蝇王1963

在荒岛上，一群价值观还没有成型的小孩会怎么办？
没有教条的约束，恐怕连成年人也会退化吧，鲁滨逊也退化了，还好岛上只有他一个人。中间的故事太过血腥，那布满苍蝇的猪头立在地上，似乎也在看，这群小孩会怎么样。他们争斗，并不是正义的一方就会赢，但是想象一下，岛上远离文明，条件恶劣，并不是靠文明就可以生存。数千年前，人类也是如此血腥的生存，残酷环境下只有强者才能生存。

Staring at the ending credits of the movie Lord of the Flies, I truly wished that I had never seen it. It was definitely not one of my favorite, but once watched, it became almost impossible for me to forget about it. The uncomfortable feeling it induced was so strange and complex that it was difficult to say what disturbed me indeed. Even after reading the official interpretations about original evil, the uncomfortable feeling was still there, for although I was totally convinced by the views of the literary experts, I had a feeling that there was something else.
Then what is it that disturbed me so much? Simply speaking, it is a question unanswered: Why Jack? Why did the children choose Jack instead of Ralph? You may explain it by elaborating on the evil tendency of the human soul, but besides it there must be something else that attracted the children who, although have not yet formed proper judgment between good and evil, have the natural ability to tell what they prefer. In a word, there must be something at which Jack was right while Ralph was wrong.
But what was it? At the beginning of the novel, when the two kids first met, Ralph was the more popular one: he was more handsome, a little bit bigger in size, and most importantly, he had the conch, the symbol of democratic power. His initial advantage against Jack was obvious, but Jack gradually took over. How? It is noticeable that Jack was a person with a strong desire to control, starting from the way he led the choir: even on a deserted island did he try to keep order and maintain control. After failing to become leader of the crowd, he quickly found himself a place as chief of the hunting team. As Ralph had noticed, Jack had “the voice of one who knew his own mind.” How about Ralph? According to Piggy, Ralph was “sensible”. What he wanted was to go back to the civilized society, but he put his only hope of rescue, the fire, under the control of Jack ("Ralph, I'll split up the choir--my hunters, that is--into groups, and we'll be responsible for keeping the fire going--"). Even after Jack’s negligence lost them a precious chance to be rescued, he still relied on Jack for the maintenance of the fire.
At first, Jack was all alone, for leisure was much more attractive for the boys than the fruitless effort of hunting. But Jack was determined “‘I went on,’ said Jack. ‘I let them go. I had to go on. I— ’”. He was driven by a desire to kill, though there was no need of it since they had enough fruit to eat. Why did he found himself so tiring a job as hunting when he could have been enjoying the sunshine and water as everybody else? He was definitely not just looking for something to do, but was again seeking control: the control of pigs, the control of food, the control of the hunting team, the control of the stone fortress, and most importantly, the control of life. While Ralph, after finishing the construction of the huts on the beach, what he did was mostly waiting: waiting for some passing ships or planes to take them home. He did call a number of meetings, but most of the meetings were fruitless for they could not reach a conclusion. Being a leader, Ralph always failed to keep his ground. He was furious at Jack’s negligence of the fire, but when Jack offered him the meat, he eagerly accepted. He was aware of the aggressiveness of Jack and the antagonism between him and Piggy, but was never determined to settle it, never determined to take sides. At last, he even forgot that he was the leader and had to be reminded by Piggy to regain his self-image.
The biggest difference between Jack and Ralph was their attitude towards life. For Ralph, he considered life as something that he himself as a child could not master, so he put the hope on others: on Jack who kept the fire, on the unknown adults who might come and take them home, thus losing control of his own life, putting his fate at the mercy of others. But Jack was quite different, he took the responsibility to hunt, to gather a group, to paint, to sing, to build a fortress all on himself, although he didn’t even have to. Instead of returning to the existing civilization, he was the one who tried to rebuild the civilization, though primitive, on his own.
During the process of gaining control, Jack revived the underlying evil force in his soul, which was true beyond denial. But the sense of “control”, once used on someone other than God, is always related to evil and sin. Think about Lucifer the seraphim who refused to bow before Adam. Once violating God’s will and seeking control of his own, the previous Angel of Light became Satan. But according to Paradise Lost by Milton, the wish to make his own judgment, to be his own savior, to look at the world with independent eye was so strong that Lucifer would rather sacrifice the heaven for it.
So was Adam who abandoned Eden for the forbidden fruit. Instead of obeying God, he chose the advice of Lucifer, just like the children who chose Jack instead of Ralph. It is rather interesting to notice that the forbidden fruit was the fruit on the tree of knowledge. It seemed that even ancient man had realized that knowledge is a dangerous thing: there is some knowledge that should never be obtained. It might not be a mere coincidence that the background of the novel Lord of the Flies was the third world war, a war triggered by nuclear weapon, the superlative development of human knowledge.
The writer seemed to imply that man is doomed to be destroyed: even the kids are taking the same route as their elders, gaining too much control on something that they are unable to rein. If this desire of power, of knowledge, of controlling one’s own fate is an inborn birthmark of human nature, then ever since Lucifer rebelled, since Adam went out of Eden, man is destined to die. But since it is a destiny of our own choice, not only of the children in the novel, not only of modern man, but of Adam and of Lucifer who could have enjoyed the heavenly peace so much desired, there might be something right about it that we could not yet understand.

