Piggy

[Pizzabeak]

How do any local INTP feel about Piggy's role in Lord of the Flies (i.e, his ultimate fate)?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

It was well deserved. He lacked a certain type of aggression, charisma, and pragmatism that must be coupled with his otherwise sensible philosophy in order for it to be successful. Ralph would have been capable of this in partnership with Piggy, yet Ralph ultimately led to Piggy's demise through his lack of maturity and flexibility in logical approach. Demerits? Really?

<-fanboy of Jack

 

[own8ge]

I don't even know what or whom you are referring. Who the fuck calls himself or a character in whatever Piggy. And, Lord of the flies? Do you play games that are intended for babies/kids? What is this shit?
..And what the fuck is "local INTP"?

And "ultimate fate"? Do you mean destiny? What the fuck is ultimate fate? The combination has such broad possible representation.

Damn your one sentenced thread confuses me.

So to answer your question: I feel confused. But I don't think I'm a local INTP; I don't even know what the fuck that means.

 

[Duxwing]

How do any local INTP feel about Piggy's role in Lord of the Flies (i.e, his ultimate fate)?

I've been in his shoes, and it hurt. More hopefully, though, I know how to stand up to people now, and if Jack looks me in the eye, I'll stare right back into his. No hesitation, no fear, just pure, cold logic right into his psychopathic face. And should he kill me despite my best efforts, I'll go down knowing that what I did was right.

-Duxwing

 

[TheScornedReflex]

I hated him. He was weak. But i still didn't think it was cool he died. And didn't the next day rescuers save them anyway.

 

[Beholder]

I don't even know what or whom you are referring. Who the fuck calls himself or a character in whatever Piggy. And, Lord of the flies? Do you play games that are intended for babies/kids? What is this shit?
..And what the fuck is "local INTP"?

And "ultimate fate"? Do you mean destiny? What the fuck is ultimate fate? The combination has such broad possible representation.

Damn your one sentenced thread confuses me.

So to answer your question: I feel confused. But I don't think I'm a local INTP; I don't even know what the fuck that means.

If you don't know what he's talking about, why reply?

 

[The Lost One]

God I remember reading LoTF when I was 14-15 for school, which is probably why I hated it.
I should pick it up again but from what I remember he was a sort of 'warning' character. In the sense that he possessed specific traits that one might do best to avoid.

I loved how he linked in with the actual pig's head (which was the real beast of the island). Piggy got his nickname during the "innocent" stages. What unfolds in relation to the fly infested pig's head and subsequent death of Piggy is a reflection on the corruption and fear that overtook the entire group.
The book goes from childhood teasing "piggy", to the realisation that there is a beast among the group, to representing the beast as the pig's head, to understanding the beast is inside the self. The link is the pig's head; the representation of gluttony but also insensitivity and bullying.

If you were thinking this with your question: Unfortunately I think Piggy does represent some of the worst traits of INTPs, although he is a little to authoritarian to actually qualify for INTP. He doesn't follow social conventions out of fear but out of self gratification so yea its not quite there.

Oops there goes the rambling. Either that is pretty accurate stuff or I am talking out my behind. Cause honestly I don't remember everything about the book!

So OP what was the reason for making the thread? School essay? Or just natural curiousity

 

[The Lost One]

Also I never got over the fact the book was totally fiction, and really did not represent what would occur if such an event were to happen in real life (the event being some boys being stranded on an island).
Seemed like controversy for the sake of controversy. I wouldn't take it as an accurate depiction of anything. Not that we know either way, but it seems unlikely to be representative of real life.
And also I get so mad at my english education sometimes. We were taught to be so hyper critical at every sentence of the books we read, just to the point of hysteria honestly. But thats the way some of us are. Overanalysis in every facet of life :/

 

[BigApplePi]

How do any local INTP feel about Piggy's role in Lord of the Flies (i.e, his ultimate fate)?

Piggy was naive, but what you you expect from a little boy? For example he asked his friend (Ralph) not to call him Piggy. He could have kept quiet as his friend slipped up by using that name in public. Once public, Jack the (ExTJ?) jumped on this chance to belittle him. These are little boys.

