# data[].attributes.body
I feel like the progression of evil coming out is most strongly seen through Roger, this is because on page 62 it states "Roger stooped, picked up a stone, aimed, and threw it at Henry-threw it to miss." (P. 62) This shows that everyone is evil but with different amounts Roger began with more evil then the others but the sociatal pressures brought out more evil in him and throught the book, progressively he lost more of his morals, to the point where he became almost pure evil. This can be seen on page 180 where he kills piggy, "Roger, with a sense of delirious abandonment leaned all his weight on the lever...The rock struck Piggy..." More of his evil came out because of everything and all the pressures that he faced on the island, but the question is after they were resuced the evil that came out on his time on the island will that ever go back in?

# data[].attributes.body
I think Emily had a fantastic point of how evil often comes about when there is an external conflict that can spring from the need to survive. I think that with this, some people have much more evil inside of them, especially with the fact that Jack has more evil inside of him than Piggy or the littluns, while Ralph is more in the middle. I also think that the 'hurt people hurt people' connects to Jack, because not only was he constantly described as ugly, but he was also denied leadership power twice, which makes me think that he was bitter from that, making him act out even more.

# data[].attributes.body
Aidan mentions how everyone is born with the same amount of evil in them. I agree with him as Golding shows one of the littluns, Henry, thrilled to be controlling other small living things. He also portrays Roger, one of the in-between ones, and his evil by showing his thrill in torturing Samneric. Finally, one of the bigguns, Jack, succumbs to the evil in him when he intentionally leads others to hunt Ralph.

# data[].attributes.body
I like how Emily and Aidan talk about the triggers that make human nature war against itself, the connection that Blake makes to different characters not being evil vs. being evil. Its almost like a snowball effect the worse personality keeps descending to nothing. Emma also made a good point with the mixture and imbalances between people, Ilhaam provided examples of Jack and Roger being horrible people inside and Simon being a good person. While Noah argues that Jack is a good person, I would say that Jack had that fire within him when he demanded to be chief. Even though external factors leaned in his favor when he was evil, that rot inside of his spirit is a testament to his morality.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Power Dynamics having a large role in showing the darkness of human nature. In the text it says, "I ought to be chief because I'm chapter chorister and head boy" (pg. 22). This quote shows more how Jacks desire to have power based on his qualifications shows how much power has an impact on society. All the characters look at different ways to come to power. These different ways lead to conflict, manipulation, and corruption in order to try and reach dominance.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree but also disagree with Savannah because I do believe that the Littluns try to fit in and stick together throughout the book. But when they join Jack, I do not think that it is because they think it is fun, I think it's out of fear they have with Jack. On page 150, Jack is pointing a spear at them when he asks them to join his tribe, and then after they all do. Jack instills fear in the Littluns in the Littluns which I think is the driving force for the reason why they join his tribe.

# data[].attributes.body
Emma and Noah discussed morality in society. The group discusses how a person's morals only exist in society. As we can clearly see in the story, the boys had a huge character change in the way that they kill Simon and then further deny it, accept their violent behavior, and their physical state that has become messy and dirty. These new morals that the boys accept also help to isolate Simon, as he is still trying to stay alive. When he tried to warn the boys that the beast isn't real, the boys, united in fear, all attack him. Simon gets killed, which helps to highlight how the originally well behaved British boys completely changed with the island. The loss of their original society into their own established society caused a loss of many boys morals.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Alex with the Littluns idea and I want to extend the idea and look at it through a more Political lense. The Littluns represent the citizens of a country with all the traits of being vulnerable, gullible, and dependence on authority. They listen to any authority figure and change sides many times as they are manipulated into believing false truths. Fear also amplifies the tension and fragility of their government system without a leader telling them exactly what to do.

# data[].attributes.headline
Morality and Truth-Jada, Blake, Noah, Savannah

# data[].attributes.subject
Morality and Truth-Jada, Blake, Noah, Savannah

# data[].attributes.body
When the Lord of the Flies talks about finding truth or deciding to stay ignorant, I agree with Noah and Blake in terms of how their society is conditioning the morale of the boys. I like the connection that Jada makes to the paper menagerie how the darkness backfires in people and makes them act irrationally. That happened with Krakauer too and Ian Woodall, where they fragment on the mountain. I like Savannah's point as well in finding a connection between how much fun one group has in Lord of the Flies and how that plays into herd mentality, and Noah ties it in to the Littl'uns being civilians and I want to add how we do so as well when we follow politicians or infuencers.

