned to to word on text to world, text, and self connections, but overall, i've discovered LOF like never beforre.
I think that the quote "Blood will have blood..." means that for every event, many other events take place. I especially think that is terms of the books this quote means that murder and death in an effort to make you happier will only lead to sadness and regret. Macbeth is a perfect example of this because he thinks that every time he kills another person all of his problems will be resolved but in actuality they only make his conscience eat away at him and he ends up going insane. Jack and Ralph are in a very similar situation because once they stopped acting like animals they could not be convinced to become civilized again. I agree with Maddie H that when everything caught up to them, people had died- something they could never change.
Overall, I liked Lord of the Flies. I thought it was amazing how many connections I was able to make between LOF and Macbeth, I would not have guessed that they would have so many similar qualities. I felt that annotating was somewhat tedious but I got better at it as I went along.
When Macbeth says the quote about blood, I believe he meant that the dead will get their revenge. So in Macbeth this means that since he murdered Duncan, Duncan will get his revenge on Macbeth for killing him. In LOF I think this means that since the boys killed Simon, he will get his revenge on them for killing him because he was only trying to do them good.
I didn't really like LOF that much. I agree with everyone who said that it ended abrubtly. It was climaxing as the boys were chasing Ralph through the forest and then it just randomly ended when they saw the Naval officer. I found the message behind the book(if man was stripped of all luxuries then we would be evil) powerful and deep but the way William Golding conveyed it through the book was kind of odd. It was interesting to see how the boys changed so drastically, but I didn't think they would become as violent as they did. I had a hard time connecting to some of the events that happened in the book, so annotating took a long time. Annotating didn't make a major difference in my understanding the book, but in some parts it helped.
I completely agree with CateM about the quote when she said that once evil is established, there is only room for it to grow. To me, this is like Macbeth because once he killed Duncan, there was nothing left to do but kill Banquo. It just keeps growing and growing until something is saved (the boys are saved by the sergeant and Macbeth will probably be killed (because of a tragic hero)). As soon as there was a little savageness with Jack and Ralph, it kept growing and growing until Piggy and Simon were killed! It didn’t even stop then! But finally good was promoted and they were saved. I think that the beginning was quite slow, but as the chapter numbers got higher, the excitement grew. For me, annotating was horrible! :-) I definitely can connect Macbeth and LOF, but writing it all down and making a key is extremely difficult for me! I think that discussing everything in class totally helped me understand the confusing parts. Yes, I am definitely seeing big connections with Macbeth!!
I agree with what quite a few other people have said. Macbeth and Banquo had always been very good friends and trusted each other. When Macbeth starts to really change into another person, though, he values his own position as King over their friedship. The same holds true with Ralph and Jack in LOF. They really got along well at first, but when the situation begins to change and everything becomes less of a game and more serious, their friendship falls apart.
I think the quote from Macbeth is an interesting choice. To me, this is a cause and effect. If someone is killed, someone else will die which will lead to someone else's death. This rings true for Macbeth because first Macbeth killed Duncan, the the Servants, and now he ordered the hit on Banquo and his sons. This to me shows that Macbeth needs everyone to die before he is secure, and maybe it will take more. In LOF, Jack needs to kill things, even people, to remain sane and in control. He killed multiple pigs, killed Simon, ordered the kill on Piggy, and was attempting to kill Ralph.
It was interesting that in Jack's attempts to kill Ralph, he ended up saving the survivors by lighting the whole island on fire. Annotating didn't help me much because I don't like to have to stop and write down what I read. It makes the book go incredibly slow and makes it a pain to read. I would rather read and enjoy the material than have no interest in reading it because I have to mark it up. It did not help change my understanding of the text. I am seeing some big connections to Macbeth.
I agree with what many others have been saying, once an evil act has been comitted then it will just grow and situtations will just get even worse and people will get more evil. Like in LOF it started off with a small disagreement between Jack and Ralph but then things between them just got worse and worse until there was no where else to go.
For the the most part, i like annotating. Although it took me a lot longer to read, it helped me understand it a lot better. And it made it easier to connect it to Macbeth and other things. Some of the main connections or themes LOF had in common with Macbeth was how people are different on the inside then what they show on the outside and that when driven to it, an evil side can come out in everyone.
