What do you think?
Rate this book
丌賱賴丞 丕賱匕亘丕亘
At the dawn of the next world war, a plane crashes on an uncharted island, stranding a group of schoolboys. At first, with no adult supervision, their freedom is something to celebrate; this far from civilization the boys can do anything they want. Anything. They attempt to forge their own society, failing, however, in the face of terror, sin and evil. And as order collapses, as strange howls echo in the night, as terror begins its reign, the hope of adventure seems as far from reality as the hope of being rescued. Labeled a parable, an allegory, a myth, a morality tale, a parody, a political treatise, even a vision of the apocalypse, Lord of the Flies is perhaps our most memorable tale about 鈥渢he end of innocence, the darkness of man鈥檚 heart.鈥�
181 pages, Paperback
First published September 17, 1954
41.1k people are currently reading
1m people want to read
About the author
William Golding
177听books4,281听followersSir William Gerald Golding was a British novelist, playwright, and poet. Best known for his debut novel Lord of the Flies (1954), he published another twelve volumes of fiction in his lifetime. In 1980, he was awarded the Booker Prize for Rites of Passage, the first novel in what became his sea trilogy, To the Ends of the Earth. He was awarded the 1983 Nobel Prize in Literature.
As a result of his contributions to literature, Golding was knighted in 1988. He was a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. In 2008, The Times ranked Golding third on its list of "The 50 greatest British writers since 1945".
As a result of his contributions to literature, Golding was knighted in 1988. He was a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. In 2008, The Times ranked Golding third on its list of "The 50 greatest British writers since 1945".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62,796 reviews
May 17, 2019
Kids are evil. Don't you know?
I've just finished rereading this book for my book club but, to be honest, I've liked it ever since my class were made to read it in high school. Overall, Lord of the Flies doesn't seem to be very popular, but I've always liked the almost Hobbesian look at the state of nature and how humanity behaves when left alone without societal rules and structures. Make the characters all angel-faced kids with sadistic sides to their personality and what do you have? Just your average high school drama, but set on a desert island. With a bit more bloody murder. But not that much more.
In 1954, when this book was published, Britain was in the process of being forced to face some harsh realities that it had blissfully chosen to ignore beforehand - that it is not, in fact, the centre of the universe, and the British Empire was not a thing of national pride, but an embarrassing infringement on the freedom and rights of other human beings. Much of British colonialism had been justified as a self-righteous mission to educate and modernise foreign "savages". So when put into its historical context, alongside the decolonisation movements, this book could be said to be an interesting deconstruction of white, Western supremacy.
Of course, to a modern reader there's a lot of racism in this book. The racial aspect is a big factor. Golding establishes from the very first page that Ralph is a perfect white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed, private school boy. And Piggy even asks "Which is better - to be a pack of painted ns like you are or to be sensible like Ralph is?" I'm not going to argue with anyone's interpretation, but I think there is actually room to see this book as a criticism of racism. For me, I always saw it as Golding challenging the notion of savages being dark-skinned, uneducated people from rural areas. With this book, he says screw that, I'll show you savages! and proceeds to show us how these private school silver spoon little jewels of the empire are no better for their fancy education and gold-plated upbringing.
I think that seemed especially clear from the ending when the officer says "I should have thought that a pack of British boys - you're all British, aren't you? - would have been able to put up a better show than that." Golding's way of saying that human nature is universal and no one can escape it.
Some readers say that you have to have quite a negative view of human nature already to appreciate this book, but I don't think that's true. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with all the implications running around in the novel - namely, the failure of democracy and the pro-authority stance - but it serves as an interesting look at the dark side of human nature and how no one is beyond its reach. Plus, anyone who had a bit of a rough time in high school will probably not find the events in this book a huge leap of the imagination.
The fascinating thing about Lord of the Flies is the way many historical parallels can be drawn from the messages it carries. You could choose to view the charismatic and manipulative Jack Merridew as a kind of Hitler (or other dictator) who takes advantage of a group of people at their weakest. Dictators and radicals often find it easy to slip in when a society is in chaos... we do not have to assume that Golding believed that everyone everywhere is evil, only that we all have the capacity for it when we find ourselves in unstable situations.
Still a fascinating book after all these years.
| | | |
I've just finished rereading this book for my book club but, to be honest, I've liked it ever since my class were made to read it in high school. Overall, Lord of the Flies doesn't seem to be very popular, but I've always liked the almost Hobbesian look at the state of nature and how humanity behaves when left alone without societal rules and structures. Make the characters all angel-faced kids with sadistic sides to their personality and what do you have? Just your average high school drama, but set on a desert island. With a bit more bloody murder. But not that much more.
In 1954, when this book was published, Britain was in the process of being forced to face some harsh realities that it had blissfully chosen to ignore beforehand - that it is not, in fact, the centre of the universe, and the British Empire was not a thing of national pride, but an embarrassing infringement on the freedom and rights of other human beings. Much of British colonialism had been justified as a self-righteous mission to educate and modernise foreign "savages". So when put into its historical context, alongside the decolonisation movements, this book could be said to be an interesting deconstruction of white, Western supremacy.
Of course, to a modern reader there's a lot of racism in this book. The racial aspect is a big factor. Golding establishes from the very first page that Ralph is a perfect white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed, private school boy. And Piggy even asks "Which is better - to be a pack of painted ns like you are or to be sensible like Ralph is?" I'm not going to argue with anyone's interpretation, but I think there is actually room to see this book as a criticism of racism. For me, I always saw it as Golding challenging the notion of savages being dark-skinned, uneducated people from rural areas. With this book, he says screw that, I'll show you savages! and proceeds to show us how these private school silver spoon little jewels of the empire are no better for their fancy education and gold-plated upbringing.
I think that seemed especially clear from the ending when the officer says "I should have thought that a pack of British boys - you're all British, aren't you? - would have been able to put up a better show than that." Golding's way of saying that human nature is universal and no one can escape it.
Some readers say that you have to have quite a negative view of human nature already to appreciate this book, but I don't think that's true. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with all the implications running around in the novel - namely, the failure of democracy and the pro-authority stance - but it serves as an interesting look at the dark side of human nature and how no one is beyond its reach. Plus, anyone who had a bit of a rough time in high school will probably not find the events in this book a huge leap of the imagination.
The fascinating thing about Lord of the Flies is the way many historical parallels can be drawn from the messages it carries. You could choose to view the charismatic and manipulative Jack Merridew as a kind of Hitler (or other dictator) who takes advantage of a group of people at their weakest. Dictators and radicals often find it easy to slip in when a society is in chaos... we do not have to assume that Golding believed that everyone everywhere is evil, only that we all have the capacity for it when we find ourselves in unstable situations.
Still a fascinating book after all these years.
| | | |
September 28, 2007
I read this book a long time ago, long enough to where I barely remembered anything past the basic premise. So I picked it up again, only to wish I hadn't. There's a reason why they teach this book in middle school--in order to enjoy this book, one's intellectual cognizance must be that of a child, because otherwise you'll spend the entire time picking out everything that's wrong with the book. And there's a lot to pick out.
From what little of the story that is actually coherent, I can see why this book has had a lasting effect on social commentary since it's initial publishing. The overlying illustration of how easily man can devolve back to his feral instincts is striking, yet could have been infinitesimally more effective in the hands of a decent writer.
See, I would have cared a bit more about the little island society of prepubescent boys and their descent into barbarism if you know, any of the characters had been developed AT ALL. Instead, we're thrown interchangeable names of interchangeable boys who are only developed enough to conform to the basic archetypes Golding requires to hobble his little story along: The Leader, The Rebel, The Fat-Kid, The Nose-Picker, etc. Were he born in this time, I believe Golding would have done brilliantly as a scriptwriter for reality TV.
And the plot? There's a plot? I'm guessing so, since things seem to happen, but it's kind of hard to tell since he spends pages describing irrelevant events that are never incorporated, characters that possibly exist yet probably don't, and using words that don't mean what he thinks they mean. And as the main characters are a bunch of kids not worth caring about, thus goes the way of the story.
And the prose? Dear God, the prose! Get it away! It burns us!
So yeah, this book sucked. It had potential. There were even a few parts I internally squealed at in hopeful anticipation. But whatever potential it did have was hopelessly squandered by a man who wrote like he'd never written anything before in his life. Don't waste your time.
From what little of the story that is actually coherent, I can see why this book has had a lasting effect on social commentary since it's initial publishing. The overlying illustration of how easily man can devolve back to his feral instincts is striking, yet could have been infinitesimally more effective in the hands of a decent writer.
See, I would have cared a bit more about the little island society of prepubescent boys and their descent into barbarism if you know, any of the characters had been developed AT ALL. Instead, we're thrown interchangeable names of interchangeable boys who are only developed enough to conform to the basic archetypes Golding requires to hobble his little story along: The Leader, The Rebel, The Fat-Kid, The Nose-Picker, etc. Were he born in this time, I believe Golding would have done brilliantly as a scriptwriter for reality TV.
And the plot? There's a plot? I'm guessing so, since things seem to happen, but it's kind of hard to tell since he spends pages describing irrelevant events that are never incorporated, characters that possibly exist yet probably don't, and using words that don't mean what he thinks they mean. And as the main characters are a bunch of kids not worth caring about, thus goes the way of the story.
And the prose? Dear God, the prose! Get it away! It burns us!
So yeah, this book sucked. It had potential. There were even a few parts I internally squealed at in hopeful anticipation. But whatever potential it did have was hopelessly squandered by a man who wrote like he'd never written anything before in his life. Don't waste your time.
August 12, 2024
A group of boys are stranded on a remote and deserted island. How will these boys fare away from grownups, away from society, away from rules?
Written in 1954, The Lord of the Flies, written by William Golding is considered a classic. The symbolism in this book is unreal especially if you consider the colors mentioned in the book (pink was mentioned 40 times). Like most people, I read this in high school, and I got a lot more out of it as an adult. At the very end, I now ponder if that actually happened or if Ralph was just imagining it (trying to avoid any spoilers here). The author who is deceased now has stated that the book can mean whatever you want it to mean so clearly everything in this review is absolutely true. If you want to check out more of my thoughts and questions raised for this book, please check out the Readalong. Thank you to everyone who participated and made this reading so much better than my first!
Although this book goes down as a classic, it is rather bleak鈥攖here is very little hope or anything that can be considered uplifting. There were too many boring descriptions of the scar (more than 20+ times) and sand (more than 70+ times). As for the audiobook through Audible, William Golding, the author, is reading the book. He sounds extremely bored. I do not recommend the Audible version.
Overall, I wish that I hadn鈥檛 read this as a child. It traumatized me, and I wasn鈥檛 ready for it. There is too much violence and ill will in this. Every time I would pick up a book, I would think about Piggy and feel darkness. However, as an adult, perhaps I was more prepared knowing the ending, but I also developed the sophistication to appreciation the subtleties of this book.
This book is listed as one of the 100 Books to Read According to the BBC:
2025 Reading Schedule
Jan A Town Like Alice
Feb Birdsong
Mar Captain Corelli's Mandolin - Louis De Berniere
Apr War and Peace
May The Woman in White
Jun Atonement
Jul The Shadow of the Wind
Aug Jude the Obscure
Sep Ulysses
Oct Vanity Fair
Nov A Fine Balance
Dec Germinal
Connect With Me!
Written in 1954, The Lord of the Flies, written by William Golding is considered a classic. The symbolism in this book is unreal especially if you consider the colors mentioned in the book (pink was mentioned 40 times). Like most people, I read this in high school, and I got a lot more out of it as an adult. At the very end, I now ponder if that actually happened or if Ralph was just imagining it (trying to avoid any spoilers here). The author who is deceased now has stated that the book can mean whatever you want it to mean so clearly everything in this review is absolutely true. If you want to check out more of my thoughts and questions raised for this book, please check out the Readalong. Thank you to everyone who participated and made this reading so much better than my first!
Although this book goes down as a classic, it is rather bleak鈥攖here is very little hope or anything that can be considered uplifting. There were too many boring descriptions of the scar (more than 20+ times) and sand (more than 70+ times). As for the audiobook through Audible, William Golding, the author, is reading the book. He sounds extremely bored. I do not recommend the Audible version.
Overall, I wish that I hadn鈥檛 read this as a child. It traumatized me, and I wasn鈥檛 ready for it. There is too much violence and ill will in this. Every time I would pick up a book, I would think about Piggy and feel darkness. However, as an adult, perhaps I was more prepared knowing the ending, but I also developed the sophistication to appreciation the subtleties of this book.
This book is listed as one of the 100 Books to Read According to the BBC:
2025 Reading Schedule
Jan A Town Like Alice
Feb Birdsong
Mar Captain Corelli's Mandolin - Louis De Berniere
Apr War and Peace
May The Woman in White
Jun Atonement
Jul The Shadow of the Wind
Aug Jude the Obscure
Sep Ulysses
Oct Vanity Fair
Nov A Fine Balance
Dec Germinal
Connect With Me!
August 19, 2018
鈥淲e did everything adults would do. What went wrong?鈥�
For me, this quote sums up the entire book. It鈥檚 a powerful exploration of humanity and the wrongness of our society and it also demonstrates the hypocrisy of war. Adults judge the behaviour of children, but are they really any better? I think not.
The scary thing about this book is how real it is. The Lord of the Flies bespeaks the brilliance of realistic dystopian fiction, it gives you a possible world scenario, a bunch of very human characters and then it shows you want might happen when they are thrown into a terrible situation: they act like monsters (or humans?) What Golding shows us is that we are not so far from our primal nature, from our so called killer instincts, and all it takes is a little push out of the standard world we live in for us to embrace our darker side.
The boys act in accordance with what they have seen in the world (though they don鈥檛 understand limits.) Power creates authority and violence is a way to achieve the peace you want. Sort of ironic isn鈥檛 it? They go to war amongst themselves and in doing so lose all sense of childhood innocence. They grow up. They learn what humans are capable of doing when pushed. They become 鈥榮avages鈥� and reject civilisation and create their own sense of community, though in another display of irony this in itself becomes a mini-civilisation- just a one of their own accord without any rules and a nasty child tyrant enthroned as chief.
鈥淲hat are we? Humans? Or animals? Or savages?鈥�
The novel is rich in allegory to the point where it has been interpreted in so many different ways over the years. Like all great literature, it could mean lots of things and nothing at all. It鈥檚 a very clever piece of writing and it got me thinking a great deal about children and how we protect them from the realities of the world. It sort of says something to me, a quiet acknowledgement about how messed up things can be given the right circumstances and these children are so very quick to embrace it with unflinching enthusiasm (at least, when one of them leads the way.)