# data[].attributes.body
Jayda and Noah spoke about morality and how it is very strongly influenced by society and its constraints, since Jack and the other boys begin losing their humanity and their guilt for killing things (which goes against morality as they know it.) I agree, but not fully since Simon never lets go of his morals for the entire time he is alive. He continues up the mountain despite the LOTF's warning to choose being immoral with the rest of the boys and live or go up the mountain, follow his morals, and die. I believe that Golding was trying to show how feeble morality is to humans due to its consequences and our inherently evil nature. Simon represents pure goodness in LOTF but even his goodness leads to his death.

# data[].attributes.body
Noah talks about how morals don't truly exist in groups. I agree with this as its seen throughout the book. An example used in the story is Simon's death. A quote that in the book that Golding uses is ,"There isn't anyone to help you. Only me. And I'm the beast... Fancy thinking the Beast was something you could hunt and kill! You knew, didn't you? I'm part of you? Close, close, close! I'm the reason why its a no go? Why things are the way they are? Simon says all this while being attacked by all those who were at Jack's feast, which included even Ralph and Piggy. Ralph and Piggy are the 2 on the island that try to stay with their own morals throughout the story and it turned out that when they joined Jack's group for even a moment, they lost all their own morals and conjoined morals with the whole group.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with Blake saying the art of LOTF can be separated from the artist. He relates it to listening to Kayne West music and enjoying it by not thinking about or considering the antisemetic things Kanye has said. While West's music has nothing to do with jewish peoples, William Golding set gangs of boys against each other, he raped a teen girl, he participated in wars and saw the true evil which he believes is in everyone. Golding drew from the these expiriences and it is plainly portrayed through Jack's actions rallying his tribe to attack Ralph's to take fire and when Robert shoved his spear up the rear end of the sow they were hunting.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Blake in the fact that when it comes down to saving yourself versus saving someone else, people will always pick themselves. I want to extend on the idea that there is a struggle between self-preservation and altruism. Being a hero is something that everyone on the island stays away from. They realize that they need to protect themselves by fitting in as well. Killing Simon as a group shows this as they realize they need to do this to survive. They do whatever it takes to keep themselves alive. Even if it intrudes on their moral values. Everything is thrown out the window and options are never too harsh when it comes to survival.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Jerusalem, in the way that people can leave their morals behind when faced with danger themselves, which is seen in LOTF through Sam and Erick who sided with Jack and helped them hunt Ralph, they knew it was wrong but they still did it out of fear. I would like to add that morals can also dissapear when trying to fit in, doing wrong things doesn't look as bad when doing something in a group. Other people doing things making something seem not as bad even if you know it is wrong and against your personal morals. This is seen through Piggy joining in to the killing of Simon, then realizng what he did was wrong the next day when he was no longer with the group. This also connects to the article When Good People Do Bad Things by Ann Trafton, which disscuses how doing something with numbers can justify the actions you are taking even if you know its wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Jerusalem because I think morality also changed throughout "The Lord of the Flies", and that can be seen by how they behave. For instance, on page 31, Jack is first hesitant when killing a pig because of his morals. But later, Jack is playing with their blood and being fulfilled with their deaths, which highlight the change as their morality lessens from the beginning of the book to the end.

# data[].attributes.body
I completely agree that Golding purposefully added things that were based on his personal experiences inside of his book. Especially with his rape connecting to the killing of the pig, because of the diction that he used throughout the book. Savannah also commented on this by saying he was trying to justify his actions by putting it into the book and making the theme that all people have evil inside of them. She says that he is using them as kids to show that they make mistakes, and Golding was young when he made mistakes. The main difference was that Golding grew up and continued to make bad choices.

