# data[].attributes.body
I also agree with how Anjiya connects this analysis with the theme of power and how when the Naval officer came the boys all surrendered their power to him. And this shows how the boys stepped up and took the power, but when in face of an adult figure they will surrender it because it is always referred that the adult knows better than the kids.

Faiyaz gave amazing examples on how the passage analysis is portrayed as an Allegory and explains how the diction shown in this passage is a direct reference from the Allegorical themes we discussed about in the book.

# data[].attributes.body
Ephratah made a good point I agreed with and then Peyton followed with a valid addition to the topic. Ephratah talked about how when the naval officer arrived on the island, Ralph was not as talkative as he usually is. When the officer would say something, he would just agree, or when he was asked a question, he would give small responses back. Ephratah elaborated about this by saying that when the authority figure arrvied to the island, Ralph understood that he no longer had to try to be the leader. Ralph had tried to do what was right for a long time, and tried to be a good example for the boys, but when the officer arrived he resigned. Peyton made a good point by saying Ralph was tired of having to do the right thing, and lead when very few people followed him. He was tired of battling Jack and wanted it to all be over. This was a valid statement, because Peyton explains how Jack tried to be the best he could for the island, and he then could experience a sense of relief he had not felt before, since the naval officer arrivied.

# data[].attributes.body
I like what Brooke and Hanna said about how its ironic that the naval officer is telling the boys that they shouldn't be acting like this especially as British boys while the military is acting the same way while being in this war, how without a thought they are ready to enact violence on these living breathing people of a opposing country. The island also represents a war zone by the end of a story, the island represents how a beautiful country and civilization can become rubble and ash by the beast within human kind. It shows how this internal corruption within us can also corrupt the environment.

I also like what Ephrathah said about how as soon as a authority figure steps onto the island, the boy immediately stepped down from these high power figures and became boys again. I personally think the story ending with all the boys crying connects how harmful stepping into those roles can be, I think the crying of relief and want to be a boy again pulls the story full circle as in chapter 1, there was a vote for power and power was a role that was wanted, to now at the end of the story power being the last thing any of the boys want. They just want to be home.

taking accountability for actions :

personally, I don't think any of the boys will be punished for these actions. I think this is honestly a symbolism intended by Golding to show how the beast within us gets away with it, showing how this feeling is free and cannot be contained. I think this also connects to real world issues with how corruption and crime is handled and what deserves to be punished. I think that this point Golding is trying to make is also represented throughout the story with no punishments what so ever about the deaths of Simon and Piggy. These characters deaths are mainly overlooked and I think this symbolized how the beast within us doesn't feel guilt, its pure savagery with no other human emotion attached.

I also think morality plays a part here too, Kinda like how in the book Into Thin Air, its mentioned how morality isn't an option at a specific height on the mountain, which is similar to how in the book Lord of the Flies, morality is not even a thought as time progresses on this island. At a certain point, its like morality is below the thought process of the boys. What i mean by that is when they kill the pig and Simon they continuously stab and stab without even considering saving them.

# data[].attributes.body
Like Faiyaz said throughout the story their actions get worse. In the beginning the "society" was more controlled but overtime they like detach from their moral consciousness. They stop thinking logically and start doing as they please even after the other characters in the story try to guide them. Morality can be determined by the environments? I agree with Audrey in that morality is inside each of us but can be tweaked or influenced by our environments by the pressures

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Ephratha on how she said how the Naval officer is like civilization coming back to the boys and returning them from savagery. During the pages 200 till the end the book portrays the Naval Officer as the civilization who finally comes back and saves the savagery of the boys. And the irony is shown because the Naval Officer is fighting in the current World War. And the Naval Officer is still laughing and making jokes which shows how belittle he thinks of this.

I also agree with Peyton when she said once the boys were in the hands of an adult they become all the same no matter bigguns and littluns. And with the littluns crying because they were forced to learn how to solve their own problems at that young age because of the disputes of Jack and Ralph and this led them to cry because they didn't have any adult figure or role model to help them when they were there and it was a sudden change.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Anjiya on who is to blame. Golding's main point is to get across to us that everyone has darkness and savagery inside of them. Therefore, everyone is to blame. Jack wouldn't have any power if it wasn't for everyone backing him up, and they backed him up because they too had the savagery that Jack was projecting. They all cried at the end of the book because they all subconsciously knew that they were to blame as well for those who had died.