It鈥檚 a good book with a lot of ideas though at times I found the prose a little hard to follow. The dialogue is confusing at times and many of the children fade into the background with only a small few developing distinct personalities. I found the first part of the story particularly difficult to read, so in terms of the actual execution I think it could have been done a little better. I found myself wanting to edit sections of the text, which is not a place a reader should ever be in especially with a novel this revered by so many enthusiastic readers, critics and students. Maybe I鈥檓 just a little picky with word placement.
Overall though, I鈥檓 glad I spent the time to revisit it. There are so many pop-culture references to this that a reminder was needed.
For me, this quote sums up the entire book. It鈥檚 a powerful exploration of humanity and the wrongness of our society and it also demonstrates the hypocrisy of war. Adults judge the behaviour of children, but are they really any better? I think not.
The scary thing about this book is how real it is. The Lord of the Flies bespeaks the brilliance of realistic dystopian fiction, it gives you a possible world scenario, a bunch of very human characters and then it shows you want might happen when they are thrown into a terrible situation: they act like monsters (or humans?) What Golding shows us is that we are not so far from our primal nature, from our so called killer instincts, and all it takes is a little push out of the standard world we live in for us to embrace our darker side.
The boys act in accordance with what they have seen in the world (though they don鈥檛 understand limits.) Power creates authority and violence is a way to achieve the peace you want. Sort of ironic isn鈥檛 it? They go to war amongst themselves and in doing so lose all sense of childhood innocence. They grow up. They learn what humans are capable of doing when pushed. They become 鈥榮avages鈥� and reject civilisation and create their own sense of community, though in another display of irony this in itself becomes a mini-civilisation- just a one of their own accord without any rules and a nasty child tyrant enthroned as chief.
鈥淲hat are we? Humans? Or animals? Or savages?鈥�
The novel is rich in allegory to the point where it has been interpreted in so many different ways over the years. Like all great literature, it could mean lots of things and nothing at all. It鈥檚 a very clever piece of writing and it got me thinking a great deal about children and how we protect them from the realities of the world. It sort of says something to me, a quiet acknowledgement about how messed up things can be given the right circumstances and these children are so very quick to embrace it with unflinching enthusiasm (at least, when one of them leads the way.)
It鈥檚 a good book with a lot of ideas though at times I found the prose a little hard to follow. The dialogue is confusing at times and many of the children fade into the background with only a small few developing distinct personalities. I found the first part of the story particularly difficult to read, so in terms of the actual execution I think it could have been done a little better. I found myself wanting to edit sections of the text, which is not a place a reader should ever be in especially with a novel this revered by so many enthusiastic readers, critics and students. Maybe I鈥檓 just a little picky with word placement.
Overall though, I鈥檓 glad I spent the time to revisit it. There are so many pop-culture references to this that a reminder was needed.
January 25, 2021
Edit: A friend send me this article of a real situation where a group of kids were left stranded on an island for 15 months. Spoiler alert, the Lord of The Flies scenario never happened, the boys behaved and organized themselves wonderfully
.Maybe,鈥� he said hesitantly, 鈥渕aybe there is a beast.鈥� 鈥淲hat I mean is . . . maybe it鈥檚 only us.鈥�.
That quote sums up very well the idea of this modern classic. I ran away from this novel for years but it finally caught up with me or I tripped, who knows? It was a lot more interesting than I expected and it was worth my time but I would not say I loved it.
During some sort of war, a plane crashes on an island and the only survivors are a bunch of kids. Forced to stay alive without the guidance and surveillance of adults some start to behave crazy and cruel. I guess the morale is that people are civilized because there are rules that are reinforced and if the society gets rid of them some of use will return to our animal state or worse.
While I admit that the story is thought-provoking and a classic, a pioneer of the subject, I cannot say I enjoyed reading it too much. Not much happens for most of the book and when it does it feels rushed. Also, the author spent a lot more time describing the nature than the characters or their experience. I had problems distinguishing between the children and I did not manage to form a strong opinion either about the positive characters or the negative ones. Finally, I think it did not age well, it is hard to explain why I have this impression.
I both listened to and read Lord of The Flies. While listening I got lost in the descriptions (read bored) so I thought the written version was more suitable for this story.
.Maybe,鈥� he said hesitantly, 鈥渕aybe there is a beast.鈥� 鈥淲hat I mean is . . . maybe it鈥檚 only us.鈥�.
That quote sums up very well the idea of this modern classic. I ran away from this novel for years but it finally caught up with me or I tripped, who knows? It was a lot more interesting than I expected and it was worth my time but I would not say I loved it.
During some sort of war, a plane crashes on an island and the only survivors are a bunch of kids. Forced to stay alive without the guidance and surveillance of adults some start to behave crazy and cruel. I guess the morale is that people are civilized because there are rules that are reinforced and if the society gets rid of them some of use will return to our animal state or worse.
While I admit that the story is thought-provoking and a classic, a pioneer of the subject, I cannot say I enjoyed reading it too much. Not much happens for most of the book and when it does it feels rushed. Also, the author spent a lot more time describing the nature than the characters or their experience. I had problems distinguishing between the children and I did not manage to form a strong opinion either about the positive characters or the negative ones. Finally, I think it did not age well, it is hard to explain why I have this impression.
I both listened to and read Lord of The Flies. While listening I got lost in the descriptions (read bored) so I thought the written version was more suitable for this story.
May 4, 2025
The year 1954 saw the first publication of Golding鈥檚 masterwork, the point of which had (independently) bifurcated my personality in that same year - in a series of ironic inner game-changing events...
Piggy and his upper-class schoolmates are marooned on a remote wild island. But left without adults, they quickly descend, like some of our leaders, into draconian martial violence - the powerful and strong versus the poor and weak (shades of Animal Farm?).
And I myself nearly became a Piggy.
January, 1954 saw the personal event that changed that transition forever.
You see, for 69 years I have lived my life in a perpetual rerun of Bill Murray鈥檚 Groundhog Day. And my moral values - though, praise God, not my Political ones - are so utterly and ironically shared with those of that McCarthyist year, 1954.
I鈥檓 a Photographic Time Warp copy, in fact.
It all started on a crisp, clear January morning in 1954...
My colicky and irascible brother had come into the world ten months earlier - like me, he would have preferred to stay Close to my Mom forever, bless him. But - I had also around the time of his birth found my parents in an embarrassingly intimate act. I had been barely three.
And the day our car crashed on the Michigan Freeway when I was two was the origin...
That event had upset my psychological Apple Cart.
My Eden had vanished. And soon I was no longer the sole beneficiary of my parent's love. With the appearance of those twin sources of trauma, I became moody and withdrawn. And fell into entropy. Corporal punishment was administered, more and more frequently.
Yes, the Absurd split my life in two with those events - through no fault of. my parents - and a lifetime split resulted. Under that fractious stress, I retreated into the safe haven of Autism.
All because of my parents tried to love their children equally.
Kids can be so weird.
But by January 1954 my parents had seen enough of my inner ethical turmoil. They wanted to shore up my confidence. They bought me a popular 45 rpm record, whose flip side contained a 鈥榝un鈥� song about a 鈥淣umber One Son鈥� who must be taught to not his 鈥淭roubles tell, for Life is to Enjoy.鈥�
Their unsparing love had been replaced by an Ideological Life Hack, that I took for my own, just as a drowning man will hang for dear life onto a Brass Ring on a ship鈥檚 hold. A four-year-old needs a foundation for his values in the absence of primary love.
Yes, you guessed it: it was a substitute; an ideal false self. But thankfully, it made my Christian faith possible, and that endured.
But that Brass Ring, which gave me a traumatically Impossible ideal to live up to in order to be a Number One Son in their eyes, was psychologically destructive...
And its inner violent duality was at the heart of my psychological collapse in 1970 - it was the Perfect Storm: autistic, sheltered 1950's kid meets his violently postmodern climacteric - coming of age!
BUT - its mature, adult worldview was always ALL that stood against me - and the moral entropy and outright violence of a Piggy, towards whose personality I had been drifting by the age of four.
So WHAT if it turned me into a slightly funny lifetime Aspie and hence victim of all the symptoms of bipolar disorder?
My utter MORAL collapse was averted.
I maintained my values intact.
And for that, in my view, my parents and siblings deserve ALL THE CREDIT.
Piggy and his upper-class schoolmates are marooned on a remote wild island. But left without adults, they quickly descend, like some of our leaders, into draconian martial violence - the powerful and strong versus the poor and weak (shades of Animal Farm?).
And I myself nearly became a Piggy.
January, 1954 saw the personal event that changed that transition forever.
You see, for 69 years I have lived my life in a perpetual rerun of Bill Murray鈥檚 Groundhog Day. And my moral values - though, praise God, not my Political ones - are so utterly and ironically shared with those of that McCarthyist year, 1954.
I鈥檓 a Photographic Time Warp copy, in fact.
It all started on a crisp, clear January morning in 1954...
My colicky and irascible brother had come into the world ten months earlier - like me, he would have preferred to stay Close to my Mom forever, bless him. But - I had also around the time of his birth found my parents in an embarrassingly intimate act. I had been barely three.
And the day our car crashed on the Michigan Freeway when I was two was the origin...
That event had upset my psychological Apple Cart.
My Eden had vanished. And soon I was no longer the sole beneficiary of my parent's love. With the appearance of those twin sources of trauma, I became moody and withdrawn. And fell into entropy. Corporal punishment was administered, more and more frequently.
Yes, the Absurd split my life in two with those events - through no fault of. my parents - and a lifetime split resulted. Under that fractious stress, I retreated into the safe haven of Autism.
All because of my parents tried to love their children equally.
Kids can be so weird.
But by January 1954 my parents had seen enough of my inner ethical turmoil. They wanted to shore up my confidence. They bought me a popular 45 rpm record, whose flip side contained a 鈥榝un鈥� song about a 鈥淣umber One Son鈥� who must be taught to not his 鈥淭roubles tell, for Life is to Enjoy.鈥�
Their unsparing love had been replaced by an Ideological Life Hack, that I took for my own, just as a drowning man will hang for dear life onto a Brass Ring on a ship鈥檚 hold. A four-year-old needs a foundation for his values in the absence of primary love.
Yes, you guessed it: it was a substitute; an ideal false self. But thankfully, it made my Christian faith possible, and that endured.
But that Brass Ring, which gave me a traumatically Impossible ideal to live up to in order to be a Number One Son in their eyes, was psychologically destructive...
And its inner violent duality was at the heart of my psychological collapse in 1970 - it was the Perfect Storm: autistic, sheltered 1950's kid meets his violently postmodern climacteric - coming of age!
BUT - its mature, adult worldview was always ALL that stood against me - and the moral entropy and outright violence of a Piggy, towards whose personality I had been drifting by the age of four.
So WHAT if it turned me into a slightly funny lifetime Aspie and hence victim of all the symptoms of bipolar disorder?
My utter MORAL collapse was averted.
I maintained my values intact.
And for that, in my view, my parents and siblings deserve ALL THE CREDIT.
April 30, 2025
This book will forever haunt me and be forever intertwined with my freshman year of high school. Its a great book for a classroom and was where I was first taught symbolism in a way that really stood out to me. This book is so rich in literary devices I remember it being the first moment where I realized the art of reading and writing as something far beyond storytelling and how much careful craft brings a work to life. I was hooked, I think from that moment on I had it in my mind that to be someone who analyzes literature was a rock-star type vocation to me. But I will also never forget the way it was taught. Our teacher, who I remain close friends with to this day, had us play a simulation for two days where we were in the same situation as the kids in the book (before we began the book) and had to discuss and plan how to organize our lives to survive on this island. Think Model UN but for Lord of the Flies.
Reader: it was chaos. Everyone made bad deals or broke deals finding it funny to screw people over, multiple people clamored over who was in charge, people such as myself bounced from group to group doing devious deals or gossiping about what other groups were doing (I have always been a gossip queen), and by the second day we were all shouting at each other and feeling like we had somehow been so bad at this game that the teacher would never have his class play it again. Which, at that age, is sort of a mark of pride to some and so once the chaos began those few gleefully pushed for more chaos. Our teacher never interjected, only watched from afar while grading our exams from the previous week--a brilliant time management idea I've come to realize.
Finally our teacher stepped in. We eagerly awaited hearing we were terrible at this and fully destroyed the purpose of it, only to hear that this was what happened almost every single year. And then we read the book, which felt like looking into a mirror. Chilling moment to be confronted with yourself that way. He did this game every year until he retired, it's quite often cited as a favorite memory from high school for those who were there.
Reader: it was chaos. Everyone made bad deals or broke deals finding it funny to screw people over, multiple people clamored over who was in charge, people such as myself bounced from group to group doing devious deals or gossiping about what other groups were doing (I have always been a gossip queen), and by the second day we were all shouting at each other and feeling like we had somehow been so bad at this game that the teacher would never have his class play it again. Which, at that age, is sort of a mark of pride to some and so once the chaos began those few gleefully pushed for more chaos. Our teacher never interjected, only watched from afar while grading our exams from the previous week--a brilliant time management idea I've come to realize.
Finally our teacher stepped in. We eagerly awaited hearing we were terrible at this and fully destroyed the purpose of it, only to hear that this was what happened almost every single year. And then we read the book, which felt like looking into a mirror. Chilling moment to be confronted with yourself that way. He did this game every year until he retired, it's quite often cited as a favorite memory from high school for those who were there.
October 26, 2008
Lord of the Flies is one of the most disturbing books I've ever read. It was required high school reading and since then, I've read it four more times. It is as disturbing now as it was then. Using a group of innocent schoolboys stranded on an island, the author very realistically portrays human behavior in an environment where civilization no longer has meaning.
August 8, 2021
(Book 508 from 1001 books) . Lord of the flies, William Golding
Lord of the Flies is a 1954 novel by Nobel Prize鈥搘inning British author William Golding. The book focuses on a group of British boys stranded on an uninhabited island and their disastrous attempt to govern themselves.
In the midst of a wartime evacuation, a British aeroplane crashes on or near an isolated island in a remote region of the Pacific Ocean. The only survivors are boys in their middle childhood or preadolescence. Two boys鈥攖he fair-haired Ralph and an overweight, bespectacled boy nicknamed "Piggy"鈥攆ind a conch, which Ralph uses as a horn to convene all the survivors to one area.
Ralph is optimistic, believing that grownups will come to rescue them but Piggy realises the need to organise ("put first things first and act proper").
Because Ralph appears responsible for bringing all the survivors together, he immediately commands some authority over the other boys and is quickly elected their "chief".
He does not receive the votes of the members of a boys' choir, led by the red-headed Jack Merridew, although he allows the choir boys to form a separate clique of hunters.
Ralph establishes three primary policies: to have fun, to survive, and to constantly maintain a smoke signal that could alert passing ships to their presence on the island and thus rescue them. The boys establish a form of democracy by declaring that whoever holds the conch shall also be able to speak at their formal gatherings and receive the attentive silence of the larger group.