# data[].attributes.body
Both Noah and Jadah mention how Golding's wrong actions are interwoven into his story. Golding's story is highly influenced by his own personal experiences, helping to craft the story, theme, and hard experiences the boys go through. I would agree that it is very hard to separate the art from the artist as the art is a product of an artist experiences, and the experiences that the boys go through (physically fighting, loss of societal order, and brutally killing the sow) are shaped from Golding's personal actions and experiences

# data[].attributes.body
Blake talks about how artists, such as Kanye West have bad pasts yet if you, as the listener/reader can put those things in the back of your mind rather than the front, you could see the 'masterpieces' they make. I agree with this because I feel as though many people make terrible mistakes at one point or another and their art doesn't necessarily reflect their shortcomings. An example such as William Golding in 'Lord of the Flies' also presents this exact same thought through Golding's past actions in life. Even though he's a 'criminal,' he is able to give people a 'masterpiece' without using his bad past.

# data[].attributes.body
I like how Jada was talking about the justification of actions and as a moral lesson, its an excuse for him for the tipping of a scale in morality. I was thinking more along the thoughts of Emma, displaying the darkness in man was a negative excuse for himself while Krakauer did the same but admitted to his guilt. However, people don't just go around raping other people and writing books about their excuse on it. I also like how they describe the chains of society falling off of each of the characters when they are free of social constraints. I also agree in Noah with the fact that Jack loses his morals in a society and that cultural cultivation is the responsibility for human nature

# data[].attributes.body
Jadya said that Golding probably wrote the book as a way to ease is guilt or justify his actions (specifically the scene with the sow and when Jack instigates disunity in the group), but I disagree that his motive was to relieve himself, but rather as an example of human inherent brutality. To me, his experiences that are reflected in the book seem more like examples/reflections of real people.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Blake as when I was reading the book and not knowing about the previous things Golding has done I had not taken into consideration that his actions could be portrayed in the story. With the Kanye West example, if you did not know about all the things he has done, you would see him as a good musician that you enjoy and has some good art. Even with knowing his actions, you have to take the story for what it is and seperate it from Golding as the messages of the book are important as their own messages. The author is just a name on the front cover to me, a piece of art takes on its own ideologies.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Alex's comment about how Golding has a different perspective which brings up a great point about how he has his bias on how he views things from his experience. I think the war and trauma really affects his theme because in war everyone was in a life or death situation so they were forced to kill and do dark things and this really comes through in his theme that everyone has darkness because he was able to see this darkness in everyone.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the people saying things about how really, you don't have to take into account the fact that Golding was a bad person when reading his book. You can enjoy his book without knowing him. Although, with prior knowledge on Golding, you can understand the reasoning for the way he rights "Lord Of the Flies" in a very graphic view.

# data[].attributes.body
Triston talks about how the naval officer knew the kids were British. He says that although the kids are on an island the officer expected they would do wrong, and that even in the real world people still do bad. I agree with this and how Golding showed us humans true nature. The boys on the island were at first civilized, but quickly began fighting. The naval officer also says this is no way for British people to act, showing that there are moral expectations in real life as well as the island. The boys were taught from a young age how to be proper, life Ralph wanting the need to bathe and comb his hair, but still resulted to being dirty in the same way people know what is good, but still fight and do wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
abem Makes a great comment about how artwork and the artist can be seprated but it cant if the ideas the artist beleives are intertwined in the text. I dont belive in this specfic example golding can be seprated from his work as he has done some brutal things in relife that are reflected in his text. hes assulted a teenager and then he writes an absoultly brutal depication of the mother sows killing which makes you wonder if this was his true intention for the teen he assulted

# data[].attributes.body
Anna explains that though Goldings true actions are bad we can't automatically say that Golding is a bad author. I agree and disagree with this because I believe that while yes, his life experiences may have affected and made his writings better, they also have tainted his sense as an author. He may have a different perspective on the writing in a way that may have caused him to take such a strong stance on the issues and conflict in the book. For example, the stance he took on the inherent evil in man was very strong, maybe because of the experiences that he's had in his life.

# data[].attributes.body
I like the connection between the island and the boys innocence. However, I think instead of comparing to their innocence it could be compared to their growing savagery. At the beginning of the novel, the island is described as having a beautiful landscape just as the boys have showed up as civilized and level-headed people. But as the story goes on, the boys grow more savage and the island's state get worse like the big fire in the end.