# data[].attributes.body
Hana said that Jack doesn't step forward to claim he is chief because he doesn't want to take responsibility for the deaths on the island. I agree, and that moment shows how power is different between Jack and Ralph. Ralph accepts power, and throughout the book he tries to be responsible with it. He wants to build shelters and maintain the bonfire, and he worries he isn't doing a good enough job as chief. When Jack has power he doesn't try to be a responsible leader, instead choosing to hunt and have fun. Since the deaths of Piggy and Simon occurred when he was in charge, and Piggy getting killed by Roger who was directly under Jack's command, Jack doesn't want to accept responsibility for it. He goes so far as to order Ralph to be killed so that there is nobody left who was willing to oppose him and reference the deaths on the island. Once the naval officer arrives on the island, Ralph accepts the responsibility for the deaths while Jack remains silent.

# data[].attributes.body
Peyton made the reference to page 202 when it says, "Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man's heart." This illustrated how even though they were saved/ rescued they wouldn't be the same as they were. They would always have this darkness in their hearts, and it represents the evils of man, which we also see is a present theme in the book.

The group also talked about how the boys crying is them getting to experience some of their innocence again. The boys have had to try and act and behave like adults on the island, as well as trying to act tough because they had no adults to look up to to tell them what to do. Now that they have an adult on the island to save them they cry and get to be vulnerable for a moment of time. This can especially be seen in Jack because throughout the book his entire character changed, but now he is crying and probably gets a rush of everything that has happened on the island, or everything he has done. The ending of the book represents the impact their experiences will have on them for the rest of their lives, but lets them be kids again. It is relieving for both the readers and the characters, but also very intense because they will never be the same.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Faiyaz when he stated the naval officer has a lot of irony behind it. An example of this is when the officer had asked who was in charge, Ralph stated he was and jack didn't speak up. Even though Jack clearly had a lot of control over everyone and the island through his abuse and civilians on the island. he didn't take charge because he knew and so did everyone else that Ralph had the reasonable and more equal way of rule. Jack did not want to take accountability of the horror and triumph on the island nor responsibility of anything so that's why he didn't speak up. Knowing everything that happened he didn't want to be the one to take responsibility for all the savagery that occurred.

Anji also made a good point of how throughout the story the island becomes more dead and less lively. It symbolizes the downfall of their civilization due to everyone's selfishness and immoral actions the society almost fell apart. Back when Simon was alive in the begging of the novel the island was described as lively and near the end of the novel the diction and description of it was more dark and empty and dead.

# data[].attributes.body
Peyton made a good point that I agreed with about the littluns. On the island, the littluns and the rest of the boys have no parents to take care of them. Especially when kids are younger, they need figures in their lives that will be able to care for them when in health needs, feed them, give them shelter and clothes, and comfort them mentally. When the littluns lived on the island they had to be in charge of themselves, because not only did they not have parents, but they didn't know whether to support Jack or Ralph. The Littluns were only a few years old, and they didn't understand some of the problems Jack and Ralph were battling against. Therefore, when the naval officer arrived at the island, they wept and cried, beacuse they hadn't had an adult figure since they were on the island. They released all the emotions they would probably show to their parents.

# data[].attributes.body
I like how Faiyaz gives specific examples on how the passage is represented as an allegory and explains how the specific diction in this passage directly relates to the allegorical themes in the book.

I agree with how Anjiya directly relates this passage with the theme of power and how when the boys will soon leave the island after arrival of the naval officer that the boys will give up their power. Peyton also elaborates on this point giving reasons such as the little boys had to step up while on the island but now that there is an adult present, they now have to give up their authority.

# data[].attributes.body
Ephrathah and Peyton's comment of the boys reverting back to being little boys once the naval officer shows up.

The boys had to step up and act like adults since no one adults were on the island. When they took over this role of being adults, they lost their minds and morality. But as soon as the naval officer, an adult, came onto the island, they all started to weep and felt guilty and remorseful. Jack, Ralph, and the rest of the boys crying and keeping shows how they felt guilty for their actions and didn't want to take responsibility.