Jack organises his choir into a hunting party responsible for discovering a food source. Ralph, Jack, and a quiet, dreamy boy named Simon soon form a loose triumvirate of leaders with Ralph as the ultimate authority.
Upon inspection of the island, the three determine that it has fruit and wild pigs for food. The boys also use Piggy's glasses to create a fire. Although he is Ralph's only real confidant, Piggy is quickly made into an outcast by his fellow "biguns" (older boys) and becomes the butt of the other boys' jokes. Simon, in addition to supervising the project of constructing shelters, feels an instinctive need to protect the "littluns" (younger boys).
The semblance of order quickly deteriorates as the majority of the boys turn idle; they give little aid in building shelters, spend their time having fun and begin to develop paranoias about the island. The central paranoia refers to a supposed monster they call the "beast", which they all slowly begin to believe exists on the island.
Ralph insists that no such beast exists, but Jack, who has started a power struggle with Ralph, gains a level of control over the group by boldly promising to kill the creature. At one point, Jack summons all of his hunters to hunt down a wild pig, drawing away those assigned to maintain the signal fire.
A ship travels by the island, but without the boys' smoke signal to alert the ship's crew, the vessel continues without stopping. Ralph angrily confronts Jack about his failure to maintain the signal; in frustration Jack assaults Piggy, breaking one of the lenses of his glasses.
The boys subsequently enjoy their first feast. Angered by the failure of the boys to attract potential rescuers, Ralph considers relinquishing his position as leader, but is persuaded not to do so by Piggy, who both understands Ralph's importance and fears what will become of him should Jack take total control. ...
毓賳賵丕賳賴丕蹖 趩丕倬 卮丿賴 丿乇 丕蹖乇丕賳: 芦爻丕賱丕乇 賲诏爻 賴丕禄貨 芦禺丿丕賵賳丿诏丕乇 賲诏爻賴丕禄貨 芦亘毓賱 夭亘賵亘禄貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 爻乇 賵蹖賱蹖丕賲 诏賱丿蹖賳诏貨 (亘賴噩鬲貙 丕亘鬲讴丕乇貙 丕賮乇丕卮鬲賴貙 丌倬丕丿丕賳丕貙 丕亘乇 爻賮蹖丿貙 乇賴賳賲丕貙 丕賲蹖乇讴亘蹖乇)貨 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 丕賳诏賱爻鬲丕賳貨 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮 乇賵夭 亘蹖爻鬲 賵 倬賳噩賲 賲丕賴 丕讴鬲亘乇 爻丕賱 2012賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 爻丕賱丕乇 賲诏爻 賴丕 貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 爻乇 賵蹖賱蹖丕賲 诏賱丿蹖賳诏貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 丨賲蹖丿 乇賮蹖毓蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 亘賴噩鬲貙 1353貙 丿乇 372氐貨 趩丕倬 爻賵賲 1385貨 卮丕亘讴 9646671918貨 賲賵囟賵毓: 丿丕爻鬲丕賳賴丕蹖 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 亘乇蹖鬲丕賳蹖丕 - 爻丿賴 20賲
毓賳賵丕賳: 亘毓賱 夭亘賵亘 貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 爻乇 賵蹖賱蹖丕賲 诏賱丿蹖賳诏貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賲丨賲賵丿 賲卮乇賮 丌夭丕丿 (賲 丌夭丕丿)貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丕亘鬲讴丕乇貙 1363貙 丿乇 270氐貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 爻丕賱丕乇 賲诏爻 賴丕 貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 爻乇 賵蹖賱蹖丕賲 诏賱丿蹖賳诏貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 乇囟丕 丿蹖丿丕乇蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丕賮乇丕卮鬲賴貙 1363貨 丿乇 282氐貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 爻丕賱丕乇 賲诏爻 賴丕貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 爻乇 賵蹖賱蹖丕賲 诏賱丿蹖賳诏貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 爻賵爻賳 丕乇丿讴丕賳蹖 (卮丕賴蹖賳)貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丌倬丕丿丕賳丕貙 1363貨 丿乇 336氐貨 趩丕倬 丿蹖诏乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丕亘乇 爻賮蹖丿貙 1390貙 丿乇 327氐貨 卮丕亘讴 9786009254552貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 爻丕賱丕乇 賲诏爻賴丕貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 爻乇 賵蹖賱蹖丕賲 诏賱丿蹖賳诏貨 賲鬲乇噩賲 賲跇诏丕賳 賲賳氐賵乇蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 倬乇诏賱貙 1379貨 趩丕倬 丿蹖诏乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 乇賴賳賲丕貙 1382貨 丿乇 443氐貨 卮丕亘讴 9643670937貨 趩丕倬 丿蹖诏乇 1385貨 趩丕倬 亘毓丿蹖 1388貨 卮丕亘讴 9789643670931貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 禺丿丕賵賳丿诏丕乇 賲诏爻 賴丕貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 爻乇 賵蹖賱蹖丕賲 诏賱丿蹖賳诏貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 噩賵丕丿 倬蹖賲丕賳貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丕賲蹖乇讴亘蹖乇貙 趩丕倬 丿賵賲 1395貨 丿乇 287氐貨 卮丕亘讴 9789640018743貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 爻丕賱丕乇 賲诏爻鈥屬囏ж� 賵蹖賱蹖丕賲 诏賱丿蹖賳诏貨 賲鬲乇噩賲 賳丕賴蹖丿 卮賴亘丕夭蹖鈥屬呝傌呚� 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丌賲賵鬲 1396貨 丿乇 317氐貨 卮丕亘讴 9786003840317貨
丕夭 噩賲賱賴 丌孬丕乇 亘乇噩爻鬲賴 蹖 讴賱丕爻蹖讴 噩賴丕賳貙 讴賴 芦賵蹖賱蹖丕賲 诏賱丿蹖賳诏禄 丿乇 丌賳貨 卮賵乇 賵 賴蹖噩丕賳 禺賵蹖卮 乇丕 丿乇 蹖讴 賯氐賴 蹖 鬲賲孬蹖賱蹖貙 亘丕 賯丿乇鬲 賵 氐丿丕賯鬲 鬲賵氐蹖賮 讴乇丿賴貙 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 賲丕噩乇丕蹖 卮诏賮鬲 丌賵乇 诏乇賵賴蹖 倬爻乇 亘趩賴 丕爻鬲貙 丿乇 賲丿乇爻賴 丕蹖 芦丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖禄貙 讴賴 丿乇 胤蹖 噩賳诏 賴爻鬲賴 丕蹖 賵 禺丕賳賲丕賳爻賵夭貙 毓丕夭賲 賲賳胤賯賴 丕蹖 丕賲賳 賲蹖卮賵賳丿貨 賵賱蹖 爻賯賵胤 賴賵丕倬蹖賲丕貙 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 賲賱夭賲 亘賴 丕賯丕賲鬲 丿乇 噩夭蹖乇賴 丕蹖 丕爻鬲賵丕蹖蹖 賲蹖讴賳丿貨 丿乇 丌睾丕夭貙 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 亘賴 禺賵亘蹖 倬蹖卮 賲蹖乇賵丿貙 賵 丌賳賴丕 亘蹖 丿睾丿睾賴 賵 爻亘讴亘丕賱貙 噩夭蹖乇賴 蹖 禺賵卮 丌亘 賵 乇賳诏 賵 爻乇爻亘夭 乇丕貙 丿乇賲蹖賳賵乇丿賳丿貨 丕賲丕 丕賳丿讴 夭賲丕賳蹖貙 倬爻 丕夭 丌賳貙 卮乇丕乇鬲 賵 鬲賳丿禺賵蹖蹖 倬爻乇賴丕貙 亘賴卮鬲 夭賲蹖賳蹖 乇丕貙 亘賴 丿賵夭禺蹖 丕夭 丌鬲卮 賵 禺賵賳貙 賲亘丿賱 賲蹖讴賳丿貙 賵 鬲賲丕賲蹖 賲馗丕賴乇 禺乇丿 賵 倬丕讴 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖貙 丕夭 賵噩賵丿卮丕賳 乇禺鬲 亘乇賲蹖亘賳丿丿貨 讴卮賲讴卮 丿乇賵賳蹖 賳蹖乇賵賴丕蹖 賲鬲囟丕丿 禺蹖乇 賵 卮乇貙 丿乇賵賳 賲丕蹖賴 蹖 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 乇丕 卮讴賱 賲蹖丿賴賳丿
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 22/06/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 15/05/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
Lord of the Flies is a 1954 novel by Nobel Prize鈥搘inning British author William Golding. The book focuses on a group of British boys stranded on an uninhabited island and their disastrous attempt to govern themselves.
In the midst of a wartime evacuation, a British aeroplane crashes on or near an isolated island in a remote region of the Pacific Ocean. The only survivors are boys in their middle childhood or preadolescence. Two boys鈥攖he fair-haired Ralph and an overweight, bespectacled boy nicknamed "Piggy"鈥攆ind a conch, which Ralph uses as a horn to convene all the survivors to one area.
Ralph is optimistic, believing that grownups will come to rescue them but Piggy realises the need to organise ("put first things first and act proper").
Because Ralph appears responsible for bringing all the survivors together, he immediately commands some authority over the other boys and is quickly elected their "chief".
He does not receive the votes of the members of a boys' choir, led by the red-headed Jack Merridew, although he allows the choir boys to form a separate clique of hunters.
Ralph establishes three primary policies: to have fun, to survive, and to constantly maintain a smoke signal that could alert passing ships to their presence on the island and thus rescue them. The boys establish a form of democracy by declaring that whoever holds the conch shall also be able to speak at their formal gatherings and receive the attentive silence of the larger group.
Jack organises his choir into a hunting party responsible for discovering a food source. Ralph, Jack, and a quiet, dreamy boy named Simon soon form a loose triumvirate of leaders with Ralph as the ultimate authority.
Upon inspection of the island, the three determine that it has fruit and wild pigs for food. The boys also use Piggy's glasses to create a fire. Although he is Ralph's only real confidant, Piggy is quickly made into an outcast by his fellow "biguns" (older boys) and becomes the butt of the other boys' jokes. Simon, in addition to supervising the project of constructing shelters, feels an instinctive need to protect the "littluns" (younger boys).
The semblance of order quickly deteriorates as the majority of the boys turn idle; they give little aid in building shelters, spend their time having fun and begin to develop paranoias about the island. The central paranoia refers to a supposed monster they call the "beast", which they all slowly begin to believe exists on the island.
Ralph insists that no such beast exists, but Jack, who has started a power struggle with Ralph, gains a level of control over the group by boldly promising to kill the creature. At one point, Jack summons all of his hunters to hunt down a wild pig, drawing away those assigned to maintain the signal fire.
A ship travels by the island, but without the boys' smoke signal to alert the ship's crew, the vessel continues without stopping. Ralph angrily confronts Jack about his failure to maintain the signal; in frustration Jack assaults Piggy, breaking one of the lenses of his glasses.
The boys subsequently enjoy their first feast. Angered by the failure of the boys to attract potential rescuers, Ralph considers relinquishing his position as leader, but is persuaded not to do so by Piggy, who both understands Ralph's importance and fears what will become of him should Jack take total control. ...