# data[].attributes.body
The way Abem said she believes that what he has done has helped him craft the evil in the book, I agree with. The fact that he is evil helps him to craft the idea we all have evil within ourselves. It is much more clear to him than someone else who hasn't done anything that extreme. What he has done has allowed him the ability to create this evil in his mind, because he is evil and he has these ideas. Someone like Jon Krauker, isn't evil just human. He hasn't raped anyone like Golding. So, his view is more optimistic as he doesn't think of things or a human doing those things, the thought being repulsive to a normal person like Krauker or me.

# data[].attributes.body
Abem talked about how the boys eyes are a bit more opened because they arrive on the island because of a war and there they end up fighting a war. To expand on that, yes it does open the boys eyes up in the aspect that they realize how real things are. The island like Anna started talking about being ruined after the boys left and they see this wreckage and realize that they're the cause of that. It kind of mirrors what's happening in the world with how beautiful it is before war and how broke and ugly it is after. I think these things happen because of the idea that human nature is rooted in evil so anything humans touch end in ruin.

# data[].attributes.body
Abem mentions how the boys on the island gained consciousness to the true evil of the world. Because at the end when the naval officer comes to the island, the mainland is still in the middle of a war. So in a way, their microcosm, that was the island, was representative of the world they were separated from because it slowly descended in chaos. Julia also mentioned how, though the boys were physically rescued from the island, they will never be rescued from the crimes that haunt their conscious.

# data[].attributes.body
I really liked how Abem pointed out they were trying to flee from the war in the first place. The reason they were on the plane was to be safe from the terrors and violence of the war. They never ended up actually getting to leave the war. Instead, they went to a different war, one they experienced firsthand, among each other. The way Jack's tribe kills Piggy and tries to kill Ralph in order to get more power, be the only power. Without competition. Much like in the war where a country wants more power and so they invade and kill their opponents. They were fleeing to escape war only to go in another war.

# data[].attributes.body
I liked Anna's comment about how when they see an adult for the first time in months and the description of the boys changes and this because I think it shows how when the adult and societal order came back, the boys lost their power and went back to being viewed as just boys. I think this also helps to show how now that this power is taken away and they don't have to worry about trying to leave they finally have a moment to really think about what they have done and they can finally mourn for all that they have lost.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree how the island the boys are on represents a microcosm, and I think it symbolizes just the world in general. Throughout the story, as the boys become savage and wage wars, it all has a common reason. They were unable to keep that centralized, stable government, which has been seen throughout history. Many of the major wars, including World War 2, which Golding was a part of, started with a corrupt or unstable government. As seen in World War 2, Germany had an autocratic government, and the leader punished the innocent, resulting in war and so many deaths. This directly relates to Lord Of The Flies, and how Jack, the autocratic leader, punishes innocent people, like Maurice when he tortured him or like Ralph when all he wanted back was Piggy's glasses to make fire.

# data[].attributes.body
Anna makes a great comment on how the reintroduction of adults/society immediately changes jacks description he goes from a forbodening figure to a little boy again and i think this was a great way for goldings to reshow us societal constrants that this deadly traumatizing scary figure is only able to be that way because of lacking structure because of lacking morals that society normally keeps a leash on. The changes allows us to realize as they themselves realize that they have become savage no longer apart of greater society. The marine man when stating "I thought British boys would be put up better than this" (202) its the best indicator of what they have currently becoming lacking almost all morals that they have learned and grown up with becoming unrecognizable as British boys and more as savages

# data[].attributes.body
Aashini mentions the way the island is presented after civility is lost. In the beginning of the story the island is a safe haven of beauty and innocence and it is presented as scorched and burned when the civility becomes present again when the officer (authority) is on the island. Golding's use of description helps further his idea that without the constraints of civilization, everything falls to pieces and savagery is embraced.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with what Abem said about the forgotten little boy that died in the fire in the beginning of the novel and how they show their evil in forgetting to mention him in the dead count, kind of like blowing off his death and trying to take no responsibility (the same way they did for Simon). They notice he died (hence the absence of his distinct birthmark) but refuse to acknowledge it and move on. They detach themselves from his death.

