roger has literally been described as having dark skin by william golding. to ignore this fact would be willful ignorance.

After all, these were boys from 40’s England and those people are pale usually (English people barely see the sun).

this is a blatant generalisation. has it occurred to you that there are english people with different complexions during that time?? alternatively, has the possibility of roger/roger’s ancestors being immigrants ever occurred to you?

If one of them was particularly dark-skinned, the author would have mentioned it, just like he mentioned it in Simon’s case (he especially mentioned how Simon was “always darkish in color”).

he has mentioned it. unless your meaning of “particularly” dark-skinned has different connotations…?

furthermore, simon has more descriptions because he is arguably more of a central character. he, as we all know, symoblises a christ-like figure; his death was a turning point in the novel.

roger wasn’t given the same “page time” as simon was because roger’s character was made to be inconspicuous at the start, a gloomy character who’s revealed to become quite sadistic near the end.

honestly, does william golding have to repeatedly state roger as having dark skin in order for you to even consider the possibility? strike that, it’s not a possibility, it’s downright CANON that he has dark skin.

I think Roger was just a typical white, angry boy, who didn’t have anything special in his looks (not like Jack, who was a blue-eyed redhead, or Ralph, who was blonde, or Simon, who was dark-skinned, or Piggy, who was fat and wore glasses).

“special”? please enlighten us as what the word “special” means to you. like, yeah, as i’ve said roger was meant to be inconspicuous initially. but what is it about blue eyed redheads, blonds and dark skinned people that make them special? (piggy being fat and wearing glasses is an exception as he was bullied by his appearance.)

these descriptions were made to give people an idea of the appearances of jack, ralph, simon and piggy. what made them ‘special’ as central characters were their character traits, as you have so kindly elaborated with jack in the latter paragraphs.

I mean, with Jack, the author had constantly mentioned that there was something off about him, ever since the beginning: Jack was arrogant, Jack revealed his desire to rule over the others, Jack had a mad look, Jack always claimed how he wanted to “kill the pig”. While, Roger, nothing. He didn’t have anything special to his looks, he didn’t do anything that you could remember, which is what made the discovery of his evil mind so shocking. He had seemed a typical English boy, until he was revealed to be a sociopath.

so we seem to agree that roger’s character was indeed intended to be inconspicuous in the beginning. yes, he did seem to be a “typical English boy”, but what makes you think he couldn’t be a “typical English boy” with dark skin??

roger being dark does not negate william golding’s intention with his character.

what i don’t understand is why you insist on the author describing roger as having light skin. roger has dark skin in canon.

yes, you have your own headcanons and i know and respect the fact that your headcanons are none of my business.

however, if you comment on this post with the intention of erasing the (canon!) fact that a character has dark skin… i can’t let this micro-aggression go by.

there is plenty of fan art depicted roger with white/light skin.

there was no reason for you to comment on this post with, “the author described him as paler than the others” just because you refuse to see roger as anything other than white