毓賳賵丕賳賴丕蹖 趩丕倬 卮丿賴 丿乇 丕蹖乇丕賳: 芦爻丕賱丕乇 賲诏爻 賴丕禄貨 芦禺丿丕賵賳丿诏丕乇 賲诏爻賴丕禄貨 芦亘毓賱 夭亘賵亘禄貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 爻乇 賵蹖賱蹖丕賲 诏賱丿蹖賳诏貨 (亘賴噩鬲貙 丕亘鬲讴丕乇貙 丕賮乇丕卮鬲賴貙 丌倬丕丿丕賳丕貙 丕亘乇 爻賮蹖丿貙 乇賴賳賲丕貙 丕賲蹖乇讴亘蹖乇)貨 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 丕賳诏賱爻鬲丕賳貨 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮 乇賵夭 亘蹖爻鬲 賵 倬賳噩賲 賲丕賴 丕讴鬲亘乇 爻丕賱 2012賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 爻丕賱丕乇 賲诏爻 賴丕 貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 爻乇 賵蹖賱蹖丕賲 诏賱丿蹖賳诏貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 丨賲蹖丿 乇賮蹖毓蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 亘賴噩鬲貙 1353貙 丿乇 372氐貨 趩丕倬 爻賵賲 1385貨 卮丕亘讴 9646671918貨 賲賵囟賵毓: 丿丕爻鬲丕賳賴丕蹖 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 亘乇蹖鬲丕賳蹖丕 - 爻丿賴 20賲
毓賳賵丕賳: 亘毓賱 夭亘賵亘 貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 爻乇 賵蹖賱蹖丕賲 诏賱丿蹖賳诏貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賲丨賲賵丿 賲卮乇賮 丌夭丕丿 (賲 丌夭丕丿)貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丕亘鬲讴丕乇貙 1363貙 丿乇 270氐貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 爻丕賱丕乇 賲诏爻 賴丕 貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 爻乇 賵蹖賱蹖丕賲 诏賱丿蹖賳诏貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 乇囟丕 丿蹖丿丕乇蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丕賮乇丕卮鬲賴貙 1363貨 丿乇 282氐貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 爻丕賱丕乇 賲诏爻 賴丕貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 爻乇 賵蹖賱蹖丕賲 诏賱丿蹖賳诏貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 爻賵爻賳 丕乇丿讴丕賳蹖 (卮丕賴蹖賳)貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丌倬丕丿丕賳丕貙 1363貨 丿乇 336氐貨 趩丕倬 丿蹖诏乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丕亘乇 爻賮蹖丿貙 1390貙 丿乇 327氐貨 卮丕亘讴 9786009254552貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 爻丕賱丕乇 賲诏爻賴丕貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 爻乇 賵蹖賱蹖丕賲 诏賱丿蹖賳诏貨 賲鬲乇噩賲 賲跇诏丕賳 賲賳氐賵乇蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 倬乇诏賱貙 1379貨 趩丕倬 丿蹖诏乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 乇賴賳賲丕貙 1382貨 丿乇 443氐貨 卮丕亘讴 9643670937貨 趩丕倬 丿蹖诏乇 1385貨 趩丕倬 亘毓丿蹖 1388貨 卮丕亘讴 9789643670931貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 禺丿丕賵賳丿诏丕乇 賲诏爻 賴丕貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 爻乇 賵蹖賱蹖丕賲 诏賱丿蹖賳诏貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 噩賵丕丿 倬蹖賲丕賳貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丕賲蹖乇讴亘蹖乇貙 趩丕倬 丿賵賲 1395貨 丿乇 287氐貨 卮丕亘讴 9789640018743貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 爻丕賱丕乇 賲诏爻鈥屬囏ж� 賵蹖賱蹖丕賲 诏賱丿蹖賳诏貨 賲鬲乇噩賲 賳丕賴蹖丿 卮賴亘丕夭蹖鈥屬呝傌呚� 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丌賲賵鬲 1396貨 丿乇 317氐貨 卮丕亘讴 9786003840317貨
丕夭 噩賲賱賴 丌孬丕乇 亘乇噩爻鬲賴 蹖 讴賱丕爻蹖讴 噩賴丕賳貙 讴賴 芦賵蹖賱蹖丕賲 诏賱丿蹖賳诏禄 丿乇 丌賳貨 卮賵乇 賵 賴蹖噩丕賳 禺賵蹖卮 乇丕 丿乇 蹖讴 賯氐賴 蹖 鬲賲孬蹖賱蹖貙 亘丕 賯丿乇鬲 賵 氐丿丕賯鬲 鬲賵氐蹖賮 讴乇丿賴貙 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 賲丕噩乇丕蹖 卮诏賮鬲 丌賵乇 诏乇賵賴蹖 倬爻乇 亘趩賴 丕爻鬲貙 丿乇 賲丿乇爻賴 丕蹖 芦丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖禄貙 讴賴 丿乇 胤蹖 噩賳诏 賴爻鬲賴 丕蹖 賵 禺丕賳賲丕賳爻賵夭貙 毓丕夭賲 賲賳胤賯賴 丕蹖 丕賲賳 賲蹖卮賵賳丿貨 賵賱蹖 爻賯賵胤 賴賵丕倬蹖賲丕貙 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 賲賱夭賲 亘賴 丕賯丕賲鬲 丿乇 噩夭蹖乇賴 丕蹖 丕爻鬲賵丕蹖蹖 賲蹖讴賳丿貨 丿乇 丌睾丕夭貙 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 亘賴 禺賵亘蹖 倬蹖卮 賲蹖乇賵丿貙 賵 丌賳賴丕 亘蹖 丿睾丿睾賴 賵 爻亘讴亘丕賱貙 噩夭蹖乇賴 蹖 禺賵卮 丌亘 賵 乇賳诏 賵 爻乇爻亘夭 乇丕貙 丿乇賲蹖賳賵乇丿賳丿貨 丕賲丕 丕賳丿讴 夭賲丕賳蹖貙 倬爻 丕夭 丌賳貙 卮乇丕乇鬲 賵 鬲賳丿禺賵蹖蹖 倬爻乇賴丕貙 亘賴卮鬲 夭賲蹖賳蹖 乇丕貙 亘賴 丿賵夭禺蹖 丕夭 丌鬲卮 賵 禺賵賳貙 賲亘丿賱 賲蹖讴賳丿貙 賵 鬲賲丕賲蹖 賲馗丕賴乇 禺乇丿 賵 倬丕讴 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖貙 丕夭 賵噩賵丿卮丕賳 乇禺鬲 亘乇賲蹖亘賳丿丿貨 讴卮賲讴卮 丿乇賵賳蹖 賳蹖乇賵賴丕蹖 賲鬲囟丕丿 禺蹖乇 賵 卮乇貙 丿乇賵賳 賲丕蹖賴 蹖 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 乇丕 卮讴賱 賲蹖丿賴賳丿
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 22/06/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 15/05/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
March 7, 2008
I hated this book. First off, as I remember, it talks about humans failure to govern ourselves, or more broadly the failures of human nature. There are a few reasons why I think simply dropping a group of kids on a desert island does not in fact prove anything.
1) These kids were raised in a capitalist, nominally demcratic society. The first thing they do is appoint leaders. As someone who spends my time working in consensus based groups seeking to challenge hierarchical structures, I have a strong belief that this is not how things need to be. It takes a bunch of unlearning and relearning to use these formats - simply being in a new space or being a child does not do this work. The author and the children he writes about are a part of a specific culture, and it's incorrect to generalize these values to a broader concept of human nature.
2) They're all boys! Again, socialization (yes, even of a 6 year old) plays a huge role in what behavior we see as appropriate. While it's quite true that men (or at least masculinity) control government, it's ridiculous to use only boys to extrapolate what ways of governing ourselves are possible.
I read this book in 1996 when I was a freshman in highschool, so maybe there's something I missed. Or maybe my memories are being colored by just how gross the pig's head descriptions were. If so, feel free to correct me. For now though, I have to say that this book is offensive and makes dangerous assumption.
1) These kids were raised in a capitalist, nominally demcratic society. The first thing they do is appoint leaders. As someone who spends my time working in consensus based groups seeking to challenge hierarchical structures, I have a strong belief that this is not how things need to be. It takes a bunch of unlearning and relearning to use these formats - simply being in a new space or being a child does not do this work. The author and the children he writes about are a part of a specific culture, and it's incorrect to generalize these values to a broader concept of human nature.
2) They're all boys! Again, socialization (yes, even of a 6 year old) plays a huge role in what behavior we see as appropriate. While it's quite true that men (or at least masculinity) control government, it's ridiculous to use only boys to extrapolate what ways of governing ourselves are possible.
I read this book in 1996 when I was a freshman in highschool, so maybe there's something I missed. Or maybe my memories are being colored by just how gross the pig's head descriptions were. If so, feel free to correct me. For now though, I have to say that this book is offensive and makes dangerous assumption.
May 18, 2021
賱丕 兀馗賳 兀丨丿丕 丿乇爻 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞 賵賱賲 賷爻賲毓 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賯賱 亘賴匕賴 丕賱乇賵丕賷丞
賰賳鬲購 賮賷 毓丕賲賷 丕賱乇丕亘毓 賵賯鬲 丿乇丕爻鬲賴丕
賵賲賳 兀賵賱 賵賴賱丞 噩匕亘鬲賳賷
賵亘賷賳賲丕 賰丕賳 夭賲賱丕卅賷 賷賴鬲賲賵賳 亘賲丕 爻賷兀鬲賷 賲賳賴丕 賮賷 丕賱丕賲鬲丨丕賳
賰賳鬲 兀賳丕 兀賱鬲賴賲賴丕 丕賱鬲賴丕賲丕鈥�
兀孬乇 賮賷 丨丿賷孬 乇兀爻 丕賱禺賳夭賷乇 賲毓 爻丕賷賲賵賳 賰孬賷乇丕
賰賳鬲 賵賯鬲賴丕 賮賷 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳 賵賱丕 兀馗賳賳賷 賯乇兀鬲 丨賵丕乇丕鬲 賰賴匕賴 賲賳 賯亘賱
鈥� 賰賳鬲 兀乇賶 丕賱賲卮賴丿 兀賲丕賲賷 賲鬲噩爻丿丕
賵賱丕 兀毓賱賲 丕賱丌賳 賴賱 匕賱賰 亘爻亘亘 亘乇丕毓丞 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 兀賲 卮丿丞 鬲兀孬乇賷鈥�
匕賱賰 兀賳賳賷 賱賲 兀毓丿 賯乇丕亍鬲賴丕 賲噩丿丿丕
-----------
鬲丨丿孬 賮乇賵賷丿 賯亘賱 賵賮丕鬲賴 亘賯賱賷賱 毓賳 丕賱睾乇賷夭丞 丕賱鬲丿賲賷乇賷丞 賮賷 丕賱亘卮乇
鈥� 毓賳 丨亘 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賱賱賯鬲賱 賵丕賱毓賳賮 賵丕賱丿賲丕乇鈥�
賵丕賱乇賵丕賷丞 氐賵乇丞 賲氐睾乇丞 賱匕賱賰 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱亘卮乇賷
丕賱匕賷 賷鬲乇賳丨鈥� 賲丕 亘賷賳 丕賱賮胤乇賷丞 賵丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞貙 賵丕賱鬲賲丿賳 賵丕賱鬲丨囟乇
賷噩丿 兀胤賮丕賱 賲丕 亘賷賳 丕賱孬丕賲賳丞 賵丕賱孬丕賳賷丞 毓卮乇 兀賳賮爻賴賲 賮賷 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞鈥�
亘賲毓夭賱 鬲丕賲 毓賳 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱賰亘丕乇
賵亘丕賱胤亘毓 賷賰賵賳 賴賲賴賲 丕賱兀賵賱 賴賵 丕賱亘賯丕亍 毓賱賶 賯賷丿 丕賱丨賷丕丞
乇丕丨 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賷爻鬲禺乇噩 禺亘丕賷丕 丕賱賳賮爻 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 亘廿馗賴丕乇 賵丨卮賷鬲賴丕 賵賯丕亘賱賷鬲賴丕 賱賱卮乇
賲鬲賳丕賵賱丕 氐乇丕毓 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 丕賱兀亘丿賷 亘賷賳 丕賱睾乇賷夭丞 賵丕賱爻賱賵賰賷丕鬲 丕賱賲丿賳賷丞 丕賱賲賰鬲爻亘丞 鈥�
鈥�(賱賯丿 卮丕乇賰 噩賵賱丿賳睾 賳賮爻賴 賮賷 丕賱丨乇亘 丕賱毓丕賱賲賷丞 丕賱孬丕賳賷丞 賰囟丕亘胤 賮賷 丕賱亘丨乇賷丞 丕賱亘乇賷胤丕賳賷丞
賵丕卮鬲乇賰 賮賷 賲毓乇賰丞 廿睾乇丕賯 兀賯賵賶 亘丕乇噩丞 兀賱賲丕賳賷丞 -亘爻賲丕乇賰 )鈥�
賷賮鬲乇囟 噩賵賱丿賳噩 丕賳丿賱丕毓 丨乇亘 鬲鬲毓乇囟 賮賷賴 丕賳噩賱鬲乇丕 賱囟乇亘丞 賳賵賵賷丞
賵賷賮鬲乇囟 賵噩賵丿 胤丕卅乇丞 丕賳噩賱賷夭賷丞 賯丕賲鬲 亘廿噩賱丕亍 賲噩賲賵毓丞 賲賳 丕賱賮鬲賷丞 廿賱賶 禺丕乇噩 鈥徹з勜ㄙ勜ж�
(亘賴丿賮 賱廿賳賯丕匕 丨賷丕鬲賴賲 賵丕賱丨賮丕馗 毓賱賶 丕賱賳爻賱 丕賱丕賳噩賱賷夭賷 賲賳 丕賱丕賳丿孬丕乇鈥�)
賵毓賳丿賲丕 鬲爻賯胤 鬲賱賰 丕賱胤丕卅乇丞 賮賵賯 噩夭賷乇丞 賳丕卅賷丞
賷賳噩賵 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賮賯胤
賵賷賯鬲賱 丕賱胤賷丕乇 丕孬賳丕亍 賲丨丕賵賱鬲賴 丕賱賳噩丕丞 亘丕賱賲馗賱丞
賷亘丿兀 賴丐賱丕亍 丕賱氐亘賷丞 亘亘賳丕亍 賲噩鬲賲毓賴賲 丕賱噩丿賷丿 (丕賱賲氐睾乇) 鈥�
賵賷丿賵乇 丕賱氐乇丕毓 亘賷賳 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱賲丿賳賷丞 丕賱賲鬲賲孬賱丞 賮賷 乇丕賱賮鈥�
賵丕賱賲毓丕乇囟丞 丕賱賲爻賱丨丞 (丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱毓爻賰乇賷丞) 丕賱賲鬲賲孬賱丞 賮賷 噩丕賰鈥�
鈥� 鈥�
鈥�-賵賮賵賯 賰賱 匕賱賰 賮賳丨賳 賱爻賳丕 賴賲噩賷賷賳貙 賱兀賳賳丕 廿賳噩賱賷夭貙 賵丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭 賴賲 兀賮囟賱 丕賱賳丕爻 賮賷 噩賲賷毓 鈥�
丿丕卅賲丕 賲丕 鬲賳賯賱亘 鬲賱賰 丕賱賳馗乇丞 丕賱丕爻鬲毓賱丕卅賷丞 丕賱卮賵賮賷賳賷丞 毓賱賶 兀氐丨丕亘賴丕 賮賷 賰賱 夭賲丕賳 賵賲賰丕賳
鈥� 賱賯丿 鬲丨賵賱 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 廿賱賶 賲爻賵禺 賴賲噩賷丞 鬲爻鬲賱匕 丕賱賯鬲賱 賵丕賱毓賳賮鈥�
賷賳賯賱亘 賲噩鬲賲毓賴賲 丕賱氐睾賷乇 廿賱賶 賲噩鬲賲毓 賵丨卮賷 賴賲噩賷 鈥�
乇丕賱賮 賴賵 丕賱卮禺氐賷丞 丕賱賲丨賵乇賷丞 賮賷 丕賱乇賵丕賷丞
鬲毓胤賷賴 賵爻丕賲鬲賴 爻賲丞 丕爻鬲毓賱丕亍 鈥�
賵賰毓丕丿丞 丕賱乇賮丕賯 賷爻禺乇 賲賳 亘賷噩賷 亘爻匕丕噩鬲賴 丕賱胤賷亘丞
乇丕賱賮 賷亘丿賵 賲孬丕賱賷 丕賱賲馗賴乇 賱賰賳賴 賷毓賵夭賴 丕賱匕賰丕亍 鈥�
賴匕丕 丕賱匕賰丕亍 賷毓賵囟賴 亘賷噩賷 (賵賴賵 廿爻賲 鬲丿賱賷賱 賷毓賳賷 丕賱禺賳夭賷乇 丕賱氐睾賷乇)鈥�
亘賷噩賷 賴賵 匕賱賰 丕賱胤賮賱 丕賱爻賲賷賳 丕賱胤賷亘 丕賱馗乇賷賮 鈥�
鈥�-卮禺氐賷鬲賷 丕賱賲賮囟賱丞 乇賯賲 2- 鈥�
丕賱匕賰賷 亘乇睾賲 爻匕丕噩鬲賴 賮賷 鬲毓丕賲賱賴 賲毓 乇賮丕賯賴 鈥�
亘丕賱廿囟丕賮丞 廿賱賶 廿氐丕亘鬲賴 亘丕賱乇亘賵 賵賯氐乇 丕賱賳馗乇 丕賱丨丕丿
賵亘賳亘丕賴鬲賴 賷賯鬲乇丨 毓賱賶 乇丕賱賮 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 丕賱氐丿賮丞 (亘丿賱丕賱丕鬲賴丕 丕賱乇賲夭賷丞) 賵鬲丨賵賷賱賴丕 廿賱賶 亘賵賯 亘氐賮賷乇賴 賷爻鬲胤賷毓 鈥徹官傌� 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓丕鬲
賵賲賳 孬賲 丕毓鬲亘乇賴丕 丕賱噩賲賷毓 乇賲夭 丕賱爻賷胤乇丞 賵丕賱丨賰賲_ 賵賲賳 賷丨賲賱賴丕 賴賵 賮賯胤 賲賳 賷爻鬲胤賷毓 丕賱鬲丨丿孬
賰賲丕 兀賳 亘賷噩賷 賴賵 賲賳 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲 賳馗丕乇鬲賴- 亘廿賷毓丕夭 賲賳 乇丕賱賮 丕賱爻丕禺乇- 賱鬲賰孬賷賮 兀卮毓丞 丕賱卮賲爻 賵匕賱賰 賱廿卮毓丕賱 鈥徹з勝嗀ж� 鈥�
鈥�
亘賷噩賷 賴賵 氐賵鬲 丕賱毓賯賱丕賳賷丞 丕賱賲賰乇賵賴 賲賳 丕賱睾丕賱亘賷丞 鈥�
賵賷毓鬲亘乇賴 丕賱亘毓囟 乇賲夭丕 賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱賲賮賰乇賷賳 賵丕賱賲孬賯賮賷賳 鈥�
丕賱匕賷賳 賱丕 鬲爻鬲賲毓 廿賱賷賴賲 丕賱丿賵賱 丕賱賲爻鬲亘丿丞 鈥�
亘賱 鬲丨丕賵賱 亘卮乇丕爻丞 丕賱賯囟丕亍 毓賱賷賴賲
噩丕賰 賷鬲爻賲 亘丕賱丿賲賵賷丞 賵丕賱賵丨卮賷丞 賲賳 丕賱亘丿丕賷丞
賵賴賵 賷丐賲賳 亘丕賱賯賵丞 賵賷鬲賱匕匕 亘丕賱丿賲丕亍
丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 鬲鬲爻丕乇毓 賮賷 丕賱氐乇丕毓 賲丕 亘賷賳 賯賵丞 丕賱賲賳胤賯 賵賲賳胤賯 丕賱賯賵丞
賵噩丕賰 賷賯賵賲 亘丕賳賯賱丕亘 毓爻賰乇賷 賷胤賷丨 亘賴 亘乇丕賱賮 賵鬲氐賷乇 賱賴 丕賱睾賱亘丞
鈥�(乇亘賲丕 兀乇丕丿 噩賵賱丿賷賳噩 兀賳 賷卮賷乇 廿賱賶 兀賳 丕賱賴賷賲賳丞 賵丕賱賷丿 丕賱毓賱賷丕 丿賵賲丕 鬲賰賵賳 鈥徺勝勜жＸ勜з傎娰娰� 賵丕賱丿賲賵賷賷賳)鈥忊€�
丨鬲賶 匕賱賰 丕賱賷賵賲 丕賱匕賷 賷乇賶 賮賷賴 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賲賳 亘毓賷丿 噩孬丞 丕賱胤賷丕乇 賲毓 賲馗賱鬲賴 毓賱賶 兀丨丿 丕賱噩亘丕賱 賮賷馗賳 丕賱噩賲賷毓 鈥徹Ｙ嗁� 賵丨卮 丕賱睾丕亘丞
賮賷氐胤丕丿 噩丕賰 禺賳夭賷乇丕 亘乇賷丕 賷賯胤毓 乇兀爻賴 賵賷賳氐亘賴 毓賱賶 乇賲丨 賮賷 兀毓賱賶 賯賲丞 丕賱噩亘賱 賰乇賲夭 賱賯賵丞 賮乇賷賯賴
賵賷亘丿兀 丕賱丕丨鬲賮丕賱 亘賴匕賴 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘丞 亘卮毓丕卅乇 賰胤賯賵爻 賱賱氐賷丿 鈥�
賷胤賱賷 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賵噩賵賴賴賲 亘丿賲 丕賱禺賳夭賷乇 丕賱賲匕亘賵丨 賲鬲丨賵賱賷賳 廿賱賶 亘乇丕亘乇丞鈥�
賵賮賷 馗賱 賴匕丕 丕賱噩賵 丕賱賲卮亘毓 禺賵賮丕 賵賯賴乇丕 賵毓賵賷賱 亘乇亘乇賷 賷囟賱 爻丕賷賲賵賳 胤乇賷賯賴鈥�
賮賷噩丿 賳賮爻賴 兀賲丕賲 乇兀爻 丕賱禺賳夭賷乇 丕賱賲毓賱賯 丕賱丨丕卅賲 賲賳 賰丕賳 丨賵賱賴 丕賱匕亘丕亘 (爻賷丿 丕賱匕亘丕亘) 鈥�
賵賴賳丕 賷亘丿兀 爻丕賷賲賵賳 賮賷 丕賱賴匕賷丕賳 (兀賮囟賱 賵兀賯爻賶 賲卮丕賴丿 丕賱乇賵丕賷丞)鈥�
賱賷丿賵乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬 亘賷賳賴 賵亘賷賳 爻賷丿 丕賱匕亘丕亘 丕賱匕賷 賷爻禺乇 賲賳賴 賵賲賳 兀賲賱賴 賮賷 丕賱禺賱丕氐 賵賮賷 氐賱丕丨 丕賱兀丨賵丕賱鈥�
賵賴賰匕丕 賱賲 賷兀鬲 丕賱卮乇 亘賮毓賱 丕賱賵丨賵卮 鈥�
亘賱 賲賳 丕賱亘卮乇 兀賳賮爻賴賲
-----------
