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！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
up。 Obviously； it doesn't understand its own nature。
Q。： Then it's more a bination of innocence of their own and other's attributes？
A。： Yes。 I think； quite simply； that they don't understand what beasts there are in the human psyche which have to be curbed。 They're too young to look ahead and really put the curbs on their own nature and implement them； because giving way to these beasts is always a pleasure； in some ways； and so their society breaks down。 Of course； on the other hand； in an adult society it is possible society will not break down。 It may be that we can put sufficient curbs on our own natures to prevent it from breaking down。 We may have the very mon sense to say that if we have atom bombs and so on…H…bombs…well； we cannot possibly use these things。
Now that is； in a sense； the lowest possible bit of mon sense…obviously we can't…but you know as well as I do that there is a large chance that those weapons will be used and we'll be done for。 I think that democratic attitude of voluntary curbs put on one's own nature is the only possible way for humanity； but I wouldn't like to say that it's going to work out； or survive。
Q。： You recently stated your belief that humanity would either be saved； or save itself。 Is that correct？
A。： Yes； but here again this is because I'm basically an optimist。 Intellectually I can see man's balance is about fifty…fifty； and his chances of blowing himself up are about one to one。 I can't see this any way but intellectually。 I'm just emotionally unable to believe that he will do this。 This means that I am by nature an optimist and by intellectual conviction a pessimist； I suppose。
Q。： The reason I posed that ment was because in your published notes in Lord of the Flies 。 。 。
A。： They aren't my notes。
Q。： I'm sorry。 I thought Mr。 Epstein2 quoted you。
A。： Did he？
Q。： In the summation 。 。 。
A。： Oh； yes。
Q。： In the end the question is； who will rescue the adult and his cruiser？ This seems to me a little fatalistic； it conveys the notion that there isn't really any hope。
A。： Yes； but there again you can take 。 。 。 there are two answers here； I think they are both valid answers。 The first one is the one I made before； and that is that the quotation there is what I said is intellectual fatalism。 It's making the thing a sort of series of Chinese boxes； one inside of the Other。 The other thing is to say that as the fabulist is always
2。E。 L。 Epstein； 〃Notes on Lord of the Flies〃 reprinted below； p。 277。…Eds。
a moralist； he is always overstating his case； because he has a point he wishes to drive home。 I would prefer to say if you don't curb yourself； then this is what will happen to you。
Q。： Again； in Lord of the Flies； I noticed a very definite relationship between Simon and his brutal death and Christ and his crucifixion。 Would you care to discuss this； or give any omniscient judgment？
A。： Well； I can't give an omniscient judgment。 I can only say what I intended。 First you've got to remember I haven t read this book for ten 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 co