But maybe I miss the point. We are supposed to figure out the steps that went wrong.

 

[BigApplePi]

If you don't know what he's talking about, why reply?

Answer: It's a feeling response. It's done for expression.

What I find interesting is whether good Fe or not, these feeling responses are extremely powerful. They seem to affect cool INTP's ... me as well. How come? Are xxFx's going to do that with everyone? The answer to that deserves a new thread just for that Q: here.

 

[BigApplePi]

It was well deserved. He lacked a certain type of aggression, charisma, and pragmatism that must be coupled with his otherwise sensible philosophy in order for it to be successful. Ralph would have been capable of this in partnership with Piggy, yet Ralph ultimately led to Piggy's demise through his lack of maturity and flexibility in logical approach. Demerits? Really?

<-fanboy of Jack

Did Jack deserve more respect? Jack was the aggressive one and got what he wanted. But Ralph and Piggy had the right idea: Keep the fire going and they could be rescued. Jack ignored that and let the fire go out thereby muffing their rescue chance. If only Jack had paid attention, but he didn't.

 

[Solitaire U.]

Piggy was naive, but what you you expect from a little boy? For example he asked his friend (Ralph) not to call him Piggy. He could have kept quiet as his friend slipped up by using that name in public. Once public, Jack the (ExTJ?) jumped on this chance to belittle him. These are little boys.

But maybe I miss the point. We are supposed to figure out the steps that went wrong.

I think the point of LOTF was something along the lines of childhood behavior being merely an exaggerated mirror of adult behavior...

With Piggy, and to a lesser extent Ralph, symbolizing that intellect and democracy will always fall to physical strength, sexual prowess, and brutal savagery; Jack's strengths.

Aside from that, I found Piggy to be a rather repelling character. Preachy, somewhat cowardly, frail, and physically unattractive. His comeuppance was inevitable, being as emasculated by civilization as he was.

*Edit @BigApplePi I think Jack's intention all along was to avoid being rescued. Hence, his failure to light the signal fire.

 

[Cognisant]

Fascinating post Solitare.

With Piggy, and to a lesser extent Ralph, symbolizing that intellect and democracy will always fall to physical strength, sexual prowess, and brutal savagery; Jack's strengths.

Well, actually that's not how the world works at all, not to say that your interpretation of the book is invalid.

I think the reader is supposed to take Piggy's side and that his death is meant to be tragic, not gratifying, but it's interesting that you take the other side, you seem to imply that Jack has some kind of alpha male status as the superior specimen, and by the reasoning that might makes right, as the mightiest of the flies he can do no wrong.

But as I said in the real world things don't work that way, here the majority rules, diplomatic cunning is far more dangerous than strength or savagery, Hitler for instance, a meek ugly little man, nearly conquered the world by virtue of intellectual savagery, ditto for Napoleon, and likely many other ugly little men.

Does your might makes right sentiment still apply?

The world we live in now is predominately ruled by short, fat, balding, men of middle age or later, the President is just the figurehead of the party, whereas Australia's John Howard and Richard Nixon of the US, they weren't figureheads, they were dangerous, short, ugly, men past their biological prime.

What if Piggy really was the legitimate alpha?
I could just as easily imagine him inciting the other boys to gang up on and murder Jack, I mean go look up images of village chieftains from around the world, they're rarely the biggest baddest guys around, on the contrary they're usually fat, ugly, little men.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Did Jack deserve more respect? Jack was the aggressive one and got what he wanted. But Ralph and Piggy had the right idea: Keep the fire going and they could be rescued. Jack ignored that and let the fire go out thereby muffing their rescue chance. If only Jack had paid attention, but he didn't.

Jack, despite hit psychotic tendencies, offered more freedom; not through his careless, repressive, and arguably regressive ideology, but because he offered an alternative which increased the suite of choices available to the other members. It was when the vote to determine leadership was held (oh, the pitfalls of democracy) that a division among the group was obvious and could be exploited. It was therefore up to elected leader Ralph, especially when the adherence to routine and discipline began to falter, to bridge that gap in a more aggressively diplomatic manner. It was ultimately a failure on Ralph's part to identify the attributes of the group members and orchestrate an effective system using what was available.