丕賱乇賵丕賷丞 鬲爻鬲丨賯 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 亘賰賱 鬲兀賰賷丿
賰賲丕 丕賳 賴賳丕賰 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 賮賷賱賲 賷丨賰賷 賯氐鬲賴丕
賵廿賳 賱賲 兀卮丕賴丿 丕賷 賲賳賴賲 丨鬲賶 丕賱丌賳
賵賱賰賳賴丕 丨丕賱丞 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賱賳 兀爻鬲胤賷毓 賳爻賷丕賳賴丕
February 10, 2024
How are dictators being made? , , and , won't answer this question perfectly. William Golding has the perfect answer to it through this allegory.
How can a novel about a bunch of stranded school kids teach us about dictators?
This is not just a novel about school boys. This is a novel about the intricate ways the human psyche performs when it is stretched to the paramount in abominable circumstances when liberty is abundant, and everyone is equal, without any prerogatives.
This parable hits the right chord to enlighten us regarding our leniency to entropy. This is exactly how dictators are made. The boys teach us a lot of lessons through the way they behave and the areas they remain silent.
What I learned from this book
1) Who is the beast in the Lord of the flies?
There is a chance that some people will try to read this novel superficially without thinking about its deeper meaning. It is the concept of the beast discussed by the author that they will ultimately get stuck after being confused. We can interpret the beast in many ways depending on our conscience.
The simplest explanation of the beast is that it is the basic instinct of savagery existing in the minds of human beings. You can interpret it in many complicated ways based on your thinking level.
鈥淢aybe there is a beast鈥� maybe it's only us.鈥�
2) Are human beings behaving in a civilized manner just because of the laws that he has to follow?
This is a tricky question to answer. But it becomes an easy question if you have read this book and contemplated it for some time.
鈥淲hich is better--to have laws and agree, or to hunt and kill?鈥�
"The rules!" shouted Ralph, "you're breaking the rules!"
"Who cares?"
3) What is the easiest way to know about the personality of a person?
Golding metaphorically tells us the easiest way to understand the personality of a person.
It is said that personality is who we are and what we do when everybody is watching and character is what we are and what we do when nobody is watching.
The way a person talks to older people, his subordinates, and disabled people tells us a lot about their character. These are the groups of people who cannot stand up as equals for their rights.
We know that adversity builds and reveals character. We can see the author's brilliance by the way how he culminated all the above-mentioned ideas and brilliantly revealed them to us through the behavior of a few stranded children.
"He wanted to explain how people were never quite what you thought they were."
My favourite three lines from this book
鈥淭he greatest ideas are the simplest.鈥�
鈥淲hat are we? Humans? Or animals? Or savages?"
"I believe man suffers from an appalling ignorance of his own nature. I produce my own view in the belief that it may be something like the truth."
What could have been better?
Some people may say this novel has extreme racist remarks and body shaming. There is also some content that some readers might find explicit.
This novel was published on 17 September 1954. It would be best if you kept this in the back of your mind while reading it. It is because some people are viewing this book through the current lens of political correctness they find it disturbing. That is one of the greatest injustices we can do to any literary creation.
Rating
5/5 This novel is one among those few masterpieces that can be read in many ways depending on the reader's proclivity.
鈥斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌�
You can also follow me on
| | | | | | | |
April 1, 2021
A hard book to rate as although its well written and is very thought provoking, the content gets unpleasantly graphic and some aspects are awkwardly dated (eg the assumption the British boys should be jolly good chaps - 鈥渨e鈥檙e not savages, we鈥檙e English鈥�).
Plot
It starts off as a conventional adventure: a mixed group of boys (some know each other; many who don鈥檛) survive a plane crash on a desert island and struggle to survive. It is somewhat confused and confusing at first 鈥� perhaps to make the reader empathise with the boys鈥� confusion.
From the outset there are issues of priorities (Jack鈥檚 instant gratification of hunting or Ralph鈥檚 long term need for shelter and maintaining a fire signal) and leadership. It鈥檚 inevitable that standards of 鈥渃ivilization鈥� will slip.
There is also an infectious fear of 鈥渢he beast鈥�, although whether one interprets it as animal, airman, hallucination, or symbolic may vary at different points in the story. Certainly the tone of the book changes after Simon鈥檚 first encounter with Lord of the Flies.
Image: Teaching Lord of the Flies, by The Jenkins Comic ()
Group Dynamics
Eventually the boys split into two groups: hunters who become ever more 鈥渟avage鈥� in appearance and behaviour, and the remainder who want to retain order, safety, common sense 鈥� and their lives. Why do the obedient and angelic choir turn to savagery - does the fact they have an identified leader, who isn't the overall leader once they're on the island, contribute? One also wonders how the story might be different if it was a mixed sex group, or even an all girl group. Very different, certainly, and I suppose it would provide a distraction to what Golding was trying to say about human (or just male?) nature.
It illustrates how petty bullying can be condoned and encouraged within groups (exacerbated by rituals, chanting, body markings etc) and how it can escalate to much worse. Nevertheless, one of the main victims, Piggy, is proud of his differences, demonstrates knowledge and intelligence and actually grows in confidence as his leader loses his.
Milgran, Zimbardo, Christianity...
It questions whether it is power or the environment that makes some of the boys so bad (echoes of Zimbardo鈥檚 prison experiments and Milgram鈥檚 obedience experiments - if a book can echo things which came after it was written).
In fact, Golding "experimented, while a teacher at a public school, with setting boys against one another in the manner of Lord of the Flies"! See (thanks Matt).
The more Christian concept of original sin runs through it, which was probably Golding's intention (his editor made him make Simon less Jesus-like), along with other Christian analogies relating to snakes, devils (aka Lord of the Flies), self sacrifice, and redemption/rescue.
And then there are the conch and fire as symbols of order and god, respectively, in total contrast to the warpaint etc of the warriors.
Lots to think about, but more the stuff of nightmares than dreams.
Compared with The Hunger Games
It's interesting to compare this with The Hunger Games, which modern teens probably find much easier to relate to (see my review ). I think one problem Lord of the Flies has is that the period is tricky: too far from the present to seem "relevant" (though I think it is), but not long enough ago to be properly historical.
Compared with I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream
For another dysfunctional group trying to survive a very different ordeal, see Harlan Ellison's horrific short story about an evil supercomputer, which I reviewed .
Plot
It starts off as a conventional adventure: a mixed group of boys (some know each other; many who don鈥檛) survive a plane crash on a desert island and struggle to survive. It is somewhat confused and confusing at first 鈥� perhaps to make the reader empathise with the boys鈥� confusion.
From the outset there are issues of priorities (Jack鈥檚 instant gratification of hunting or Ralph鈥檚 long term need for shelter and maintaining a fire signal) and leadership. It鈥檚 inevitable that standards of 鈥渃ivilization鈥� will slip.
There is also an infectious fear of 鈥渢he beast鈥�, although whether one interprets it as animal, airman, hallucination, or symbolic may vary at different points in the story. Certainly the tone of the book changes after Simon鈥檚 first encounter with Lord of the Flies.
Image: Teaching Lord of the Flies, by The Jenkins Comic ()
Group Dynamics
Eventually the boys split into two groups: hunters who become ever more 鈥渟avage鈥� in appearance and behaviour, and the remainder who want to retain order, safety, common sense 鈥� and their lives. Why do the obedient and angelic choir turn to savagery - does the fact they have an identified leader, who isn't the overall leader once they're on the island, contribute? One also wonders how the story might be different if it was a mixed sex group, or even an all girl group. Very different, certainly, and I suppose it would provide a distraction to what Golding was trying to say about human (or just male?) nature.
It illustrates how petty bullying can be condoned and encouraged within groups (exacerbated by rituals, chanting, body markings etc) and how it can escalate to much worse. Nevertheless, one of the main victims, Piggy, is proud of his differences, demonstrates knowledge and intelligence and actually grows in confidence as his leader loses his.
Milgran, Zimbardo, Christianity...
It questions whether it is power or the environment that makes some of the boys so bad (echoes of Zimbardo鈥檚 prison experiments and Milgram鈥檚 obedience experiments - if a book can echo things which came after it was written).
In fact, Golding "experimented, while a teacher at a public school, with setting boys against one another in the manner of Lord of the Flies"! See (thanks Matt).
The more Christian concept of original sin runs through it, which was probably Golding's intention (his editor made him make Simon less Jesus-like), along with other Christian analogies relating to snakes, devils (aka Lord of the Flies), self sacrifice, and redemption/rescue.
And then there are the conch and fire as symbols of order and god, respectively, in total contrast to the warpaint etc of the warriors.
Lots to think about, but more the stuff of nightmares than dreams.
Compared with The Hunger Games
It's interesting to compare this with The Hunger Games, which modern teens probably find much easier to relate to (see my review ). I think one problem Lord of the Flies has is that the period is tricky: too far from the present to seem "relevant" (though I think it is), but not long enough ago to be properly historical.
Compared with I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream
For another dysfunctional group trying to survive a very different ordeal, see Harlan Ellison's horrific short story about an evil supercomputer, which I reviewed .
January 16, 2022
Without what the author intended to do or probably has done, it would be a 3 star, but so 1 star is the only option.
Of course, it麓s completely natural to become primitive again within the shortest amounts of time, and not an unintended dark comedy, self satirizing, biased, sexual predator of an author, who finally deus ex machinas out of this mess.
