Lord of the Flies comparison with DNA

3718 Words Oct 10th, 2013 15 Pages
‘Although set in different periods, Lord of the Flies and DNA present similar ideas about good and evil’. How far do you agree with this view?
One of the central themes in both William Golding’s ‘Lord of the Flies’ and Dennis Kelly’s ‘DNA’ is good and evil; both texts collectively offering a plethora of theories and ideas about the morals of humans and how they influence their actions. In ‘Lord of the Flies’ a group of British schoolboys are stranded on an island. Far away from the influence of adults, Golding creates a pseudo-civilisation in which he examines the actions of human beings and conveys his ideas of good and evil to the reader. Conversely, ‘DNA’ focuses on a group of twenty- first century teens, (still among a society) where
…show more content…
‘DNA’ was written in period of post-modernism where metanarratives such as religion have declined and society has fragmented, engendering the formation of our own beliefs and choices. This is significant in Kelly’s writing about good and evil as his ideas are often more ambiguous and inquiring than Golding’s. Additionally it enables Kelly to explore the flaws and strengths of humanity on a wider and more open spectrum, in which he voices a cornucopia of theories and perspectives. This is supported by the fact that Kelly wrote ‘DNA’ in the style of dialectical theatre and it can be read in the style of the playwright Brecht who focused on involving his audience in his exploration of theories. He uses theatrical conventions such as rhetorical questions to consciously draw the audience to comment on matters of science and the nature of humanity- good and evil. In comparison to ‘Lord of the Flies’ (which offers a far more assured depiction of humanity) the role of the play is not to simply present us a story, yet to compel audience members to question the many issues raised on our nature as it progresses. I think this is most clearly demonstrated by Leah’s monologues, which, as Phil ignores them, seem to be implicitly directed to the audience, almost ‘breaking the fourth wall’. An example of this is the question: ‘Are we really that simple?’ Here Kelly puts Leah in the role of the chorus, influencing audience members to