Modern media seems obsessed with making villains sympathetic. Instead of letting bad characters simply be bad, writers often give them tragic backstories to explain why they became the way they are. An example is Cruella de Vil. In “101 Dalmatians,” she was portrayed as a cruel woman who wanted to skin puppies for a coat. In the live-action “Cruella,” however, she is rewritten as a misunderstood person whose actions are connected to childhood trauma and betrayal. Audiences today love complicated villains because they are more interesting than characters who are evil for no reason.
This trend becomes really important when adapting older stories. Giving a villain a tragic backstory can completely change the original message of the text. This is what happens in the new television adaptation of “Lord of the Flies.” William Golding’s novel focuses on the idea that humans naturally have the capacity for evil when social rules disappear. However, the show changes the relationship between Jack and Simon by giving them a shared history and a much deeper emotional connection. While some viewers see these additions as an attempt to make Jack more sympathetic, they actually make him seem more villainous. The relationship between Jack and Simon, especially its queer undertones, highlights that Jack understands kindness and vulnerability but chooses violence and power anyway.
How the Show Changes Jack and Simon
Like in the original novel, Jack is introduced as Ralph’s main rival. Ralph focuses on survival, rescue, and maintaining order. Jack, on the other hand, cares more about power, excitement, and being seen as strong. He becomes obsessed with hunting and proving his masculinity. The island becomes a place where he can finally control other people.
Simon is different. He is quiet, sensitive, and often isolated from the other boys. While the others are concerned with leadership and status, Simon is more interested in understanding people and the world around him. He is viewed as strange and weak, making him an outsider among the group.
The television adaptation adds several moments that connect the two characters in ways that never existed in the book. Jack lets Simon paint his face. They discover they both come from broken homes with absent fathers. Simon reads to Jack when he is sick during winter break, and Jack protects Simon’s diary from the other boys after reading it himself. These moments reveal a softer side of Jack that audiences never see in Golding’s original novel.
More importantly, these scenes create an emotional intimacy between them that can easily be read as queer. While the show never explicitly labels their relationship as romantic, it repeatedly places them in situations that involve trust, vulnerability, and emotional dependence. The face-painting scene especially feels significant because it transforms a symbol of violence and savagery into a private moment shared between the two boys. Likewise, the diary storyline creates a level of personal knowledge and protectiveness that goes beyond a normal friendship.
The Queer Implications of Their Relationship
One of the most interesting parts of the adaptation is how it uses Jack and Simon’s relationship to explore masculinity. Simon represents a softer and more emotionally open version of masculinity. He is caring, thoughtful, and comfortable being vulnerable. Jack represents the opposite. He constantly performs toughness because he desperately wants approval from other people.
This creates an interesting tension between them. Simon sees parts of Jack that nobody else sees. He witnesses Jack when he is sick, vulnerable, and emotionally exposed. Jack trusts Simon with sides of himself that clash with the aggressive image he presents to everyone else.
Because of this, Simon almost becomes a symbol of a version of Jack that could have existed. Simon accepts qualities that Jack spends the entire show trying to suppress. If the relationship is viewed through a queer lens, Simon represents a challenge to Jack’s obsession with traditional masculinity. Simon offers connection, understanding, and vulnerability, while Jack chooses dominance, violence, and social power.
This makes the tragedy of their relationship even more devastating. Jack is not rejecting a stranger when he eventually turns against Simon. He is rejecting someone who knows him better than anyone else. Symbolically, he is also rejecting the parts of himself that Simon represents: empathy, honesty, and emotional openness.
Simon and Jack as Moral Opposites
The adaptation becomes even more powerful because Simon and Jack have almost identical backgrounds. Both experience neglect and absent fathers. Both understand loneliness. Yet they respond to these experiences in completely different ways.
Simon develops what could be called internal validation. He does not need other people to tell him who he is. Even when he is mocked or excluded, he remains compassionate and true to himself.
Jack is the opposite. He constantly seeks validation from others. He needs the hunters to admire him and the group to fear him. His entire identity depends on other people’s approval. This is why he becomes obsessed with leadership and control.
The show uses Simon as a direct comparison to expose Jack’s failures. If two boys experience similar trauma and only one becomes cruel, then trauma alone cannot explain Jack’s behavior. Simon proves that another path was possible.
Why the Changes Make Jack Less Sympathetic
Many viewers argue that the show makes Jack more sympathetic because it gives him emotional depth. I actually think the opposite is true.
The original novel leaves room to see Jack as someone who simply gives in to humanity’s darker instincts. The adaptation removes that excuse. By showing Jack’s relationship with Simon, the audience sees that Jack understands kindness. He understands vulnerability. He knows what genuine care looks like because Simon offered it to him.
This means Jack’s later actions become more deliberate. He is not acting out of ignorance. He chooses power over compassion despite knowing there is another option. The emotional connection between him and Simon makes this choice even worse because Jack ultimately betrays someone who genuinely cared about him.
The queer undertones of their relationship strengthen this interpretation. Jack’s rejection of Simon can be read as a rejection of vulnerability itself. Instead of embracing connection, he chooses the violent version of masculinity that gives him social power. His tragedy is not that he never had the chance to be good. His tragedy is that he had that chance and threw it away.
Conclusion
The television adaptation of “Lord of the Flies” changes Jack and Simon’s relationship in ways that completely reshape how audiences view both characters. Through their shared history and emotional intimacy, the show introduces strong queer implications that add another layer to the story’s exploration of masculinity, power, and identity.
While many viewers see these additions as reasons to sympathize with Jack, I think they actually make him more responsible for his actions. Simon serves as proof that trauma does not determine who someone becomes. Both boys experience pain, but only one chooses cruelty. Their relationship shows that Jack understands empathy and vulnerability, yet he rejects them in favor of domination and violence.
In the end, the show does not excuse Jack’s behavior. Instead, it highlights how tragic and horrifying his choices really are. Simon gives him a blueprint for a different life, and Jack destroys it.