鈥濱n a private journal and in a memoir for his wife, Golding said he tried to rape a 15-year-old girl when he was 18 and on his first holiday from Oxford鈥�
鈥濰e had met her when both were taking music lessons in Marlborough, Wiltshire, when he was about 16 and she was 13, but he tried to rape her two years later when he was home during his first year at Oxford.
Golding writes that they went for a walk to the common and he 'felt sure she wanted heavy sex, as this was visibly written on her pert, ripe and desirable mouth'.
Soon they were 'wrestling like enemies' as he 'tried unhandily to rape her'.
She resisted and Golding, years later, wrote that 'he had made such a bad hand at rape' before shaking her and shouting 'I鈥檓 not going to hurt you'.鈥�
鈥濧 later girlfriend, Mollie, was also treated badly by Golding.
She was another local from Marlborough whom he later let down by breaking off their engagement because he had found her frigid.鈥�
鈥濼he attempted rape involved a Marlborough girl, named Dora, who had taken piano lessons with Golding. It happened when he was 18 and on holiday during his first year at Oxford. Carey quotes the memoir as partially excusing the attempted rape on the grounds that Dora was "depraved by nature" and, at 14, was "already sexy as an ape". It reveals that Golding told his wife he had been sure the girl "wanted heavy sex". She fought him off and ran away as he stood there shouting: "I'm not going to hurt you," the memoir said.鈥�
鈥濭olding, who won the Nobel Prize in 1983, three years after bagging the Booker for Rites Of Passage, admitted trying to rape a 15-year-old schoolgirl when he was an 18-year-old student at Oxford, according to a forthcoming biography by John Carey.
The schoolgirl put up a fierce resistance. But they had sex two years later, according to Golding, who nevertheless called her 鈥渄epraved by nature鈥� and 鈥渟exy as an ape鈥� in his unpublished memoir, Men, Women & Now. He wrote it for Ann, his wife of 50 years, to explain his 鈥渕onstrous鈥� character.鈥�
Fringe philosophy
Downgrading and unintended satirizing of kids麓 language from an adult麓s perspective to seem capable of writing empathic and emotional, tragic-comic dialogues and characters is a cheap trick that fails epically, if not performed right. But it麓s the logical consequence of making kids act as if they were stupid animals to integrate a biased, boring, and one sided plot. If you want real philosophy on an island, read:
/book/show/2...
More bad philosophy on an island, read:
/book/show/2...
This one has everything, racism, glorifying religious extremism, a true, clear picture of our past.
Back to the show, as it麓s often the problem with monopolies, the ones in art lead to overrated, hyped, and simply not good wanna be philosophical constructions. I mean, symbolic, metaphysical, allegory metaphor overload for young people who want to be entertained? Honestly? 鈥濪on麓t try to murder each other kids.鈥� What a lesson! Of course, kids are so stupid that they immediately establish cultic dictatorships if they are not supervised, what else should logically happen.
If this wouldn麓t be a typical forced read to torture school kids and a kind of pre pop psychology Nobel Prize higher literature with meaning drivel, I would say it麓s barely average, but because of its excessive misuse, it麓s just unacceptable. Possibly the ever so clever bureaucrats of the boards of education all over the world ought think a second about removing all the trash of all the lauded, boring, outdated, obsolete,鈥� literature each country tends to accumulate in a strange mixture of patriotism, cultural imperialism (our writers, literature, tradition) and think about including the great, amazing, wonderful worlds of literature kids and young adults want to read.
The worst classic I麓ve ever read
One extra star up to 2 could have been given for incompetently trying to be deep, philosophical, and critical and failing to transport the important message about the evil lurking in naked apes. Nice try, William, but just an epic fail, and total bigotry regarding your alcohol and abuse problems you loved to drivel about in your strange diaries of a molester.
I was really searching for deeper meaning, any of all the arguments seen in positive reviews, but it麓s just unrealistic, the ending is a bad joke, putting as much symbolism and innuendos in it to camouflage the immense flaws doesn麓t really help, and it just fuels my opinion that, just as in real life, much of what is idealized and glorified is just bad and rotten. Look at the ratings of Golding麓s other books, rated by people who like to read classics! Another achievement in inability.
I know, there are many getting real pleasure out of classic literature, that麓s a question of taste and I don麓t force them to read my trivial literature. That麓s where the tolerance ends, because the problem is that the previously mentioned kids, teens, and young adults don麓t deserve to be bored with what elder generations may really enjoy, but has absolutely no worth for them. I did once make the mistake of reading a few dozen classics and most were just average, some really bad, but definitively close to none great. It麓s sad, avoidable, and just plain anachronistic to violently keep extremely outdated versions of descriptions of long away pasts in the curriculum and the main reason kids and teens hate to read.
Irony time, there would be old, classic, clever books that could really tell something about human nature, not using placative over the top violence, especially in the classic and new sci-fi and social-sci-fi genre that explore many questions regarding human nature, state, politics, sexuality, economics, faith, but, they would be too extreme, progressive, and subtle. Cause bigoted conservatives don麓t want their kids to read really dangerous, meta context, social criticism, stuff, they want some characters far away from any real, imminent problems playing hide and seek with a freaking pigs麓 head.
It truly left me speechless, just asking why, what麓s wrong with you, humanities, literary critique, Nobel prize, quality literature, higher art, snobs, modern art, don麓t you realize that you are satirizing yourself by praising so many works that many avid, lifelong readers, with k reading scores deem bad, arrogant, boring, and worthless? Reminiscences of a past when bigoted, unenlightened people celebrated any trash that could distract from their incredible cognitive biases. It at least also lets me imagine a purgatory library filled with this stuff and dark angels forcing me to read it until I become insane, repair my brain, and restart the process. Forever. Mwahahaha!
Trying to find an explanation, a combination of personal drivel with the biography of a disturbed mind
The author had issues, binge drinking and alcoholism were demons haunting him, and he did exactly write this one thing that made him famous and nothing else of importance. What makes one more disgusted is the fact that he, as mentioned, tried to rape a 15 year old girl when he was 18 (how often has he been successful and didn麓t write about it, because he was so completely wasted and drunk that he wouldn麓t even remember it?), a reason he should at least be retrospectively condemned, as retroactive, time travel castration isn麓t really an option. That麓s one of the crime areas where I distance myself from restorative justice and go full metal eye for an eye, archaic retributive justice, because I am of the opinion that sex offenders should be incarcerated under terrible conditions, life imprisonment without any chance to ever see the light of the day again (and this rehabilitation thing is complete, psychologic, psychiatric (2 other partly fringe science the humanities unleashed on humanity like a plague) nonsense. Nobody would try to 鈥瀋ure鈥� someone who is heterosexual, homosexual, or has a different gender identity than physical body, because that麓s completely crazy. But hey, someone who is born (seen in babies) or made a pedophile, rapist, necrophile, etc. can of course be healed. And, another very important factor, it麓s cheaper for the state to release serial sex killers to save some money and wait if it takes them weeks or months until the next victim is tortured, raped, and eaten. How is it possible that psychiatrists say that they are no danger anymore before and don麓t get any problems for their little oopsies?). However, such a tortured, poor soul, someone who raped as bad as he wrote, could become a celebrated highlight of highbrow s*** literature, which makes him worthy of even more fringe Nobel prizes, maybe for voodoo economics.
Tropes show how literature is conceptualized and created and which mixture of elements makes works and genres unique:
Of course, it麓s completely natural to become primitive again within the shortest amounts of time, and not an unintended dark comedy, self satirizing, biased, sexual predator of an author, who finally deus ex machinas out of this mess.
鈥濱n a private journal and in a memoir for his wife, Golding said he tried to rape a 15-year-old girl when he was 18 and on his first holiday from Oxford鈥�
鈥濰e had met her when both were taking music lessons in Marlborough, Wiltshire, when he was about 16 and she was 13, but he tried to rape her two years later when he was home during his first year at Oxford.
Golding writes that they went for a walk to the common and he 'felt sure she wanted heavy sex, as this was visibly written on her pert, ripe and desirable mouth'.
Soon they were 'wrestling like enemies' as he 'tried unhandily to rape her'.
She resisted and Golding, years later, wrote that 'he had made such a bad hand at rape' before shaking her and shouting 'I鈥檓 not going to hurt you'.鈥�
鈥濧 later girlfriend, Mollie, was also treated badly by Golding.
She was another local from Marlborough whom he later let down by breaking off their engagement because he had found her frigid.鈥�
鈥濼he attempted rape involved a Marlborough girl, named Dora, who had taken piano lessons with Golding. It happened when he was 18 and on holiday during his first year at Oxford. Carey quotes the memoir as partially excusing the attempted rape on the grounds that Dora was "depraved by nature" and, at 14, was "already sexy as an ape". It reveals that Golding told his wife he had been sure the girl "wanted heavy sex". She fought him off and ran away as he stood there shouting: "I'm not going to hurt you," the memoir said.鈥�
鈥濭olding, who won the Nobel Prize in 1983, three years after bagging the Booker for Rites Of Passage, admitted trying to rape a 15-year-old schoolgirl when he was an 18-year-old student at Oxford, according to a forthcoming biography by John Carey.
The schoolgirl put up a fierce resistance. But they had sex two years later, according to Golding, who nevertheless called her 鈥渄epraved by nature鈥� and 鈥渟exy as an ape鈥� in his unpublished memoir, Men, Women & Now. He wrote it for Ann, his wife of 50 years, to explain his 鈥渕onstrous鈥� character.鈥�
Fringe philosophy
Downgrading and unintended satirizing of kids麓 language from an adult麓s perspective to seem capable of writing empathic and emotional, tragic-comic dialogues and characters is a cheap trick that fails epically, if not performed right. But it麓s the logical consequence of making kids act as if they were stupid animals to integrate a biased, boring, and one sided plot. If you want real philosophy on an island, read:
/book/show/2...
More bad philosophy on an island, read:
/book/show/2...
This one has everything, racism, glorifying religious extremism, a true, clear picture of our past.
Back to the show, as it麓s often the problem with monopolies, the ones in art lead to overrated, hyped, and simply not good wanna be philosophical constructions. I mean, symbolic, metaphysical, allegory metaphor overload for young people who want to be entertained? Honestly? 鈥濪on麓t try to murder each other kids.鈥� What a lesson! Of course, kids are so stupid that they immediately establish cultic dictatorships if they are not supervised, what else should logically happen.
If this wouldn麓t be a typical forced read to torture school kids and a kind of pre pop psychology Nobel Prize higher literature with meaning drivel, I would say it麓s barely average, but because of its excessive misuse, it麓s just unacceptable. Possibly the ever so clever bureaucrats of the boards of education all over the world ought think a second about removing all the trash of all the lauded, boring, outdated, obsolete,鈥� literature each country tends to accumulate in a strange mixture of patriotism, cultural imperialism (our writers, literature, tradition) and think about including the great, amazing, wonderful worlds of literature kids and young adults want to read.
The worst classic I麓ve ever read
One extra star up to 2 could have been given for incompetently trying to be deep, philosophical, and critical and failing to transport the important message about the evil lurking in naked apes. Nice try, William, but just an epic fail, and total bigotry regarding your alcohol and abuse problems you loved to drivel about in your strange diaries of a molester.
I was really searching for deeper meaning, any of all the arguments seen in positive reviews, but it麓s just unrealistic, the ending is a bad joke, putting as much symbolism and innuendos in it to camouflage the immense flaws doesn麓t really help, and it just fuels my opinion that, just as in real life, much of what is idealized and glorified is just bad and rotten. Look at the ratings of Golding麓s other books, rated by people who like to read classics! Another achievement in inability.
I know, there are many getting real pleasure out of classic literature, that麓s a question of taste and I don麓t force them to read my trivial literature. That麓s where the tolerance ends, because the problem is that the previously mentioned kids, teens, and young adults don麓t deserve to be bored with what elder generations may really enjoy, but has absolutely no worth for them. I did once make the mistake of reading a few dozen classics and most were just average, some really bad, but definitively close to none great. It麓s sad, avoidable, and just plain anachronistic to violently keep extremely outdated versions of descriptions of long away pasts in the curriculum and the main reason kids and teens hate to read.
Irony time, there would be old, classic, clever books that could really tell something about human nature, not using placative over the top violence, especially in the classic and new sci-fi and social-sci-fi genre that explore many questions regarding human nature, state, politics, sexuality, economics, faith, but, they would be too extreme, progressive, and subtle. Cause bigoted conservatives don麓t want their kids to read really dangerous, meta context, social criticism, stuff, they want some characters far away from any real, imminent problems playing hide and seek with a freaking pigs麓 head.
It truly left me speechless, just asking why, what麓s wrong with you, humanities, literary critique, Nobel prize, quality literature, higher art, snobs, modern art, don麓t you realize that you are satirizing yourself by praising so many works that many avid, lifelong readers, with k reading scores deem bad, arrogant, boring, and worthless? Reminiscences of a past when bigoted, unenlightened people celebrated any trash that could distract from their incredible cognitive biases. It at least also lets me imagine a purgatory library filled with this stuff and dark angels forcing me to read it until I become insane, repair my brain, and restart the process. Forever. Mwahahaha!
Trying to find an explanation, a combination of personal drivel with the biography of a disturbed mind
The author had issues, binge drinking and alcoholism were demons haunting him, and he did exactly write this one thing that made him famous and nothing else of importance. What makes one more disgusted is the fact that he, as mentioned, tried to rape a 15 year old girl when he was 18 (how often has he been successful and didn麓t write about it, because he was so completely wasted and drunk that he wouldn麓t even remember it?), a reason he should at least be retrospectively condemned, as retroactive, time travel castration isn麓t really an option. That麓s one of the crime areas where I distance myself from restorative justice and go full metal eye for an eye, archaic retributive justice, because I am of the opinion that sex offenders should be incarcerated under terrible conditions, life imprisonment without any chance to ever see the light of the day again (and this rehabilitation thing is complete, psychologic, psychiatric (2 other partly fringe science the humanities unleashed on humanity like a plague) nonsense. Nobody would try to 鈥瀋ure鈥� someone who is heterosexual, homosexual, or has a different gender identity than physical body, because that麓s completely crazy. But hey, someone who is born (seen in babies) or made a pedophile, rapist, necrophile, etc. can of course be healed. And, another very important factor, it麓s cheaper for the state to release serial sex killers to save some money and wait if it takes them weeks or months until the next victim is tortured, raped, and eaten. How is it possible that psychiatrists say that they are no danger anymore before and don麓t get any problems for their little oopsies?). However, such a tortured, poor soul, someone who raped as bad as he wrote, could become a celebrated highlight of highbrow s*** literature, which makes him worthy of even more fringe Nobel prizes, maybe for voodoo economics.
Tropes show how literature is conceptualized and created and which mixture of elements makes works and genres unique:
March 19, 2019
"We did everything adults would do. What went wrong?"