When it comes to annotating, it was hard to get used to it. I am really used to just thinking, and not thinking about what I am thinking...if that makes sense, so it's hard to figure out what to put on my sticky notes. Sometimes it just feels like I'm reading to find out what happens next, and I'm not making any connections. I don't really know what I should be doing sometimes, but i'm just writing what I'm thinking, so hopefully that will be enough.
As hard as annotating can sometimes be, it really does help me to understand what's happening in the story. I also can't skim over certain parts of the story when I get tired, which I can tend to do.
It's been a little tough to keep up with the annotating, so I am so glad we have some extra time once we are supposed to be done with the book. I have read ahead of where all my annotations are, so I know what's going on, but it's going to take some time for me to annotate all the way through.
I think the quote shows how easily evil can spread (like most are saying) but I was wondering if anyone thinks the blood could be referring to murder AND to family. There has been a couple times when Macbeth has used blood both ways. So do you think it could be saying blood will have blood as in "family will witness and deal with murder?"
About Lord of the flies, it was really hard for me to read. I just couldn't believe how crazy and barbaric the boys became. It was really hard for me to relate to. I was so sad when Piggy was killed because I hate when good characters that really develop die. I saw so much potential in Simon in the book and when he was killed I was so mad. But I like when books can put me into a new world and this definitely did that for me. I actually kind of liked the ending. It was weird hearing an adult talk (reading) after it being total chaos with the boys the whole time and I thought it was a good way to end it.
As far as annotating goes... I think it is very important to make connections to your books but I also think that it is most important to be able to understand and connect with the book your reading. Annotating is something I kind of do in my head so I didn't like writing it down. It distracted me from understanding and connecting with the book. I do however think I would have liked to write a paper on my relations and connections to the characters. I would have rather taken notes on the book as I went and then put it all together at the end so that I only had to write down what I knew would help me with my paper. I actually really liked reading 2 books at once though. I liked seeing connections between two books that seem totally different.
I think that the quote means that blood, or sin as we decided that it was a symbol for, would have more sin. I think that this means that sinning will cause more sin. Obviously if sinning causes sinning that cause sinning a person that commits a sin will never stop sinning. This applies to Macbeth because he starting sinning by killing his King and as a result he has started sinning more such as killing the two framed servants and at least attempting to kill Banquo.
I think that annotating LOF isn't really helping me with understanding the book. Not that I don't understand it it's just that I think that I could understand it just as well if I were just reading the book. The annotating did help me find a lot of connections, especially to Macbeth though.
I think what Macbeth meant was that these terrible mistakes that he has chosen to take will not only cause blood, or a permanent stain, but that blood, those bad mistakes, will have more fed off of them. The choices that he has made has really changed life forever and he has found out that the one lie and choice, could not just last with one, it had to be fed to keep everything hidden and under control. That is why not will there be blood, but the blood he has made will have blood. This also rings true with Macbeth because, Macbeth made one bad choice, and it didn't and couldn't end there. He had to continue to lie and make more stupid decisions to cover up for the first lie. Like I said before, the blood cannot be only by its self but will be joined by others. I think that this quote does connect to the situation between Jack and Ralph, but in a different way than in Macbeth. Instead of one evil fed with more evil and deception, it is more how that when Jack begins to rally feed off the evil and the blood, it not only takes over his being but also begins to spread and share it with the rest of the island making it hard for the boys to keep their hands free from the blood. The blood and evil of the island spread and created more blood for the island. Ralph was the one really fighting to keep away and stay clean.
I think that LOF was a good book and I think the thing I liked the most about it was that is was so different. There are so few books out there that actually make such a strong and depressing point and I don't think that I will ever read a book quite like it. But I do have to say it got very sad and depressing until things really started to look up. Some of the best characters just had to die, like Simon and Piggy, they never got to enjoy civilization again and see the somewhat bright side. I think that the annotating was OK. I didn't really like it but it forced me to think. I just hope that I won't have to do that a lot. It took me so long time to really think of deep connections. And it seemed that as the story continued I had a much harder time connecting to what was going on in the plot. I saw so many connections to Macbeth, they really contain many similarities, but I think it helped talking about it in class and blogging to notice the similarities, I would not have noticed near as many if we hadn't. I also totally agree with lesliel on how the annotating stopped me from ever reaching the just read mode, really being captured by the story because I always had to be thinking about what connection I could make.
