When I was younger, my friends and I used to play "King of the Hill." Every day during recess we trooped over to this large pile of woodchips near the edge of the playground. On that mound we kicked and pinched and tugged hair in order to get to-and remain on-the top of the small mountain, and thus earn the title "King of the Hill."
             As early grade school became late grade school this game was phased out-the popularity contests and social wars of pre-adolescence slowly began to replace our beloved throne on top of the woodchips, and instead we resorted to the same means (kicking, pinching, hair pulling) to become most popular.
             My question is this: By what grounds do you determine most popular? And have you ever noticed that the "King of the Hill" is inevitably pushed off within a matter of minutes? So let's view the island in Lord of the Flies as a pile of woodchips for a moment. Have you ever noticed that the boys' "leader" never stays leader for very long?
             Through out society and the history of the human race there have been numerous revolutions and assassinations. There is a never-ending struggle to reign as "King of the Hill." But are these boys just being immature? Would different castaways have handled the situation better?
             Suppose you have, on an island, a group of girls ages 5 to 15 with no means of getting off. Maybe one of them, after several months of no meat, gets tired of eating a diet solely composed of fruit, and goes off to hunt a pig. When and if she actually turns out to be brazen enough to kill a pig and bring it back to eat, would she be worshipped for catching food, or shunned for taking an innocent life?
             It is my belief that, due to female nature, girls would not get caught up in bloodlust to the same degree that Jack did. There would probably be more of an internal struggle involved in the act of actually killing something (like a...