You did everything adults would do. That's what went wrong.
There is much to be said against this novel, and it has been said, eloquently, poignantly, many times. Let me make a case for keeping it on the curriculum despite the dated language, the graphic violence, the author's personality...
There are two myths about adolescents, and this novel does away with them in a - admittedly - drastic way. First of all, there is no general innocence in adolescents. They do what grown-ups do, but in a less mature and experienced way. That means they cheat, lie and steal, and use violence to achieve their goals, and they are vain and interested in dominating and manipulating others. But they are also caring, loving and resourceful, and willing to serve the community in which they participate.
The second myth regards the helplessness and general dependence of adolescents, which is also only true as long as they have grown-ups around. Leave adolescents alone, and they will organise themselves. The best example of what happens to a group of teenagers left alone is shown if a teacher in a (civilised) school in a (civilised) country leaves for just a couple of minutes.
If you have never experienced the amount of destructive power that is possible in that short time-span, you might think Golding exaggerates. Unfortunately, I can see any group of students turning into the characters in The Lord Of The Flies if they are put in the situation. I even know who would be the leaders, who would fight, who would bully, who would play along, and who would go under. Add teenage girls to the mixture and hell breaks loose.
Reading this novel with teenagers - if it is done with a big heart for their developmental stages and their hormonal glitches - gives them an opportunity to discuss a topic they already know everything about from their own lives but often keep hidden from naive, romantic grown-ups: the heart of an adolescent has dark corners, and it is important to shed light on the pain young people are able to cause each other if they are under the impression that they are not seen by the higher authority of the grown-up world.
Teenagers are grown-ups in training, and they make all the beginner mistakes without having the perspective to see the end of the tunnel.
Reading offers perspective!
You did everything adults would do. That's what went wrong.
There is much to be said against this novel, and it has been said, eloquently, poignantly, many times. Let me make a case for keeping it on the curriculum despite the dated language, the graphic violence, the author's personality...
There are two myths about adolescents, and this novel does away with them in a - admittedly - drastic way. First of all, there is no general innocence in adolescents. They do what grown-ups do, but in a less mature and experienced way. That means they cheat, lie and steal, and use violence to achieve their goals, and they are vain and interested in dominating and manipulating others. But they are also caring, loving and resourceful, and willing to serve the community in which they participate.
The second myth regards the helplessness and general dependence of adolescents, which is also only true as long as they have grown-ups around. Leave adolescents alone, and they will organise themselves. The best example of what happens to a group of teenagers left alone is shown if a teacher in a (civilised) school in a (civilised) country leaves for just a couple of minutes.
If you have never experienced the amount of destructive power that is possible in that short time-span, you might think Golding exaggerates. Unfortunately, I can see any group of students turning into the characters in The Lord Of The Flies if they are put in the situation. I even know who would be the leaders, who would fight, who would bully, who would play along, and who would go under. Add teenage girls to the mixture and hell breaks loose.
Reading this novel with teenagers - if it is done with a big heart for their developmental stages and their hormonal glitches - gives them an opportunity to discuss a topic they already know everything about from their own lives but often keep hidden from naive, romantic grown-ups: the heart of an adolescent has dark corners, and it is important to shed light on the pain young people are able to cause each other if they are under the impression that they are not seen by the higher authority of the grown-up world.
Teenagers are grown-ups in training, and they make all the beginner mistakes without having the perspective to see the end of the tunnel.
Reading offers perspective!
September 1, 2024
A British airplane on fire crashes on a deserted isolated South Sea's island, in the middle of an atomic war set in the near future . All the grown-ups are killed and only children 12 and younger survive, how are they to cope (basically an allegorical story of what is human nature , good or evil ?) . Ralph is chosen leader, "Piggy" his intellectual sidekick he wears glasses, this beautiful green tropical coral isle with a blue lagoon magnificent palm trees, better yet coconut trees too and plenty of yellow bananas, other fruits are seen. Wild numerous pigs in the forest, plenty of fish in the ocean so no worries right...Wrong! Ralph has a rescue fire set which goes sadly out of control , and one of the boys is never seen again, Jack doesn't like playing second fiddle to Ralph. He takes his group of choirboys followers and leaves, to form a new fierce warrior tribe on Castle Rock, painting their faces and becoming great hunters....Since Piggy's eye glasses are the only way the kids can start a fire, Jack raids Ralph's shelter and steals it, the poor helpless boy can't function without them, blind as a bat ( I know it's a misnomer, but it sounds great). Complicating the situation is the mysterious "Beast," on the mountain is it real? Or just a legend...Earlier Simon sees the evil head of a large boar on a stick , in the middle of the forest (Lord of the Flies). He has a haunting vision and flees towards the children, scaring them all. In the darkness they believe it's the beast and have to defend themselves, with whatever weapons they possess ..a tragedy occurs. Later the two" tribes" struggle for supremacy on the island....Will the wicked inherit the Earth? And maybe the last outpost of civilization left is here... This novel is a superb narrative of today's nations wars of conquest, anything is good as long as your side wins...
May 10, 2018
鈥漈hey accepted the pleasures of morning, the bright sun, the whelming sea and sweet air, as a time when play was good and life so full that hope was not necessary and therefore forgotten.鈥�
So this was a book many people had to read when they went to school and in some way this already says a lot about 鈥淟ord of the Flies鈥�. Like so many of the books that are required to be read during people鈥檚 educational careers this one wasn鈥檛 only full of serious topics but also dealt with ethical values.
I mean we have boys between the ages of 6 and 12 who are stranded on an island after they had a plane crash. There is no adult who would force them to stay in line; there is no authority that would tell them what's right or wrong. They are left to their own devices and even though they were doing as good as you would expect schoolboys to do, they still were fairly decent at the beginning of the book.
鈥淚 agree with Ralph. We鈥檝e got to have rules and obey them. After all, we鈥檙e not savages. We鈥檙e English; and the English are the best at everything. So we鈥檝e got to do the right things.鈥�
Oh, how often I thought back to this quote when I read on with horror, every new chapter revealing another aspect of the dark abyss of human kind. The morale dilemma of Ralph and Piggy was so intense that I couldn鈥檛 help but feel with them whenever something bad and terrible happened. They were the only ones that tried to get order into the chaos but on an island without any rules only the strongest remain.
鈥滻 got you meat!鈥�
Numberless and inexpressible frustrations combined to make his rage elemental and awe-inspiring. 鈥淚 painted my face 鈥� I stole up. Now you eat 鈥� all of you 鈥� and I 鈥撯€�
The fight of savageness vs. civilisation was so tangible it hurt and I constantly found myself sitting at the edge of my seat hoping against all hope, that civilisation would actually win. It doesn鈥檛 take a genius to know that it didn鈥檛. Why hold on to moral standards? Why listen to reason if you can have a kingdom of your own? Why should you accept someone else鈥檚 opinion if you鈥檙e stronger and can force them to obey your own rules? You know it better than the others, right?!
鈥滻f I blow the conch and they don鈥檛 come back; then we鈥檝e had it. We shan鈥檛 keep the fire going. We鈥檒l be like animals. We鈥檒l never be rescued.鈥�
I know I鈥檓 being provocative here but it is how it is. The strongest will always try to rule the weak. It鈥檚 been done for centuries and I doubt that it will ever stop. It鈥檚 as much a part of human nature as breathing and let鈥檚 face the bitter truth: There鈥檚 darkness in all of us. We can only decide if we fight it or let it in. ;-)
鈥滾ook, Ralph. We got to forget this. We can鈥檛 do no good thinking about it, see?鈥�
鈥淚鈥檓 frightened. Of us. I want to go home. O god I want to go home.鈥�
鈥漈he thing is 鈥� fear can鈥檛 hurt you any more than a dream. There aren鈥檛 any beasts to be afraid of on this island.鈥�
If you ask me there certainly was a monster on the island or should I rather say that there were monsters? Plural. It weren鈥檛 monsters that had been there all along though. No, it were the monsters that had fallen from the sky, claiming the island as their own, doing as they pleased because they could do so without anyone to stop them. The monsters on the island came from the outside and despite their claims to want to get off of the island they all knew that they actually wanted to stay.
鈥滻鈥檓 scared of him,鈥� said Piggy, 鈥渁nd that鈥檚 why I know him. If you鈥檙e scared of someone you hate him but you can鈥檛 stop thinking about him. You kid yourself he鈥檚 all right really, an鈥� then when you see him again; it鈥檚 like asthma an鈥� you can鈥檛 breathe.鈥�
So in the end things took their natural course and got worse and worse. The descent into savageness was inexorable and the book ended on a heavy note. I can only speak for myself but the ending was brilliant. Brilliant and shocking and so very, very realistic that it caused me to ache even more. Those stupid boys... those stupid, stupid little boys. *shakes head*
Anyway, if you want to read a really good book which will haunt you days after you finished it, this should be your choice. *lol* After all I finished 鈥淟ord of the Flies鈥� almost a week ago and I鈥檓 still thinking about it. ;-)
Happy Reading! I hope you鈥檒l enjoy it as well!
So this was a book many people had to read when they went to school and in some way this already says a lot about 鈥淟ord of the Flies鈥�. Like so many of the books that are required to be read during people鈥檚 educational careers this one wasn鈥檛 only full of serious topics but also dealt with ethical values.
I mean we have boys between the ages of 6 and 12 who are stranded on an island after they had a plane crash. There is no adult who would force them to stay in line; there is no authority that would tell them what's right or wrong. They are left to their own devices and even though they were doing as good as you would expect schoolboys to do, they still were fairly decent at the beginning of the book.
鈥淚 agree with Ralph. We鈥檝e got to have rules and obey them. After all, we鈥檙e not savages. We鈥檙e English; and the English are the best at everything. So we鈥檝e got to do the right things.鈥�
Oh, how often I thought back to this quote when I read on with horror, every new chapter revealing another aspect of the dark abyss of human kind. The morale dilemma of Ralph and Piggy was so intense that I couldn鈥檛 help but feel with them whenever something bad and terrible happened. They were the only ones that tried to get order into the chaos but on an island without any rules only the strongest remain.
鈥滻 got you meat!鈥�
Numberless and inexpressible frustrations combined to make his rage elemental and awe-inspiring. 鈥淚 painted my face 鈥� I stole up. Now you eat 鈥� all of you 鈥� and I 鈥撯€�
The fight of savageness vs. civilisation was so tangible it hurt and I constantly found myself sitting at the edge of my seat hoping against all hope, that civilisation would actually win. It doesn鈥檛 take a genius to know that it didn鈥檛. Why hold on to moral standards? Why listen to reason if you can have a kingdom of your own? Why should you accept someone else鈥檚 opinion if you鈥檙e stronger and can force them to obey your own rules? You know it better than the others, right?!
鈥滻f I blow the conch and they don鈥檛 come back; then we鈥檝e had it. We shan鈥檛 keep the fire going. We鈥檒l be like animals. We鈥檒l never be rescued.鈥�
I know I鈥檓 being provocative here but it is how it is. The strongest will always try to rule the weak. It鈥檚 been done for centuries and I doubt that it will ever stop. It鈥檚 as much a part of human nature as breathing and let鈥檚 face the bitter truth: There鈥檚 darkness in all of us. We can only decide if we fight it or let it in. ;-)
鈥滾ook, Ralph. We got to forget this. We can鈥檛 do no good thinking about it, see?鈥�
鈥淚鈥檓 frightened. Of us. I want to go home. O god I want to go home.鈥�
鈥漈he thing is 鈥� fear can鈥檛 hurt you any more than a dream. There aren鈥檛 any beasts to be afraid of on this island.鈥�
If you ask me there certainly was a monster on the island or should I rather say that there were monsters? Plural. It weren鈥檛 monsters that had been there all along though. No, it were the monsters that had fallen from the sky, claiming the island as their own, doing as they pleased because they could do so without anyone to stop them. The monsters on the island came from the outside and despite their claims to want to get off of the island they all knew that they actually wanted to stay.
鈥滻鈥檓 scared of him,鈥� said Piggy, 鈥渁nd that鈥檚 why I know him. If you鈥檙e scared of someone you hate him but you can鈥檛 stop thinking about him. You kid yourself he鈥檚 all right really, an鈥� then when you see him again; it鈥檚 like asthma an鈥� you can鈥檛 breathe.鈥�
So in the end things took their natural course and got worse and worse. The descent into savageness was inexorable and the book ended on a heavy note. I can only speak for myself but the ending was brilliant. Brilliant and shocking and so very, very realistic that it caused me to ache even more. Those stupid boys... those stupid, stupid little boys. *shakes head*
Anyway, if you want to read a really good book which will haunt you days after you finished it, this should be your choice. *lol* After all I finished 鈥淟ord of the Flies鈥� almost a week ago and I鈥檓 still thinking about it. ;-)
Happy Reading! I hope you鈥檒l enjoy it as well!
March 27, 2025
Spoilers Ahead!
A group of kids get stranded on a deserted island. At first, it feels like paradise - no adults, plenty of food, and endless freedom. They explore, set up some rules, and even hold democratic meetings where anyone with the conch gets to speak. They elect Ralph as their leader since he seems smart and responsible. He organizes shelter-building, assigns tasks, and keeps a signal fire burning in hopes of rescue.
But things start falling apart fast. A careless fire burns down half the mountain, a little kid who first mentioned the 鈥渂east鈥� mysteriously disappears, and Jack, the choir leader, becomes obsessed with hunting. Soon, his hunting crew lets the signal fire go out, and the divide between him and Ralph deepens.
As time passes, more kids abandon Ralph鈥檚 leadership for Jack鈥檚 tribe, drawn to the thrill of hunting and the promise of meat. They paint their faces, dance around bonfires, and offer up pig heads as sacrifices. Fear of the 鈥渂east鈥� takes over their minds. In a chaotic frenzy after a feast, they mistake Simon - who was about to reveal the truth about the 鈥渂east鈥�- for a monster and kill him.
This is the point of no return. Jack鈥檚 tribe, fully embracing savagery, kills Piggy by crushing him with a boulder. The twins are captured, leaving Ralph completely alone. Soon, the tribe starts hunting him down, even setting the entire island on fire in the process. Just as he鈥檚 about to be caught, a naval officer arrives, drawn by the smoke. The kids break down in tears as they realize what they鈥檝e become.
The story makes one thing clear: civilization can crumble in an instant. In just a few weeks, these once-innocent kids go from building shelters to burning everything down, from hunting animals to killing each other. Golding, having lived through two world wars, forces us to confront the darkest parts of human nature.
This brings us to the big question: Is human nature good or evil?