# data[].attributes.body
Phoenix explains the fact that when the officer said "Jolly good show," the boys look at him dumbly because they realize that in the beginning they thought they would only have a fun time without the adults. This is kind of ironic because they now realize how much they've changed in their time on the island, instead of having the fun time that they thought they would have on the island. The officer doesn't realize what has happened on the island. Clara said that the officer brushes aside the things that have happened on the island to the boys by saying "Jolly good time" but the officer doesn't realize that the boys lives are forever tainted and their lives have now been changed forever. Clara also says that the author never shows them getting rescued, which is a symbol that they will never be the same, like in a way they will never be truly rescued from the horrors that happened on the island.

# data[].attributes.body
Julia talks about the different feelings and emotions the kids had when alone on the island vs when the naval officer shows up. I also think it is interesting that they do this, and the guilt and realization really hits them during this scene. Throughout the story we receive many descriptions of the boys and how they become more and more savage. For example, Jack's face paint and his actions during the pig hunts show how the island has shifted his mind towards savagery and evil. However, when the naval officer shows up it offers an alternative perspective and we no longer see the boys as savages but instead just scrawny little boys.

# data[].attributes.body
phoneix talks about how the boys arent really named anymore when the officers find them and only really address Ralph. She also went on to talk about how that highlighted the amount of regression they had went through in human nature back down to their raw savagery. I agree with this because of how different their descriptions are from the officer, he describes them with filthy bodys, matted hair and unwiped noses. This is almost opposite to how they arrived in the Island and how boys like them would be perceived in normal society. This description really illustrates how much the experience changed them by pulling them away from their societal norms like cleansing themselves or combing through their hair.

# data[].attributes.body
I really like how Julia said they are just "children in front of an adult again" and then Anna talking about how he is a little boy again not the savage tribe leader. In the text just before the naval officer came all the boys were described simply as savages, "He swung the stake and the savage tumbled over;" (page 199). Then they were described as boys again, "A little boy who wore the remains of an extraordinary black cap." This shows how once some civilization was restored as the naval officer appeared, everything calmed down and the boys went from yelling and trying to kill Ralph to shyly standing in front of the officer, back to being kids.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Anna on how towards the end, specifically the last chapter, they went back to describing Jack as a little boy again. I think this happens because Golding wants to convey an idea of innocence that the naval officer that came to rescue them sees in them. He doesn't think anything more of them than that they are little kids again. It took a higher power, the naval officer, to bring the kids back from savagery, which in turn shows how they acted at the very beginning, all innocent and calm.

# data[].attributes.body
Anna described how Golding depicts Jack at the end of the book as the little boy with red hair, where earlier in the book Jack has been shown as a powerful force. I also found that interesting and think Golding did that to give a new sense of power in that moment. As Jack runs out of the island he is feeling confident and unstoppable after rounding up all the kids and burning the island in pursuit of Ralph, but now that there is an adult with a gun and ship, Jack loses his power and returns to what he was in the beginning of the island.

# data[].attributes.body
Julia and Anna made comments about the innocence that the children feel, shown by the diction, when they are finally in the presence of an adult again. This contrasts with the savagery and power they felt on the island. The end shows all the boys as little, scrawny, and without power, which totally changes the previous perspective where the leaders Ralph and Jack were very glorified and desrcibed as very high and powerful. The comment made by Clara was very interesting to me because she touched on the irony of the fact that the boys were acting very innocent in front of the officer, but in reality they had actually lost all innocence because of their actions on the island, where they did things that children their age would normally have never done.

# data[].attributes.body
Julia mentions how the diction helps bring back that the characters are still children. When talking about Ralph words like squirming are used. To further that when Golding mentions Jack the diction that is used paints him to be small. "A little boy who wore the remains of an extraordinary black cap on his red hair and who carried the remains of a pair of spectacles at his waist, started forward, then changed his mind and stood still." (201) This diction helps take away his actions from his outer presence when the adults with the power are present.

# data[].attributes.body
Her introduction of blind trust is really interesting as an excuse of power, that knowing without knowing. I wonder what makes them trusting, and I like her connection to Rob Hall in ITA, but Rob Hall has substantial credentials. So what is the basis behind this trusting Ralph? It mentioned the superficial, but what else?