# data[].attributes.body
Like Ephrathah said the navel office coming to rescue them is like a depiction of the boys returning to civilization. I don't really think it's ironic I feel like it was just more of an understanding the darkness of human nature said. I mean the officer kind of just looked at them but it was more like understanding/compassion. Like Peyton said the boys once an adult was present were just kids. There was no more difference between the littluns and bigguns, they were all just put into the same category.

# data[].attributes.headline
Passage Analysis: Page 200 to the end of the book

# data[].attributes.subject
Passage Analysis: Page 200 to the end of the book

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Peyton's comment on Ralph weeping for the end of innocence. She said that even if the boys go back to civilization, they won't be the same because of what they've been through. I wanted to add that the presence of the naval officer, who's been through war, who seems to be fine and is cracking jokes shows the volume of the impact that the savagery has had on the boys.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Faiyaz that the ending of the book was very ironic. The Naval officer ridiculing the boys for being savages while also being in a savage war himself is quite ironic and outlines a circumstance in our reality where we might think we are civilized, when we are just doing savage things in a civilized manner. Another ironic example is how the boys were rescued not from the signal fire, but by the fire Jack started in order to hunt and kill Ralph.

# data[].attributes.body
The end of the book describes the naval officer appearing, bringing "civilization" to the island. As Faiyaz said, it is ironic because the officer's occupation is war, the most uncivilized act humans do. He acts superior to the boys for fighting one another despite his career being war. He calls their actions a "show" showing how he looks down upon the boys for their acts.

When asked who is in charge, Ralph speaks up and says he is chief which shows the status of the characters returning to the beginning of the novel when the boys still believed in civilization and Ralph was undisputed chief.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion you can separate the art from the artist, because even if you are a bad person that does not mean that they are not talented. Golding did some bad in his life but you can still acknowledge the art.

# data[].attributes.body
Golding's experiences throughout his life directly influenced what he wrote. For instance, in LOTF, the boys form two distinct groups, Ralph's group and Jack's tribe. Unlike in Golding's time as a teacher, these groups were not pitted against each other by an outsider, but by themselves. While there are of course distinct differences from Golding's observations of boys fighting each other (setting, circumstances, balance between groups), the feud between Ralph and Jack still mirrors that experience. Similarly, their constant disagreement mirrors the world powers involved in WWII, which Golding fought in, supporting one side of the fight. The experience of the war is mirrored in Jack and Ralph in terms of global powers, but also in the idea that the side with more supporters and more resources will win, regardless of who rightfully should (Jack has more numbers, which makes his final hunt for Ralph much more likely to succeed, and he has access to fire and weapons that Ralph lacks). The topic of Golding pitting gangs against each other was bounced around a little bit, but the group has yet to touch on the wartime parallels. Because of this heavy influence of an author's experiences in their writing, it is difficult to fully remove their art from their image. However, I think that art can be appreciated for its merits regardless of what it stemmed from, but the evils that spawned it should still be recognized and acknowledged. Basically, art can never be fully separated from its creator, but should still be appreciated and criticized independently.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Duncan when he talking about how characters aren't all fighting for power and is just looking for protection. In chapter four page 59, it had told us that the littluns had "suffered untold terrors" and that they "huddled together for comfort." This shows us that the littluns' are easily able to be manipulated and controlled because they fear what's out there and from being the odd ones out.

I also agree with Kisha when she was talking about piggybacking. An example is shown by Roger because he tries to get as close and comfortable with Jack. This is so that he could have the power Jack has to be able to do whatever he wants to all of the other kids and be free.

(This is from my notebook cause Noah wanted to type in his responses on my Chromebook)

# data[].attributes.body
When reading a work of art, immoral acts performed by the author should definitely be considered. I also believe that the degree of immorality needs to be looked at as well as how the action may have influenced, either positively or negatively, the work of literature. In addition, people should look at where the proceeds of the work are going, like if you buy the book, is the money going toward a bad cause? Does it promote inequality?