Such a union would have realistically been the only chance of survival outside of random discovery as both Ralph and Jack were lax, albeit in different ways and with different motivations.

If only Simon were elected leader

 

[Solitaire U.]

Fascinating post Solitare.

Why thank you, Cognisant.

Well, actually that's not how the world works at all, not to say that your interpretation of the book is invalid.

No, my interpretation of the book (and the world) is simply mine.

Important to remember that all the ugly little Hitlers of the world have resources to protect their positions of power via armies of strong, well-armed adherents. Piggy had Ralph, a conch shell, and a handful of 8 year olds. But perhaps you're right in that, had Piggy thirsted for power, he could have used his intellect to rally these meager resources into a force to be reckoned with. I believe he had the wits, but lacked the will, to do so; the prime failing of his perceived 'intellect'?

But there didn't seem to be even a hint of a suggestion in the book that Piggy was so inclined. His influence upon Ralph; his potential adherent and dog of war, never exceeded appealing to Ralph's 'good sense'. I think Piggy assumed himself to be a mediator at best, which was the cause of his eventual downfall.

Also important to note that Piggy's physical stature (fat), was a key element in his role as an outcast. Golding doesn't even see fit to grant him a real name. IMAO, that is how the world works. I would have liked Piggy much more if he had taken some steps to preserve his self-dignity. I kind of saw that as Golding's over-arching point; that mere intellect doesn't amount to shit if it has no backbone...no substance.

Now, feel free to respond, but try not to go stomping off again with "You're an idiot and I'm done with this.". Isn't that what Jack would do?

 

[BigApplePi]

I think the point of LOTF was something along the lines of childhood behavior being merely an exaggerated mirror of adult behavior...

Well said. These were boys whom we can look at to find what goes wrong with adults who have more complex situations.

With Piggy, and to a lesser extent Ralph, symbolizing that intellect and democracy will always fall to physical strength, sexual prowess, and brutal savagery; Jack's strengths.

Then intellect and democracy have to have something done so they don't ALWAYS fall. Each has something the other doesn't. As long as people are isolated units, they can't share ... and sharing is the solution.

Aside from that, I found Piggy to be a rather repelling character. Preachy, somewhat cowardly, frail, and physically unattractive. His comeuppance was inevitable, being as emasculated by civilization as he was.

His inability to read Jack and Ralph we can call deficient. But must we call his ideas repellent just because the rest of him might have been? Perhaps Piggy was meant to be repellent so we'd see what happens to reason when it isn't backed up by enough force???

*Edit @BigApplePi I think Jack's intention all along was to avoid being rescued. Hence, his failure to light the signal fire.

This is speculation, but my guess is Jack didn't think about that. I don't recall him exploding when the rescue did come. I believe he just concentrated on his immediate situation and his chance for some days of glory. Jack could have been made even more evil and then we'd need an even stronger Ralph.

 

[Cognisant]

Now, feel free to respond, but try not to go stomping off again with "You're an idiot and I'm done with this.". Isn't that what Jack would do?

What jack would do? Don't tempt me

 

[BigApplePi]

Jack, despite hit psychotic tendencies, offered more freedom; not through his careless, repressive, and arguably regressive ideology, but because he offered an alternative which increased the suite of choices available to the other members. It was when the vote to determine leadership was held (oh, the pitfalls of democracy) that a division among the group was obvious and could be exploited. It was therefore up to elected leader Ralph, especially when the adherence to routine and discipline began to falter, to bridge that gap in a more aggressively diplomatic manner. It was ultimately a failure on Ralph's part to identify the attributes of the group members and orchestrate an effective system using what was available.

Such a union would have realistically been the only chance of survival outside of random discovery as both Ralph and Jack were lax, albeit in different ways and with different motivations.