# data[].attributes.body
Ainsley and Sania's comment on selfishness on the mountain is something that resonates both in ITA and LOTF this is because in ITA, Ian Woodall conserves his resources and supplies and doesn't share with anyone because he believes that will save his group and he had no morals to help others. Similarly in LOTF, Jack picks on other for power. He breaks Piggy's glasses after slapping him and Ralph call it "A dirty trick." The difference between Ralph being concerned for Piggys, and Jack bringing him down shows that he uses fear and power to rule like an autocrat. He believes instilling fear in others and bringing others down keep order and power so everyone is safe because they listen to him and that will keep the island under control and everyone okay because they won't go against him.

# data[].attributes.body
Trent talks about how in both "The walk of Omelas" and "Lord of the Flies" the people can lose their morals for their own gain because the citizens in "The Walk of Omelas" know that there is a boy suffering but choose to do what the majority is doing and ignore the boy for their own gain and the ones who walk away retain there morals because they know its wrong to ignore the boy. I agree with this because the littluns in "Lord of the Flies" go with jacks tribe because he promises fun and food which is what the boys want and they lose all order and sense of civilization, But Ralph and piggy disagree with Jack and want to do whats good.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Hafah when she mentions about how morality became less important over time. Jon Krakauer specifically creates a theme with this when he tell the story about how morality is not afforded above 8000 meters. It directly relates to how Hafah mentioned the less importance when in Lord of the Flies, Golding goes on to describe Jack's character through when Ralph and Jack have an argument about shelters/fire and hunting and how Jack constantly wants to hunt leading to the chanting and savagery later. This represents how the morality of things becomes less important. On page 135 in Lord of the Flies, "Roger found a lodgement for his point and began to push ti he was leaning with his whole weight." The description foreshadows when Roger loses all morality by killing piggy. I believe that both Krakauer and Golding agree with the risk of morality, but Golding relates it to society and a broader picture of specific groups.

# data[].attributes.body
I'm not sure if I agree that ITA doesn't imply that humans are innately evil, or perhaps just arrogant and power-hungry. Yes, he has journalistic bias and wants to make him look good, but how? By making everyone else look bad. Implying that humans are innately evil shows his awareness and superiority of knowledge that condemns others easily.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Trent's connection between LoTF and The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas, because both William Golding and Ursula K. talk about how humans are inherently evil and selfish to preserve power.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with what Stella stated as I think Golding brought up this "black and whiteness" of morality; Jack is bad and simon is good. This differs from Jon Krakaeur because in the end he acknowledges how each person did good and bad and there was a grey area. For example, Fischer did bad by going on, ignoring red flags but in the end, Krakaeur never states that anyone died a bad person.

# data[].attributes.body
A common discussion that occured was the farther people are away from civilization, the more their morality went away but I agree with Stella in how immorality is justified in certain scenarios and not innate for ITA, but through the use of other people's dialogue such as when the group that passed over the possibly alive body and decided to not help them. Of course, emphasizing it could intend to promote it. But it could also to be condemn it, saying humans are so selfish.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Ansley because the need for resources and selfishness does affect how people act like in "Into Thin Air" and "LOTF", but in LOTF they were more so just following one another, if the biggins continued to keep their societal structure everyone would've followed instead of Jack leading the other boys to start acting out and not doing what's best for the group.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Ayaan about how both books talk about morality, because in Into Thin Air, Ian Woodall refused to give up his radio to potentially save human beings, which is the same selfish act as Jack refusing to light the signal fire to potentially save all of the kids on the island. However, there is a different kind of morality in Into Thin Air than Lord of the Flies. In Into Thin Air, the characters' morality was caused by mother nature, while the morality in Lord of the Flies were caused by the Evil within each person.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with what Ainsley and Gia were saying and to expand on what Ainsley was saying about selfishness and what Gia was saying about it and they way she compared it in into thin air and Lord of the flies. It almost as if instead of them using the resources for the benefit of the group they use it as a barraging chip, yes they could have asked Ralph for fire but instead he decided to assert his power, by this i mean when Jack and his tribe decided to just take it. Another example of this so when Jack is talking about how they can get meat all the time if they join him, by doing that he's trying to show off capable and incredilbe his tribe is and how much better it is compared to Ralphs.