I also agree with what other people said about the fact that the quote could mean that once an evil deed is commited it just spreads and spreads until the original deed is corrected and if it is unfixable it just continues to spread until it ends in complete turmoil/anarchy and disaster. I was wondering if also blood could represent quilt or revenge because Macbeth refers to it those ways a couple times in the play also. I think that this relates to LOF in the way that the savageness and the evil on the island just spread and spread starting from one issue of not cooperating and working as a team, to a disagreement, to obsesive killing, and ended in death. The evil just kept growing and growing and ended up taking over the boys and the island.
I really enjoyed reading LOF and connecting it to other things in my life and in Macbeth. I also enjoyed the uniqueness of the book and looking for symbolism in it. LOF deffinitely is a book with a deep, interesting point and theme. I liked annotating a lot because it made me pay more attention to details and making connections was made a lot easier too. I was able to enjoy the book while I was doing it too. The only thing that I didn't like though was that it took me a while longer to read because I had to stop and write and think a lot more and I couldn't truely get absorbed in the story, but it helped. It also helped to discuss things together in class and on the blog.
I, as well, agree with everyone's idea. Blood only creates more blood. Like war, war doesnt make peace, just more blood and war. adn in LOF, once one person has turned thier back, the others want revenge, then its jsut a big mess that never stops.
Lord of the Flies.....hmmm really weird book, not going to lie. it was good though. it made a very overused situation and went a totally different adn interesting direction. I though the whole chase at the end was pretty intense. and right before Piggy died, when Ralph and Jack were fighting, i thought that was totally epic, the way it was described how they were fighting physically and with words.
i thought it was weird though how all the sudden a boat shows up, and the guy seemed really oblivious to what had happened there. it was weird to think how many boys started off on that island and only about 2 or 3 of them got to go home.
There were a lot of good connections with Macbeth, but many i havnt thought aobut much. id rather get wrapped uo in a booka dn only that book, than look back to see what i missed.
I believe that this quote is very true in its meaning. I think that it is saying that once a bad action is committed (in Macbeths’ place this is murder) it is hard to stop the evil that resides in that bad deed. You cannot change what you have already done but to go along with that you can’t change what is going to happen. I think that once you have committed something so evil as murdering someone, you’re heart shouldn’t let you accept that.
I thought that annotating LOF was a little difficult at times in the book when connections to the outside world were not evident but generally it was pretty easy. But there were very many connections when you looked for them.
I think that Macbeth means that there will be killing over what was happened, and because someone has already been killed, the killing will just continue. He could also be referring to revenge, or one person continuing to kill, I don't know.This rings true for Macbeth because I think there will be more killing in the play before it is over.Some one will find out that Macbeth killed Duncan to be king, and then Macbeth will have to kill them too, or be killed. This connects to the situation between Ralph and Jack, but more specifically to Jack's mindset. Jack has already killed two people (Simon and Piggy) and he figures why not one more.
I thought LOF was a pretty good book. It took a while before it got interesting, but it turned out pretty well in the end. I really liked, the ending, how Jack's manhunt for Ralph caused him to do what Ralph wanted (create a smoke signal) and then caused a nearby ship to stop at the island and rescue them. It's ironic that Jack's fire rescued them, because he didn't care at all about the signal fire, he just wanted to hunt. The annotating was pretty hard, it's hard to connect to living on a deserted islands with no adults. I feel that I did understand the text a lot more as I went on, thanks to the blog. I never would have understood some of the things in the book without the blog. I am seeing mainly the connection to Macbeth that I mentioned earlier, where once you kill once to get power, you have no problem with killing again to maintain power. I also think that just like Jack did (the fire) Macbeth will do something that will lead to his downfall.
I think that the quote is prophisizng that the killing will not stop with duncan. if that is the way Macbeth solves initial problems and conflicts, then there will be more blood shed. In LOF jack solves his problems with violence. he is like a little kid that needs to be told to use his words. I think the the initial reactions for humans is violence, and you can see this throughout both books. I did not enjoy Lord of the Flies. this is the third strait year i have had it assigned to me, and i find it to be a very slow and boring book. i do find some of the concepts of human behavior interesting though. i find it hard to annotate books, so i have to read it through once, and then go back an annotate it, so i dont loose my train of thought.