# data[].attributes.body
Notes from a Black Chef: In the story Notes from a Black Chef Tex represents Jacks carelessness because of how he doesn't really care about how the food tastes, he just wants it made, kind of like how Jack doesn't really care about the boys on the island and just wants power over them. Kuame represents Ralph's intelligence and how he is able to think before he does something. Kuame makes the food with love and care and he cares for the other men on the ship and he makes the food good so that the men will feel like they're at home, just like how Ralph actually cares about the boys and focuses on whats important which is them getting home. Both of these stories show how the two compete with each other and how the two have a difference in the impact on the others around them. Kuame like Ralph has a good effect on the people, but Tex like Jack isn't really thinking.

# data[].attributes.body
Comparing the ID of Ian Woodall and Jack both show how selfishness brings dangers to others. Jack allows the littluns to kill and to have all the fun they want only if they make him the leader, and Ian Woodall makes his team choose if the get the joy of going up Everest if he stays as leaders. The group only gets what they need if the person with the ID gets what they want in an already dangerous place, and they go after they weak knowing that they would choose them.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Noah S made a good point by mentioning the authors backgrounds because they have both been in a situation where they have seen that selfishness/ desire for power first hand and that gave an unfiltered view into the texts. Rather than it coming from someone who only saw the light, but the stories came from people who fully saw everything. It seems like they would be hard to compare because one happened and one didn't, but figuratively golding had been through the key points of this, like dealing with the selfishness during the wars hes been through.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Evan's point that Lord of the Flies has a similar theme to Into Thin Air where the people are faced with the decision to prioritize their own needs or morally help others. An example of this in Into Thin Air would be when Krakauer faced many people on the verge of death on the mountain and he had to ignore them. This is similar to Lord of the Flies where Jack led his group to go hunt so that they could have fun rather than keep watch of the fire so they can get rescued. Both groups on Into Thin Air and Lord of the Flies have the people in isolated settings where they are able to bend the rules of humanity, and it shows how far people will go.

# data[].attributes.body
I somewhat disagree with the statement made regarding Ian Woodall and Jack, I think that Ian is more apathetic instead of actively aggressive the way Jack is. We can see in ITA that Ian woodall refuses to help the other climbers, but he does not go out of his way to harm them. In LOTF there are numerous cases where Jack actively oppresses and attacks the other boys on the island, such as when he attacked Ralph's group pointlessly for fire.

I think there is a connection between the themes of man vs nature as well as man vs man. In both books, the conditions of the environment affected the characters directly while also affecting the way they interacted with themselves. In ITA, we can see the effects that high altitude had on the way certain characters interacted with each other, leading them to make rash decisions which endangered themselves and others. An example is the death of Rob Hall due to his decision to continue climbing. This is mirrored in the way that the conditions of the island affected the thoughts and actions of the boys. An example would be the primal and savage way the boys acted during the storm, making them irrational and impulsively brutal which ultimately led to Simon's death.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Evan on the fact that ITA and LOTF both look into the nature of man. In LOTF a lot of boys start going insane and savage and in ITA many people start to hallucinate and lose some mind power. Basically, both books highlight scenes where people are losing their mind and sanity.

# data[].attributes.body
I somewhat agree with Alefiyah's point about the sense of power gained in getting to the top of Mount Everest. I think this point is more relevant in the context of how people climbing Everest make less than rational decisions in order to get to the top. This relates to thrill of the hunt, initially for a pig, but later for Ralph. At the end of the book, the people in the hunt end up setting the entire forest on fire in order to find Ralph, with disregard for the consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
Although many people disagreed with Maddie about the fact that Ian Woodall from Into Thin Air is similar to Jack from Lord of the Flies, I actually agreed. Krakauer describes Woodall as someone who has power but uses it in selfish ways. For example, when individuals from Jon's summit group were stuck on the mountain, Woodall refused to lend his radio or really help in any way to aid Jon's group. Then, in Lord of the Flies, Golding also depicts how Jack leaves to form his own group, which eventually gives him more power, and that once he had that power he used it in violent ways. He stole Piggy's glasses so that his tribe could start a fire, as well as hunts and attempts to kill Ralph at the end of the story. In the two works of literature, both Jack and Woodall are described as selfish people who abuse their power.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with how the group compares how the boys destroy the mountain with litter and the beach with poop with the commercialization of Mount Everest both being selfish. The boys are continuously getting sick from the berry that they don't know if they are okay to eat or not, and how people keep going up Everest eve when it's so dangerous. With them destroying the island and the littering of Everest both the island and Everest become even more dangerous for the people. They both only think of the fun they have rather than thinking of what is good for the group.