[划掉]如果Gus Van Sant之类的导演来拍一定会腥风血雨[/划掉]
    关于《蝇王》的感想，本来想发在book页面，先看原著再看电影之后有些奇怪的念头更加强烈，碍于book太严肃，索性在这里随便说说。
    拿起书本，首先产生的是抵触情绪，都说戈尔丁爵士的伟大，洞察人性如何鞭辟入里振聋发聩，但是很明显这是一个被作者精心建构的文本，从环境到人物——没有女孩子——我的想法是，如果这是一个男女混杂的荒岛题材，即使全是小孩子，也能够排列组合出的更多更可怕的情节，这会导致作者对情节描写的失控，有说法是作者认为“女人会导致这个故事的力量不能够达到他所希望的及至”，我觉得倒不如说是会令这个故事的力量过于强大甚至残忍。创作小说对作者思维缜密性要求甚高、尤其是上升到刻画人性反映时代倾听命运的高度时，将出现纰漏或者bug的可能性降到最低自然是最保险的，全是男孩子的人物设置姑且接受。
   其次，我不认为Ralph和Jack是善恶两极。Ralph一开始对Piggy所表现出的轻蔑捉弄也许是他作为儿童天真无忌的表现，但这对Piggy是一种不公平，Ralph被认为是文明、制度、理性的代表，但是他身上也有身为文明与理性化身的骄傲和自负。Jack是个相当有魅力的小孩，他的个人能力或者说个人魅力放在很多作品中都能塑造出相当受欢迎的反面形象，比如当他带领唱诗班徐徐出现时，我想到变成伏地魔之前的Tom Riddle或者拽哥马福及一众斯莱特林——英国人的传统，不管是严肃小说还是儿童读物都能让人看到这种略萌略危险的恶魔正太。再加上有Roger这样的心腹仿佛忠犬侍君左右，我觉得眼前出现了奇怪的东西，于是怀着敬意诚惶诚恐学习名著的心情彻底变调，带着忐忑的心情谷歌了一把，然后只能说“果然是英国人的小说啊”。
    都怪爵士他老人家一定要写all boys cast，哪里有男孩哪里就有腥风血雨的道理您还不懂吗？更何况是一群天真懵懂涉世未深的可爱正太，一种英式传统（男尊）精英教育的风度与荒蛮暴力野性斯巴达气质共同作用在一群小男孩身上，产生了奇妙而可怕的化学反应。于是，《蝇王》是一部有广泛群[tong]众[ren]基础的不朽名篇，fanfiction和LJ上的lord of the flies slash可真丰富，Jack/Ralph居多，还有Jack/Roger，Ralph/Piggy，AllSimon等主线CP，很多还是M或者NC-17级别。然后这个文本基础上也衍生出了玛丽苏女主角介入Jack与Ralph（感情?）生活的长篇。不得不说在同人创作方面，Jack的人气大大高于其他任何角色——反派的魅力光坏再次应验——或许很多人并没有把Jack当做反派，而在自己的创作中将他作为第一主角，野心勃勃、征服欲强，具有领导能力，倒是一位不错的铁腕派管理人才。
    回到第一句话，如果重拍电影版，选对了导演的话，哪怕爵士泉下跳脚不高兴，也阻挡不了电影版必将腥风血雨的命运。