If only Simon were elected leader

Jack offered more freedom? Maybe a fun alternative but not the freedom of rescue. I don't know about his ideology but who could have predicted what it would lead to (bad things) or that his refusal to honor Ralph's directive would lead to the fire going out. Ralph was lax in realizing Jack had other interests important enough to him to neglect the rescue interest.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Jack offered more freedom? Maybe a fun alternative but not the freedom of rescue. I don't know about his ideology but who could have predicted what it would lead to (bad things) or that his refusal to honor Ralph's directive would lead to the fire going out. Ralph was lax in realizing Jack had other interests important enough to him to neglect the rescue interest.

Ah, but rescue was never a guarantee, even with a fire. Rescue also doesn't necessarily imply a greater freedom (is the grass really greener?), and indeed most of the group seems to have felt the same in time. I assume it depends on one's definition of freedom.

 

[BigApplePi]

Ah, but rescue was never a guarantee, even with a fire. Rescue also doesn't necessarily imply a greater freedom (is the grass really greener?), and indeed most of the group seems to have felt the same in time. I assume it depends on one's definition of freedom.

You mean going hunting was very important to Jack. He was able to seduce half the group. There was a conflict between Jack and Ralph right from the beginning but I've forgotten how that was expressed. (I saw the film.) Reason (Ralph) said one should keep all options open: build a fire AND hunt. Doing both weakens the resolve of either.

 

[Duxwing]

You mean going hunting was very important to Jack. He was able to seduce half the group. There was a conflict between Jack and Ralph right from the beginning but I've forgotten how that was expressed. (I saw the film.) Reason (Ralph) said one should keep all options open: build a fire AND hunt. Doing both weakens the resolve of either.

After the incident of eating Simon, I say that Piggy should have put a big, fat rock in the back of Jack's sleeping skull and been done with it. Sometimes you've got to take your glasses off, pull your sleeves to your elbows, and get knee-deep in blood. No guts, no glory.

-Duxwing

 

[Pizzabeak]

I just finished it yesterday, the audiobook. Our teacher told us about it in the 6th grade but we weren't required to read it or watch the movie, and no curriculum after either. I planned on reading it but am swamped with stuff at the moment, so couldn't find the time and went the audiobook route. I am in no way claiming mastery of this work, since I only went over it once.

It sounded like a man's anger at the INTP arche-stereotype, so he wrote a book so he can kill one off (Simon too). We know it's supposed to be a look at society and the origin of behavior, what savagery would commence should society fall apart, or what kind of actions are inherent in man, that will be performed by any souls engaged enough in the act.

Besides his "intellectualism" I don't think Piggy as an ideal symbol of INTP. There are 4 or 5 archetypes of each type, so he was one of them, the "fat" kind. He could have even been ENTP in some regards. So I didn't like it. Knowing some spoilers ruined it for me, since the whole book was just leading up to that moment. He died near the end so you just had to entertain Golding's ideas of criticism toward INTPs (or Piggy). Understandably, he was probably annoying, or in that situation not the brightest or most empathetic, basically unwilling to resort to the manipulation needed in order to ensure survivability.

So what is it? If life is about balance or living in the now, it means there are various kinds of intelligences now in the field. Smart doesn't mean knowledge or facts, it means capable of staying alive as long as you need to (interpreted sometimes as passing your seed on). It takes all things to be capable, such as physical strength. If you were stranded on such an island, knowing the nature of people and the way they tend to act and the things they'll believe, if you're small, you'll definitely need charisma to rally and/or manipulate the party in your favor (in case of any uprisings), or just need mastery over weapons, or a gun. That's all for non utopian societies.

It isn't always about a girl (Othello, Count of Monte Cristo; etc). Some guys are just, apparently, psychopaths or sadistic and need to cause pain in others for their own nourishment. In the case of that, they're asking for kill or be killed. You avoid them, they take it as a sign of weakness. You confront them, then you started it and it's their opportunity for "self defense". Manipulation at its finest, really. That's "smart". Because, anything you don't know can just be googled.

It's basically the whole "Sherlock Holmes vs James Moriarty" thing.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Going to be “re”reading this soon if anyone wants to join. I wouldn’t recommend the audiobooks which is what I was forced to do the first time. I almost bought a copy for $15, but a library copy seems more likely atm.

 

[lightfire]

I want to read that book too actually, but don't want to spend the monies.