# data[].attributes.body
Gia talks about how power roles really effect the plot of the story. I think that this also projects the story in a way that makes the reader think through the characters lenses. Also, the writing of both "Into Thin Air" and "Lord of the Flies" leave a lot for the reader to interpret. It gives the reader a context where they know some but not all to project the story and keep the reader hooked.

# data[].attributes.body
Zoey commented about how both "Into Thin Air" and "Lord of the Flies" Talk about guilt and/or morality when people are put into extreme situations and how there is often a lack of morality. I agree with this because in "Into Thin Air" when the climbers are almost at the top of the mountain they start to care way more for themselves then any others because of their survival instinct. A similar situation is in "Lord of the Flies" because when the boys start to think there is a beast on the island the boys start to revert back to their primal ways.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Zoey,but I don't really think there was power struggles in Into Thin Air. In ITA, it was more of people making tough decisions in touch circumstances, not a power struggle with each of the hiking groups. There was in fact some competition but it was not a power struggle. On the other hand in LOTF, the power struggle is really emphasized especially with Ralph and Jack, which were one of the main conflicts in the group.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with what Sanya said about how there is a lot of guilt and shame with the people around them and about Simon and Piggy's deaths, but only until the very end. I do believe that a better connection between guilt and shame would be with the book "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" by Ursula K. Le Guin. On page 4, it specifically mentions "They all know that it has to be there..." and continues on to describe how some people understand while others do not and most are ashamed, but choose to live on. This relates to the boys in the Lord of the Flies because like Sanya said, they feel the grief at first, but keep living on in savagery like nothing happened. On page 181, when Jack says, "That's what you'll get!" after there was great silence and it shows the hesitation that he continues on pretending like it was a lesson for Ralph, though it was super disturbing. I believe that Le Guin and Golding both agree with how guilt is always there and the beast is always there, but the people in society choose how to respond to it.

# data[].attributes.body
Guilt and remorse did plague the survivors of Into Thin Air but I think Golding did not display this end feeling as much. I do not think in the end Jack felt guilty for everything he did but I do think he was, in a way, thrown back to reality and became a little kid again when facing an adult and that is why in the end he did not speak up.

# data[].attributes.body
Zoey's comment on morality on the mountain is very similar to morality on the island this is because the island serves as a microcosm which highlights the human capacity for evil and immoral decisions when societal constraints are removed. For example, "The mask compelled them. They knew very well why he hadn't because of the enormity of the knife descending and cutting into living flesh." Despite the values of not killing toward the beginning of th story the boys ended up killing a mother pig as their animalistic and survival skills kicked in just because they wanted to live like how people left other on the mountain as their life was more important.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Ayaan that Into thin air and the Lord of the Flies both dives deep into morality of people. Both are in extreme conditions of trying to survive, despite harsh circumstances. This brings out people's real self determining their diffferent ways for survival. Both groups lose their morality as they go further and further away from civilization but in ITA, Krakaur justifies their lack of moral decisions and in LOTF Golding looks down upon them turning more savage.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Zoey, but I don't think the boys were in danger, but more like going crazy because they don't have a societal structure. Which led them to lose their morality and not make the best decisions. They were more of bouncing off of each other's wildness rather than their morality being affected by their environment like in "Into Thin Air."

# data[].attributes.body
to futher what ainsley was saying, there is a stuggle for power between the charters in thin air often due to excess pride. But, also when someone has the power other follow blindly simarlarly to the littluns following whatever the bigguns do. When there was a struggule for contol between Raplh and jack the littuns also felt it, an example of thsi is when on of the littuns was trying to control a pond mino.

# data[].attributes.body
Zoey mentioned that "Into Thin Air" which I think is a very strong connection. It almost seems like a parallel dynamic between the stories. Also from a writers perspective, I think that they both have this way of the tone becoming more negative/aggressive. This could be because lives are at risk when it comes down to the vents throughout both stories.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with what zoey says but I think that in the end of Into Thin Air, not all "good" is lost like what happened at the end of Lord of the Flies. Not all the "good" people died in ITA.