# data[].attributes.body
I would agree with both Golding and Krakauer using nature as an important aspect in the development of both novels. Both describe the environment as beautiful and ugly, but also describe how they are affected by nature. I agree with Boomer when he said that man vs nature is one of the main conflicts in both novels. The nature of LOTF in the end gets burned down, but Ralph still has to fight for his life.

# data[].attributes.body
Both Into Thin Air and LOTF have strong themes regarding human nature and the ways people interact with their environment, similar to what Kayla said. In ITA, Krakauer touches on the commercialization of Everest and how that negatively impacts the ecosystem despite benefitting human society. In LOTF, Golding explores the detriment the boys have on the island after their arrival. Both of these novels put emphasis on people's selfishness and the way that affects the environment.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree about how Golding really used nature to show the story moving along, like the group said, the fires and the island did show it, but along with that the colors that were shown also went along and flowed with the story. The calm and peaceful opening that Simon was discribes really brightly but when things were happening in the story Golding would describe everything as if they were darker and duller colors, he also used shadows and blind spots, like when the boys hair would grow out and they could not really see it could also be very figurative.

# data[].attributes.body
While many people are disagreeing Maddeline's comparison of Ian Woodall to Ralph, and instead comparing him to Jack, I agree with the connection. While in Lord of the Flies, Jack is not portrayed as completely evil. Yes, he does end up doing morally ambigious things, he is just shown to be chasing after power. In contrast, Ralph is only shown to do actions that go against our morals, and never portrays admirable qualities. This is similar to Ian Woodall who is simply shown to be cruel and unmerciful. There is never an explanation for his lack of morals, he just acts in unselfish ways. Yes, he is in a position of power, but that is not related to his actions. His actions instead go unexplained, only attributed to inherently corrupted morals.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Boomer. Ian Woodall doesn't represent Jack very well since Woodall never really wanted power. Although, Woodall was the guide of his expedition giving him some sort of role as an influencer which he doesn't fulfill well since he leaves his expedition members without helping them at all.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with Nena that Ian Woodall from Into Thin Air would not resemble Roger from Lord of the Flies. She made a point that Ian doesn't have that evil in him, but no one would think that about the children either when they were back in civilization. Ian had already been pushing the borders of morality without being isolated on an island with no rules, so there is no telling what he would do if he were put in that situation.

# data[].attributes.body
Maddie uses a great point to connect Ian Woodall from ITA and Roger together. To help support her claim, both authors support the claim that people can use their positions to corrupt others. It makes things put into perspective of being careful on knowing who has power.

# data[].attributes.body
To help support zachary the page he was referencing earlier when he was talking about ralph giving up on being rescued and joined jacks hunters is on page 43

# data[].attributes.body
Golding's description showing the passage of time is very clever. Using the growth of hair is a seemingly minor detail, but it is important when looking at it's symbolism looking at Piggy.

# data[].attributes.body
There were some symbols of power i found throughout the book this being piggy's glasses and the conch. The conch symbolizing civilization directly and piggy's glasses representing fire. Piggy's glasses represents power because they have the power to make fire and as we know fire has destructive force and also has the ability to cook meat therefore representing power also whoever has both the conch and the glasses are the solidified leader. This is seen when Ralph has both him being the leader but when jack breaks away then steals the glasses he know is recognized as a leader and then the conch gets destroyed and then ralph no longer is a leader.

# data[].attributes.body
I would like to highlight something that Zach mentioned, where he talked about many different characters' altruism and sort of morality, and I think morality and power go hand in hand because I think a common thing that happens with a lot of the characters in the book, like Jack and Roger, is that the chaotic and competitive environment overpowers their moral instincts and leads them to want more power to fuel their inner "beast"

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with Matthew, I think that some of the kids really don't want the power, like they still would like a say or they just don't care, but they don't necessarily want the power. Zach kinda vocalized what I meant, kinda saying the littluns don't want the power, and like samneric are very much so followers.

# data[].attributes.body
What is Simon's role in this theme? He does not really seem to enforce it at any time, and he certainly does not strive for control. Could his need for power be internal, like he strives for power within himself, as shown with his conversation with the Lord of the Flies?

