Removal Proposal: Roger (Lord of the Flies)

This post is locked.

Looperreallyreallysucks·1/30/2019 in Pure Evil Discussion

Okay, I feel like Roger from Lord of the Flies has to be cut. I recently decided to read LOTF out of sheer boredom, and I did some further research afterwards. Now, I'm aware someone already made a removal proposal for Roger in the past, and according to that proposal, Roger only committed one murder. I'd still say Roger is heinous enough, because the book came out in 1954 when the general standards weren't very high, one murder is pretty heinous for Roger's age, and he's pathetically low on resources. There's also a scene where he shoves a spear up a pig's ass, and he frequently expresses a desire to torture and kill, which invalidates the "only one murder" argument.

However, this is my argument against Roger's inclusion: at the end of the book, all of the kids cry out of remorse and shame, and this most likely includes Roger, and since the criteria states that it has to be clear that a villain has no redeeming qualities, I'd vote "cut" for Roger.

Please comment.

Removal Proposal: Roger (Lord of the Flies)

Jester of chaos·1/30/2019

I am not familiar with the story but for me it depends on how presented before and if it specifically says all the boys where showing remorse or not. I mean if a story for example specifically portrayed one inmate as happy to commit vile crimes and then a later chapter said something like "the prisoners later broke down in remorse over the senseless murder" I'm not necessarily convinced all them including the previous sadistic one necessarily is just that a lot of prisoners did.

JoxFox2109·1/30/2019

Undecided.

Why are they crying and show remorse for?

And why does the time in which the movie/book came out have an impact on the heinous standard? I thought we go with "In-story heinous standards".

Looperreallyreallysucks·1/30/2019

In the story, all of the kids became savages after being stranded on an island without grownups. In the end, they were crying out of remorse because of everything they did.

In LOTF, Roger committed a pretty brutal murder (crushing Piggy with a stone), making him the worst in the book. Nowadays, since violence and mature contents in stories prominently amped up, one murder would not stand out, no matter what. But since works that came out during 1954 generally had low heinous standards, one murder is unique enough. That's how I see it.

(Edited by Looperreallyreallysucks)

JoxFox2109·1/30/2019

But if you compare old stories from 1954 with todays stories, then they wouldn't count anymore because they are not to heinous enough. Even if the film came out 1954 but we don't have 1954 anymore. But because he stands out enough even by todays standard, which sounds like what you said, then he is Pure Evil.

Stolen5487·1/30/2019

Undecided right now, still leaning toward keep. I don't think it was the writers intention to include him in the part where the kids cry.

Misry6·1/30/2019

Well, considering all of the evil things he seems to have done, I don't think he was remorseful for his actions. He's also apparently more sadistic than the other boys and just because all the other boys were remorseful doesn't mean he was, too, so I vote a slight "keep".

Looperreallyreallysucks·1/30/2019

@JoxFox Roger still stood out enough at the time Lord of the Flies was published, but like I said in the removal proposal, him being heinous enough doesn't affect anything. My reason against his inclusion is that it is heavily implied he felt remorse over his actions along with all the other kids who went insane. In order to be Pure Evil, it has to be made clear that a villain possesses absolutely no redeeming qualities.

@Stolen @Misry @Jester The thing is, the least they could have done was to say something like "all the kids cried, except for Jack and Roger" in order to point out just how exceptionally remorseless the main villains are. The way the scene was worded sounds like every single kids who were stranded on the island felt remorse, including Roger. Culverton Smith from Sherlock was voted down because "it's ambiguous if he cared about his daughter or not", so I think this should also apply to Roger. Again, the meer possibility that he felt remorse should be enough to disqualify him.

JoxFox2109·1/30/2019

Yeah, I meant that he generelly seems to stand out enough. Back in 1954 standards and today standards.

IamArinessa·1/30/2019

Very weak cut.

RandomnessIsAwesome·1/30/2019

I'm quite undecided on this matter.