Rules have been in existence for countless centuries. The concept that a person’s behavior should be controlled or limited for the well being of society is not a new idea. Today, people are exposed to this concept at a very early age, during the days of kindergarten and elementary school. Young children in these early grades do not yet know about laws that are created, the crimes that violate them, or the punishments administered to control them. But they do know better than to take someone else’s crayons without his or her permission or to call out without raising a hand. When a child asks a teacher why these rules must be followed, he or she receives the following response along with a patient smile: "Imagine what the world would be like if everyone just took everyone else’s crayons without permission. There would be a lot of crying people," or, "What would the world be like if everyone just called out? In the end, no one would get to speak." It would take a few more years for this child to fully comprehend the need for rules in society, and the consequences that might result without them, but rules are necessary and a lack of enforcement of them could have terrible consequences. Rules and life without them are investigated in William Golding’s 1954 novel Lord of the Flies and in Sidney Schanberg’s 1981 essay "The Rules Are All We’ve Got." These two sources are very similar in the fact that they both show the need for control in society and what happens when this control deteriorates, and they both attempt to explain the reason behind this deterioration. Schanberg’s essay, however, is very specific in its details and takes on a very modern appearance and realistic issues. Golding’s classic gives very deep insight and is almost philosophical in its interpretation.

Schanberg’s essay explains that rules are needed in society. She says in the third paragraph that "the rules are all that stand between us and anti-civilization." They are what keep society from falling apart, and without them, civilization could cease to exist. According to Schanberg, rules are what "keep us from sliding into brutehood" and becoming savages. One could argue that rules obviously do exist, so what is the point in worrying about the collapse of society? Well, according to Schanberg, social order is in real danger of deterioration. People are just stubbornly refusing to admit it. The following is her opinion of why people do this:

What she means is that humans are very proud of their achievements, among which lies the creation of order and civilization. They naturally wish to keep that pride intact and, in doing so, many neglect to see that civilization could, in fact, be collapsing. In fact, her opinion is that civilization is collapsing at present, and she uses New York City as an example. Previously mentioned is the fact that man becoming violent and savage accompanies a lack of order, so if examples of violence and lawlessness can be found, a decrease in order can be shown. Keeping this in mind, Schanberg shows us that New York City is an ideal "city without rules." She points out drivers habitually running red lights and an increase in shoplifting. She says, "Shoplifting has become an occupation rather than a serious crime." She mentions the fact that with a decline in the number of NYC police officers – 23, 600 compared to 31,000 back in 1974 – crimes are not being effectively enforced and some are not even being investigated, almost as if nobody cares. Statistics supporting this are staggering. In New York City, there are six murders, ten rapes, and about 300 robberies every day! Schanberg also points out specifically brutal crimes. One of those mentioned is this:

Clearly, there is dramatic increase in lawlessness and violence in the city, and this serves to support Schanberg’s opinion that society is falling apart and rules are being completely neglected. Ultimately, she attempts to explain why all this occurs. She attributes the blame to people who have no respect for the rules or people’s rights– more specifically, young people. Police Sergeant William Snyder is of this opinion, saying, "The young criminals – they see something. They want it. They take it. Even getting caught is no big deal. They know they’ll serve their time and get out again." With this mentality, it is not hard to see why so many crimes are being committed. In contrast to New York, Schanberg presents the crime statistics for Tokyo, Japan. The city has 65 percent more people, but the people only face one murder every other day, one rape per day, and less than two robberies per day. She attributes this to the fact that the Japanese respect the law and have a "long tradition of rules." Thus, where people have no respect for the law and where rules are not effectively being enforced, people become violent, and society collapses.

Lord of the Flies shares some very similar views to Schanberg’s essay. The novel agrees that rules are needed for society to run smoothly. In the beginning of the story, the boys had rules and the situation was fine. The fire was constantly checked on, everyone shared power as a result of democratic meetings, and the well being of the society of boys was always the main priority. As time passes, order disintegrated. There were no rules. One person, Jack, held all the power. The boys did whatever they pleased with no regard for the future. The situation was better with rules than without them. Another point that the novel and the essay have in common is that as rules disappear, people become more violent and savage. In the essay, this is seen in crimes. In the novel, this is demonstrated through hunting. The following quote describing how Jack’s tribe brutally killed a helpless mother pig, says it all:

This crime is very similar to that mentioned in Schanberg’s article about the troubled man viciously bothered by a group of people who ended up dying on a train track. That was very violent and the group did it because it was fun. The killing of the sow was also very violent and was also done out of fun. The boys had a great time. They enjoyed chasing her, and everyone cheered and giggled when the sow finally died (135). Another similarity is the fact that people refuse to admit the deterioration of society. The essay talked about how people did not want to believe that civilization could be "thin and fragile" in reality. In the book, several characters also refuse to acknowledge what goes on. Simon, for example, is always neutral and never involved. No matter what happens on the island, he just floats around in the background. Piggy is another example. He refused to admit that Simon’s death was a murder because he did not want to acknowledge how terrible the situation on the island really was. Thus, the novel and the essay share several similarities.

There are a few differences between the novel and the essay, however. The essay is very specific and, when you think about it, it really only applies to New York City. William Golding, on the other hand, made his novel symbolically represent the entire world. The essay and the novel also have different interpretations of why the rules are not working and why civilization is collapsing. The essay’s view, explained in detail earlier, is very modern and plain. It blames young people’s disrespect for the law. The book is more philosophical in its approach. It introduces the concept that man is innately evil and has a tendency to be violent and cruel. Society and rules serve to disguise this, but it surfaces when society deteriorates. Thus, as order diminishes, humans devolve and enter a primitive stage of violence. This is the reason for violence. I am surprised that this is nowhere mentioned in the essay.

The novel, Lord of the Flies, by William Golding and the essay, "The Rules Are All We’ve Got" by Sidney Schanberg are share similarities and differences in their views of rules and life without them. Both agree that rules are necessary in society, and that, without them, humans become violent. Both also agree that some people refuse to admit that civilization could be collapsing. The differences include the fact that the novel represents the world while the essay represents New York City alone. Also, the essay plainly attempts to explain why society is falling apart by blaming young people with no respect for the law. The novel explains it in a deep, philosophical way stating that man is innately rooted in evil and this contributes to society’s problems and the violence individuals experience as a result of civil breakdown.