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with what Duncan said about how not all characters in the book seek power, and I think a good example of that is Simon in the book, who we can see is described as pure and is kind of the anomaly throughout the island where he has an internal sense of goodness that does not stem from societal rules, and I think that the power that he has comes from the fact that he one of the only characters that never shows his savage side and never really tries to seek for more power.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Duncan's point that not all characters are seeking power. Characters want to be safe from Jack, therefore they'll support him and his claim to power in order to be safe from him. I also agree with Rachel and Sophie's point, how Piggy provides support to Ralph's rule. Piggy wants enough respect to be heard by the other characters, so I disagree that he wanted to have power. He wanted the boys to hear him and his ideas, but he didn't want power. He was fine with Ralph being chief because he knows Ralph has power over the boys.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with what Duncan said about not every character in the novel seeking a sense of power. In the book there are never any clear instances of the littluns trying to gain power or generally take control of anything. They almost always just follow along with what the older kids/leaders do. He made a point about most everyone following Jack out of fear which I do agree with as well. For example, in the book SamnEric wanted to help Ralph but couldn't since they were scared of being hurt by Jack. That's the only reason they were going along with Jack's tribe.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with what everyone is saying, Jack has power through fear, whereas Ralph struggles to retain power because he is too leaniant. Real world connections usually include things like politics and war. Jack is really good at using the boy's personal fears and thoughts against them.

I agree with the piggybacking comment, where Roger is following Jack to get as close as he can to power. I agree with Duncan, not everyone wants power, a lot of them are definitely followers

# data[].attributes.body
Duncan's statement on why Ralph lost power can be related to real world scenarios. Most politicians promise things that they can't or don't deliver on, Hitler also made promises but he delivered (or attempted to) on what he was saying and so managed to rise to be a dictator.

# data[].attributes.body
In response to what Zach said about Ralph failing as a leader allowing Jack to gain more power, I would like to add that although Ralph loses power I dont think that is the main reason why Jack is able to have so much influence over all the boys. I think that the opposing viewpoints of Jack and Ralph, where Jack values fun and Ralph values order the littluns are obviously going to be more inclined to want to have fun and go do activities like hunting rather than following the rules.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Rachel's idea about the transfer of power from Ralph to Jack. I think that once the fun of having meetings and the fire wore off, the kids wanted something more fun to do, and Jack introduced the hunting, the dancing, and the feasting. This was why the kids were willing to hurt Ralph; they saw that Jack was more fun and they would follow what he said.

# data[].attributes.body
In the theme of power, I agree with Kisha, with Jack using the boys' fear of the beast to further his power. But I think Jack uses fear in more ways than touched upon in the circle. Jack uses the boys' fear to completely usurp Ralph's position as chief, and his tribal mentality forces others who would be against him to join out of fear of being victim to Jack's violence.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Keisha when she mentioned how Jack uses the fear the boys have towards the beast as a way to maintain power among the group. Jack sees the littlun's fear as a way to take advantage of them and sort of convince them into going along with whatever he says.

# data[].attributes.body
There can be multiple forms of power. Physical power, social power, political power ect. All of these can be used to control people through fear. Jack uses physical power in the form of Roger, and also him being one of the biggest kids on the island. He uses social power as a big kid on the island, and as a result he rises to political power. He uses his political power to control the masses and command the other kids to attack.

# data[].attributes.body
I somewhat disagree with Zach. I do not think that Golding only shows power as corrupting, only the want for it. Ralph was the chief, but he did not show any kind of corruption. However, Jack's incessant need for power was what eventually caused the corruption and autocrcy.

# data[].attributes.body
In the novel, something I noticed was the different ways the two boys (Jack and Ralph) obtain power as well as maintain it. Jack has a lot more of an intimidating, selfish, and savage way of obtaining power among the boys. He constantly uses his power to sort of scare the boys into listening to him as well as manipulates them into joining his tribe. Ralph however obtains power by keeping order, setting a good plan, and using more civil and organized methods. Ralph's goal is that he wants to survive and make it off the island, hence why he feels the need to be in charge. Jack's goal is one more of selfish and power hungry desire.