Lord of the Flies - Simon

Simon’s role as a Christ figure doesn’t have a very large influence on the plot of the story, however he was of large importance to the themes of the book. Simon is one versus the world: the good of man faced up against the inherent evils of of the beast, Jack, Roger, and the Lord of the Flies. Throughout the story, small evidences of this are given, such as the following quote: “Simon found for them the fruit they could not reach, pulled off the choicest from up in the foliage, passed them back down to the endless, outstretched hands” (Golding 56). Similar to Simon in general, this had much more significance in meaning than in plot. Simon took compassion on those helpless and, with no reward to himself or even hesitation, spent time and energy for them. This establishes Simon as the force of good in the book, confronting the evils. He is also the first to recognize moral truths such as in his encounter with the Lord of the Flies when it speaks to him saying: “You knew, didn't you? I’m part of you? Close, close, close! I’m the reason why it’s no go? Why things are what they are?” (Golding 143). This confirms an idea Simon briefly mentioned before, that there is no beast, except the one inside of everyone. He says: “What I mean is… maybe it’s only us” (Golding 89). Simon was the only one to acknowledge the descent of the boys into savagery as the evil within everyone. The Lord of the Flies, symbolically the devil, also directly targets Simon and talks with him. None of these played much into the story, but Simon’s effect on the meaning of the novel was profound and unmatched.

Insurgent: Factions in Fractions

In the days long after the United States, human society is split into “factions”: communities of people dedicated to a trait deemed by them most important to the success of humanity. Tris is a member of this society, but barely. She is one of the Divergent, meaning she has an equal aptitude for multiple factions, and is struggling to stay alive.

In Insurgent by Veronica Roth, the second of the series, Tris is a powerful force in a fight which will make or break the future of her society. The Erudite (knowledge) faction has been massacring the Abnegation (selflessness) through the power of mind control over the Dauntless (bravery). Unfortunately the Erudite are also after the “Divergent”; those with equal aptitude for multiple factions (as determined by an aptitude assessment at age 16) who are also resistant to the Erudite’s form of mind control. Tris is caught in the middle of all of this as she is an Abnegation-born Divergent who changed factions to Dauntless. She has to become a leader in the fight between the Erudite teamed with the Dauntless traitors and the Dauntless and their allies. In this exciting novel full of unexpected twists, Roth leads the reader with Tris on an exploration of society, family, allegiance, and the merits of humanity.

This book is a captivating read, drawing in the readers straight from the beginning with action and drama and skipping the expository writing that is the downfall of many dull books. While this adds to the thrill of the story, it makes it a must to read the first book, and read it soon enough before that it’s fresh in your mind (which shouldn't be a problem as you'll be scrambling to get your hands on the next book). The story itself is one worthy to be compared to the stories woven by greats such as Orson Scott Card, Frank Herbert, Orson Wells, J. R. R. Tolkien. Unexpected twists, fallen societies, raw human nature struggling between life and allegiance exposed through the form of Tobias, Tris’s romantic interest: “We both have war inside us. Sometimes it keeps us alive. Sometimes it threatens to destroy us” (Roth 401).

Veronica Roth does a remarkable job writing this story. The society she has created is complicated yet believable and completely described to every detail. The reader truly understands what it would be like to live in Roth’s society and is able to empathize with all the characters, not just the main ones. Roth also does a wonderful job fleshing out her characters; every action revealing something of the character, every emotion conveyed as in this quote spoken by Tris, the main character: “...teetering on the edge of grief’s mouth…” (Roth 253). Roth’s bravery to delve into the thoughts and feelings whose admission to most is nothing short of unimaginable creates Insurgent’s depth of character and its moral and emotional weight.

The praise being said, Roth was not without fault. Her lack of interesting vocabulary and description was one fault. This, however, is somewhat overlookable considering the intended audience is teenagers and it’s taken from the point of view, and thus vocabulary, of a sixteen year old girl. The word usage was not impeding to the story and did not make it hard to read. It was also greatly made up for by the content of the language, simple or not. The main character, Tris, was also portrayed as a whiny, irrational, overemotional, and generally unreliable. She would have been done much more justice as a strong woman figure who has grief, sorrow, and fear, but doesn't feel the need to complain about her life incessantly.

In short, this book is a wonderful story full of thought provoking material and concepts. It would be better served with a better author; one with a better grasp on language the Veronica Roth. In spite of this, I would highly recommend this book as a sequel to the first; or if you’re feeling ambitious about unraveling complex backstories, as a novel standing on its own.

Roth, Veronica. Insurgent. New York: Katherine Tegen, 2012. Print.

The Warren Harding Error and Implicit Association

Malcolm Gladwell's Blink contains a section describing what he calls the "Warren Harding Error". Warren Harding was a politician in the early 1900's who was known for his good looks, impressive appearance, and lack of actual ability. One might argue that political ability is somewhat immeasurable, or ask who has the right to say he was successful only for his appearance and did no lasting good. The fact is, if you don't already know who Warren Harding is, you are already disproving that idea.

Warren Harding: The 29th President of the

United States of America

Surprised? I'd wager you might never have even heard his name before. If you knew who he was, kudos, you know more about America then most Americans do. This point, the fact that a man who was generally described through physical details and has been called the worst president in America, stuck out in my mind. How could it be that he made it to the pinnacle of politics without a closer look at his actual abilities? Do such seemingly insignificant qualities such as appearance really have as big an unconscious grip on human judgement as this makes it seem?

This is where Gladwell mentions the IAT, or the Implicit Association Test. This test (available for free to all at implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/ ) measures, as it describes, unconscious biases toward or against certain things. The test works by giving you words to sort into two groups, each group mixing things like race and positive or negative descriptions. The test measures your reactions and amount of time to sort things into the appropriate column within milliseconds and analyzes the data to produce a result of your unconscious preferences. I took two of these myself; the test comparing races to positive or negative adjectives and the test comparing weapons or harmless objects to races. For the first, I expected none or almost no preference seeing as I have many good friends and mentors of several different races. Surprisingly, however, I was given the result of having a strong preference towards European-American people. I can understand why, seeing as I still have spent the majority of my time with those of European descent, however I was nearly sure that wouldn't affect me. The opposite happened on the second test. I expected a slight association between African-Americans and weapons based on the results of my first test and the blatant bombardment of media association between those groups. Yet again, surprise struck me; My result was no bias towards either of the races.

My IAT results prove that, unfortunately, character isn't determined based on actual character, but instead on physical appearance (not to say closer examination wouldn't provide an accurate result). This begs us to question how to evaluate potential leaders if apparently we've been doing it all wrong. While I have no answer to how, I do have suggestions for what to look for. Addressing the point of physical attractiveness, I believe the only time a leader's physical appearance or capability should be a factor in quality of leadership is if any physical condition would prevent them from performing aspects of the position. If we are successful at disregarding the outside, the only things left are the classic leadership traits such as intelligence, bravery, responsibility, charisma, and ability to make decisions. That will be the test of society: Will we be able to overcome these implicit associations to recognize a good or bad leader when we see one, or will we continue to create these undeserving biases?