Tear Simon died! He was my favorite character! So I have been trying to see the good in all of them but if they can just tear apart the one boy who still had sence because of there greed and fear than they have theroly become evil! It discusts me how easy it is for them to kill from mere suspision! Especially because I have always looked at men as inheriently good I think in reality the boys wouldnt be capable of killing anyone,or at least I hope not!!!
I think that when he said that he meant that when somebody murders someone then that causes more people to murder and then there's even more blood. I think this works in Macbeth because Macbeth kills the king, then he kills Banquo, then Macduff kills him, so there's more blood because Macbeth killed Duncan. It connects with LOF because first they killed the pigs, then they killed Simon and Piggy, and then they're trying to kill Ralph, and it all started because they wanted meat.
I think Lof was very confusing toward the end but it was also more involved because there was a lot more action.
Macbeth means that this murder will cause more murders. Also that these murders will never cause good, they will cause people bad things. It is true for Macbeth because, the murder has caused him to partially lose his mind, and go crazy. This "blood" is also breeding more "blood" because he is now going to kill Banquoe. This is like Lord of the Flies because when Jack killed the first pig he became more and more obsessed with killing the pigs. This turned into to even murdering people, and turned normal people into crazed murderers.
I thought Lord of the Flies was a pretty good book, but really wierd and confusing. I also wished they had included more description of what happened to them especially Jack and Roger, because I think it would be a very hard transition from being crazed, cruel, insane, murderers to normal people. I also wonder if when they get back to civilization they will think about what they did and if that will eventually get to them and drive them to depression and insanity. The annotating went ok but I find it hard to do so while I read because I get into the book and forget to annotate, so I would rather not have to annotate. It also makes it harder to understand the book when I am constantly stopping and restarting. I felt that there was a big change in my understanding, and I keep getting more and more connections between LOF and Macbeth.
I think that Macbeth meant that murder will only make one more inclined to murder again, and the guilt will grow. Macbeth spoke of his guilt comparing it to a pool of blood. Ralph and Jack just want for blood, like a savage need for violence. They didn't have alterier motives.
This was definitely a weird book. It wasn't my favorite in the world but it was good...
I kept on seeng Simon as the Jesus of the book, although he didn't die a sacrificial death and jesus did...
It's a very confusing quote for me. It's almost as though he's saying that evil (blood) has even deeper evil inside of it. Or that blood, a sign for evil, will even show it's own blood, or deeper evil.
I think that it is true for Macbeth because sometimes he looks evil, but he has even more evil inside of him that keeps building up. And it also connects to Jack and Ralph because there is evil inside of everyoneof those boys, even Ralph sometimes, but only Jack really shows it.
The annotating was difficult to me because i am not really use to it. I could see lots of connections to Macbeth here.
I think that when Macbeth says, "It will have blood they say. Blood will have blood," he meant that once blood is spilt, its flow can not be stopped. Macbeth keeps killing man after man, and as Jack and the hunters killed, they wanted to do it more and more. Macbeth feels like he's on one of those scary merry-go-rounds that never stops, and he can't get off of it.
"Blood will have blood". I think it means "Murder will have revenge". Macbeth is speaking of what he did to Duncan and what he will do to Macduff and he knows that consequences will come.
"Blood will have blood" partly means that since he has drawn blood from another where he didn't need to, he will be killed brutally; like karma. But it also means that the family of the people he has killed will come after him, like Macduff goes after Macbeth, with the help of Malcolm. He killed off some of their family so they come after him. In the case of Jack and Ralph it is a bit different. It means more that humans will always revert back to barbrism if given the oppurtunity no matter how civilized a person is to begin with. At first the boys were very civiled building shelters and setting up a work roster. But as the boys, particularly Jack, became more obsessed with blood and pigs, everything turned on its head(and not for joy).
For me the way the book was written made it very hard for me to read. My mom attributed this to the fact that i don't read the classics, so i don't know how to read a really good book, but she has never read it. I think that it is more the way he words certain things so that you have to go back and read it teice more to understnd it. The annotating was only hard in that i never had any idea what to say, so i would just write down what i was thinking at the time. Also i didn't see that many comparisons between the two texts.
Post a Comment