Skip to main content

Why is Piggy a good leader in Lord of the Flies?

Piggy has a number of excellent leadership qualities, despite the fact that most of the boys don't like him and mock him. Piggy has the ability to envision courses of action that other boys miss. This is evident from the first chapter when he suggests to Ralph that he use the conch to summon the other boys on the island. When Ralph feels beaten because the "beast" is preventing them from having a signal fire on the mountain, Piggy suggests moving the fire to the beach: "Only Piggy could have the intellectual daring to suggest moving the fire from the mountain."


Piggy also seems to have a natural gift for administration and organization. He is the one who attempts to learn the names of the littluns, and he is the most vehement in enforcing the rules of the conch. 


Piggy is also surprisingly clear-headed. When Ralph begins to falter in his dedication to keeping the signal fire lit, Piggy keeps reminding him of the necessity of the fire to achieve their end goal of being rescued. 


Additionally, Piggy has standards for good behavior. Several times he laments, "What's grownups going to say" at the wild behavior of the boys. He warns Ralph that Jack hates him. When the boys leave to follow Jack, he says Ralph's group can "do all right on our own...It's them that haven't no common sense that make trouble on this island." And he insists on confronting Jack directly to tell him that "what's right's right." However, there are times when Piggy doesn't live up to his own standards. He doesn't respect Simon, saying he's crazy. He participates in the mob that kills Simon, and he tries to re-write history afterwards. 


Despite his faults and the fact that the boys make fun of him, Piggy has qualities that make him a good leader, including intellectual ability, organizational skills, focus, and high standards of behavior.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more