Is throwing a ball in society today something a young boy would take for granted. But say the boy throws a rock instead of a ball, yet never actually hits anyone... is that still all right? Or may there be something rooted deeper? Could a simple throwing motion take a life? Or does it matter the mind behind it? In Lord of the Flies, by William Golding, Roger, a fairly docile and reserved boy, suddenly with the switch of a light becomes virulent, hateful, and downright violent. Detached from civilization and thrown into a world of savagery, Roger has behind him all society's rules and consequences. Before him are all the possibilities of murder. The question is, "Will the possibilities become a reality?"
             "Roger picked up a stone, and threw it at Henry-threw to miss. Roger gathered a handful of stones and began to throw them...there was a space around Henry into which he dare not throw, here invisible yet strong was the taboo of the old life. Round the squatting child was the protection of parents, school, policemen, and the law. Roger's arm was conditioned by a civilization that knew nothing of him."
             Conditioned by a society, by a civilization, is the previous scenario possible? As time goes on the boys on the island becomes less refined because there are no consequences to their action. They are free to do things like throw rocks at boys and not be punished. There are no enforcers of law, no parents, policemen, no teachers. But why cause harm to someone in the first place? Roger would rather cause damage to a person than simply walk by. It is the small rules on the island that hold the boys together. As each little rule is broken, the string that ties them together becomes weaker and weaker, and will eventually break. The taboo of old life is the only thing keeping order. As time goes by the taboo fades and becomes dimmed, and the brutality shines with sinister glory.
             ...