生肉
电影比原作有着更浓的能量，主要区别在于语言——电影更加如一更加一致。儿童们演的很棒，选角、出演都不错，而golding的文字，现在回想起来，似乎只记得那如同儿童文学的笔触。

太有预言性质了。人类对世界的占领，就是从对资源的荒度而非有规划使用开始。而生存优先的技能默认选项，也让团体会排除生病、异见者。

piggy在这里代表了理性，或者说，从另一个星球来的理性（没有本土化的适应性的理性）。在这里，理性远没有最原始的人性更有适应性。煽动对人性的影响，远比理性对人性的影响要厉害。物质贫瘠，无所依赖，没有历史，技能树黑暗，一切架空的现代小孩，的确会被心底的人性撅住，撅回遥远的茹毛饮血的时代。

没有妥协的智慧与规则，不会生存太久。好预言。何况这智慧并没有太高成功率（始终维持火势，代价太大资源不够），规则也没有足够的拴束性。

piggy被饿被Jack晒在一旁，犹如现代的理性被资金玩耍，尤其现代的资本是野性、恶与理性的结合。千丝万缕，怎能一刀切断。

warpaint～Jack是自学成才么？！越发丰富、成熟的暴力！这，明眼都看得出，暴力的胃口很大，绝对会吞噬些什么，马上是Ralph的领导权，接着——原作如果没有让成人介入，就是群体的崩灭了。吃人？残杀？虽然模糊但依稀可见的可怕。我甚至能看到，自相残杀未进入混乱时，“高层”揪老底决定谁被献祭——类似欧洲中世纪，和中国文革。又想起鲁迅笔下的“吃人”，数千年来，成人的世界、成熟的世界（中国大陆），也有着“蝇王”的影子啊，而这lord of flies，毋庸置疑就是以皇帝为首的权利阶级。

编剧、导演甚至大人的痕迹，不是很好的被遮掩，而是几乎完全不见。

最后的军官来到的镜头，太偏为预言而作了吧。不是这个项减分，整部片很好，但没有达到《十二怒汉》的高度。

整个改编很忠实于原作（不想说原著），这个贴合感，哎，又想起《基督山伯爵》的几个不伦不类的胡改了。改编，首先——在价值上说，是将文字与意象赋予画面和冲击感。然而，近代国产剧尤其金庸剧的改编，张纪中等人做出了非常多的改动，应该是找不同，以满足观影群众求滋味解闷儿的心理、需求，而不一样是最能提供滋味的——要知道高阶portrait改编是需要功力的，而且商业上更冒险，谁不想做眼下漫威的赚钱系电影呢。

重新看了63版，伟大的电影。第二次看，觉得63版的重点是人类社会发展简史，跟90版稍不同，我觉得90版是讲人性本恶。这样比较起来，可能心里还是喜欢90版更多一些。不过63版在IMDB分比90高得多，黑白电影就是更有气质一点儿，原著深不可测，真是有利于不同导演的各自发挥啊。