Lord of the Flies seems to argue for Human nature is evil. Even from the start, the kids show selfishness, cruelty, and a hunger for power - ignoring the younger ones, dismissing Piggy鈥檚 ideas, and constantly struggling for control. The 鈥渂east鈥� exists in their minds long before they act on it. And ironically, their rescuers - the naval officers - are part of a world at war themselves.
But does that mean people are inherently evil? I don鈥檛 think so.
Self-interest isn鈥檛 always bad - it鈥檚 what drives both destruction and progress. Admiring strength helped humans survive. Laziness led to innovation. Power struggles built societies. What matters isn鈥檛 whether human nature is good or bad, but how we handle it.
Jack鈥檚 tribe didn鈥檛 fall apart because it was irrational - it actually worked too well. Hunting brought food, rituals created unity, and the fear of the 鈥渂east鈥� gave them purpose. The real problem was that Ralph鈥檚 leadership failed to recognize the emotional, irrational side of human nature. He relied on rules and democracy, but without real power or consequences, his system collapsed. Jack, on the other hand, gave people what they wanted - security, excitement, and belonging.
In the end, Lord of the Flies isn鈥檛 just about savagery. It鈥檚 about the delicate balance between reason and instinct, order and chaos. Ignore one, and civilization falls apart. But understanding both? That鈥檚 the key to something better.
5 / 5 stars
A group of kids get stranded on a deserted island. At first, it feels like paradise - no adults, plenty of food, and endless freedom. They explore, set up some rules, and even hold democratic meetings where anyone with the conch gets to speak. They elect Ralph as their leader since he seems smart and responsible. He organizes shelter-building, assigns tasks, and keeps a signal fire burning in hopes of rescue.
But things start falling apart fast. A careless fire burns down half the mountain, a little kid who first mentioned the 鈥渂east鈥� mysteriously disappears, and Jack, the choir leader, becomes obsessed with hunting. Soon, his hunting crew lets the signal fire go out, and the divide between him and Ralph deepens.
As time passes, more kids abandon Ralph鈥檚 leadership for Jack鈥檚 tribe, drawn to the thrill of hunting and the promise of meat. They paint their faces, dance around bonfires, and offer up pig heads as sacrifices. Fear of the 鈥渂east鈥� takes over their minds. In a chaotic frenzy after a feast, they mistake Simon - who was about to reveal the truth about the 鈥渂east鈥�- for a monster and kill him.
This is the point of no return. Jack鈥檚 tribe, fully embracing savagery, kills Piggy by crushing him with a boulder. The twins are captured, leaving Ralph completely alone. Soon, the tribe starts hunting him down, even setting the entire island on fire in the process. Just as he鈥檚 about to be caught, a naval officer arrives, drawn by the smoke. The kids break down in tears as they realize what they鈥檝e become.
The story makes one thing clear: civilization can crumble in an instant. In just a few weeks, these once-innocent kids go from building shelters to burning everything down, from hunting animals to killing each other. Golding, having lived through two world wars, forces us to confront the darkest parts of human nature.
This brings us to the big question: Is human nature good or evil?
Lord of the Flies seems to argue for Human nature is evil. Even from the start, the kids show selfishness, cruelty, and a hunger for power - ignoring the younger ones, dismissing Piggy鈥檚 ideas, and constantly struggling for control. The 鈥渂east鈥� exists in their minds long before they act on it. And ironically, their rescuers - the naval officers - are part of a world at war themselves.
But does that mean people are inherently evil? I don鈥檛 think so.
Self-interest isn鈥檛 always bad - it鈥檚 what drives both destruction and progress. Admiring strength helped humans survive. Laziness led to innovation. Power struggles built societies. What matters isn鈥檛 whether human nature is good or bad, but how we handle it.
Jack鈥檚 tribe didn鈥檛 fall apart because it was irrational - it actually worked too well. Hunting brought food, rituals created unity, and the fear of the 鈥渂east鈥� gave them purpose. The real problem was that Ralph鈥檚 leadership failed to recognize the emotional, irrational side of human nature. He relied on rules and democracy, but without real power or consequences, his system collapsed. Jack, on the other hand, gave people what they wanted - security, excitement, and belonging.
In the end, Lord of the Flies isn鈥檛 just about savagery. It鈥檚 about the delicate balance between reason and instinct, order and chaos. Ignore one, and civilization falls apart. But understanding both? That鈥檚 the key to something better.
5 / 5 stars
August 2, 2007
I just don't buy it.
This book is famous for unmasking what brutes we are, just under the surface, but, well, for all the hype, it just isn't convincing. People--even teenage boys--just aren't as savage as Golding seems to want us to believe, and nothing in this book persuades me otherwise.
Perhaps if I'd gone to English boarding school I'd feel differently--but then that's the real irony of this book, that the brutality from which the British Empire was supposed to save so many people and cultures was in fact the Brits projecting their own savagery onto others.
But the rest of us, no, we aren't monsters underneath. A little messed up, maybe, a little more raw, but nowhere near the kind of brutes that Golding wants us to believe.
This book is famous for unmasking what brutes we are, just under the surface, but, well, for all the hype, it just isn't convincing. People--even teenage boys--just aren't as savage as Golding seems to want us to believe, and nothing in this book persuades me otherwise.
Perhaps if I'd gone to English boarding school I'd feel differently--but then that's the real irony of this book, that the brutality from which the British Empire was supposed to save so many people and cultures was in fact the Brits projecting their own savagery onto others.
But the rest of us, no, we aren't monsters underneath. A little messed up, maybe, a little more raw, but nowhere near the kind of brutes that Golding wants us to believe.
December 14, 2018
Years after I read this masterpiece, it is still chilling.
Golding spins a yarn that could have been told centuries ago, primal human nature unmoored from civilization does not take long to break away and devolve into a feral thing.
As good today, and as haunting, as it was when it was published in 1954. This should be on a list of books that must be read.
** 2018 addendum - it is a testament to great literature that a reader recalls the work years later and this is a book about which I frequently think.
Golding spins a yarn that could have been told centuries ago, primal human nature unmoored from civilization does not take long to break away and devolve into a feral thing.
As good today, and as haunting, as it was when it was published in 1954. This should be on a list of books that must be read.
** 2018 addendum - it is a testament to great literature that a reader recalls the work years later and this is a book about which I frequently think.
May 13, 2025
Un roman despre o insul膬 pustie 葯i o m卯n膬 de copii naufragia葲i. Cu siguran葲膬 o rescriere a lui Robinson Crusoe (1719) 葯i a altor romane cu insule 葯i eroi e葯ua葲i 卯ntr-un 葲inut mai degrab膬 paradisiac (Insula de corali, Comoara din insul膬, Insula misterioas膬 etc.).
Dar scopul lui William Golding a fost 卯ndeosebi unul polemic. Romanul lui va dezmin葲i sau / 葯i va ilustra (pe o cale ocolit膬) postulatul lui Jean-Jacques Rousseau: 鈥濷mul este bun de la natur膬, dar societatea 卯l perverte葯te鈥�. Observa葲ie: c卯nd ajung pe insul膬, mul葲i dintre copiii lui Golding par deja perverti葲i.
脦苍 Via葲a, staniile & uimitoarele aventuri ale lui Robinson Crusoe, marinar din York (1719), g膬sim un personaj foarte norocos (iresponsabil de norocos!), c膬ruia totul 卯i iese din plin. Caprele se domesticesc singure 葯i intr膬 de bun膬voie 卯n 葲arc, gr卯iul, orzul, cerealele cresc spontan din p膬m卯ntul fertil: 鈥濵are mi-a fost mirarea c卯nd am v膬zut vreo 10 sau 12 spice de orz鈥�. C卯nd eroul e plictisit, un papagal inteligent 卯i 葲ine de ur卯t. Natura sare, a葯adar, 卯n sprijinul nes膬buitului. Pentru ca fericirea s膬-i fie deplin膬 era nevoie de Vineri. 葮i iat膬 c膬 bunul Vineri alearg膬 spre Salvatorul lui. 葮i i se supune.
脦mp膬ratul mu葯telor nareaz膬 povestea pe dos. Copiii intr膬 rapid 卯n conflict, se fac dou膬 tabere, 鈥瀋ei buni鈥� (din ce 卯n ce mai pu葲ini, r膬m卯n la sf卯r葯it Ralph 葯i Piggy, apoi numai Ralph) 葯i 鈥瀋ei r膬i鈥� (tot mai numero葯i, 卯n frunte cu Jack Merridew). Frica treze葯te 卯n copii cruzimea. 脦苍cep s膬 cread膬 c膬 insula e b卯ntuit膬 de o fiar膬 malefic膬. Vor s-o g膬seasc膬 葯i s-o v卯neze. Fire葯te c膬 n-o vor ucide, fiara e doar o fantasm膬 a min葲ii lor delirante. 脦l vor ucide, 卯n schimb, pe Simon, un b膬iat epileptic, obsedat de prezen葲a Ei. 脦苍 realitate, Fiara e fiecare dintre ei 葯i to葲i la un loc. Asta mi-a amintit de parabola despre Simorg, Regele p膬s膬rilor, rescris膬 de Borges.
La sf卯r葯itul lecturii (men葲ionez c膬 pu葯tanii s卯nt recupera葲i de pe insul膬), m膬 卯ntreb 卯nc膬 o dat膬: Omul este bun de la natur膬 葯i numai societatea 卯l corupe? Sau: omul e r膬u / crud de la natur膬, iar societatea 卯l ajut膬 (prin educa葲ie, religie, coerci葲ie, dresaj, azil psihiatric etc.) s膬 devin膬 iubitor 葯i milos? Nu 卯ndr膬znesc s膬 propun un r膬spuns iste葲. S-au f膬cut experimente (m膬 g卯ndesc la cel ini葲iat de Christina Maslach 葯i Philip Zimbardo, 卯n 1971, la Stanford University), s-au formulat ipoteze: psihologii mai au de lucru. 葮i totu葯i: am tr膬it c卯ndva o 卯mprejurare, 卯n care am v膬zut c膬 p卯n膬 葯i cel mai pu葲in violent dintre muritori poate deveni (f膬r膬 s膬 vrea?) crud, nemilos, viclean. R膬ul poate fascina. Treze葯te pl膬ceri...
P. S. De葯i 卯n cei 70 de ani care au trecut de la publicarea c膬r葲ii, exege葲ii au identificat toate aluziile (葯i multe altele care n-au trecut niciodat膬 prin mintea autorului), voi aminti c膬 numele ebraic Belzebuth / Beelzebub / Baal-Zebub (zeul impostor din Ekron) se traduce prin 鈥灻巑p膬ratul mu葯telor鈥�.
Dar scopul lui William Golding a fost 卯ndeosebi unul polemic. Romanul lui va dezmin葲i sau / 葯i va ilustra (pe o cale ocolit膬) postulatul lui Jean-Jacques Rousseau: 鈥濷mul este bun de la natur膬, dar societatea 卯l perverte葯te鈥�. Observa葲ie: c卯nd ajung pe insul膬, mul葲i dintre copiii lui Golding par deja perverti葲i.
脦苍 Via葲a, staniile & uimitoarele aventuri ale lui Robinson Crusoe, marinar din York (1719), g膬sim un personaj foarte norocos (iresponsabil de norocos!), c膬ruia totul 卯i iese din plin. Caprele se domesticesc singure 葯i intr膬 de bun膬voie 卯n 葲arc, gr卯iul, orzul, cerealele cresc spontan din p膬m卯ntul fertil: 鈥濵are mi-a fost mirarea c卯nd am v膬zut vreo 10 sau 12 spice de orz鈥�. C卯nd eroul e plictisit, un papagal inteligent 卯i 葲ine de ur卯t. Natura sare, a葯adar, 卯n sprijinul nes膬buitului. Pentru ca fericirea s膬-i fie deplin膬 era nevoie de Vineri. 葮i iat膬 c膬 bunul Vineri alearg膬 spre Salvatorul lui. 葮i i se supune.
脦mp膬ratul mu葯telor nareaz膬 povestea pe dos. Copiii intr膬 rapid 卯n conflict, se fac dou膬 tabere, 鈥瀋ei buni鈥� (din ce 卯n ce mai pu葲ini, r膬m卯n la sf卯r葯it Ralph 葯i Piggy, apoi numai Ralph) 葯i 鈥瀋ei r膬i鈥� (tot mai numero葯i, 卯n frunte cu Jack Merridew). Frica treze葯te 卯n copii cruzimea. 脦苍cep s膬 cread膬 c膬 insula e b卯ntuit膬 de o fiar膬 malefic膬. Vor s-o g膬seasc膬 葯i s-o v卯neze. Fire葯te c膬 n-o vor ucide, fiara e doar o fantasm膬 a min葲ii lor delirante. 脦l vor ucide, 卯n schimb, pe Simon, un b膬iat epileptic, obsedat de prezen葲a Ei. 脦苍 realitate, Fiara e fiecare dintre ei 葯i to葲i la un loc. Asta mi-a amintit de parabola despre Simorg, Regele p膬s膬rilor, rescris膬 de Borges.
La sf卯r葯itul lecturii (men葲ionez c膬 pu葯tanii s卯nt recupera葲i de pe insul膬), m膬 卯ntreb 卯nc膬 o dat膬: Omul este bun de la natur膬 葯i numai societatea 卯l corupe? Sau: omul e r膬u / crud de la natur膬, iar societatea 卯l ajut膬 (prin educa葲ie, religie, coerci葲ie, dresaj, azil psihiatric etc.) s膬 devin膬 iubitor 葯i milos? Nu 卯ndr膬znesc s膬 propun un r膬spuns iste葲. S-au f膬cut experimente (m膬 g卯ndesc la cel ini葲iat de Christina Maslach 葯i Philip Zimbardo, 卯n 1971, la Stanford University), s-au formulat ipoteze: psihologii mai au de lucru. 葮i totu葯i: am tr膬it c卯ndva o 卯mprejurare, 卯n care am v膬zut c膬 p卯n膬 葯i cel mai pu葲in violent dintre muritori poate deveni (f膬r膬 s膬 vrea?) crud, nemilos, viclean. R膬ul poate fascina. Treze葯te pl膬ceri...
P. S. De葯i 卯n cei 70 de ani care au trecut de la publicarea c膬r葲ii, exege葲ii au identificat toate aluziile (葯i multe altele care n-au trecut niciodat膬 prin mintea autorului), voi aminti c膬 numele ebraic Belzebuth / Beelzebub / Baal-Zebub (zeul impostor din Ekron) se traduce prin 鈥灻巑p膬ratul mu葯telor鈥�.
Read
January 19, 20211/6/20
One of the worst books I have ever read. The experience was excruciating.
30/5/20
Giving this one another shot. Tried last year and the first 30 pages were so painful. Did a lot of research on this book (spoke to a couple of people as well) and I feel like if I don't get through it this time around, I probably never will.
24/3/19
I got this book at the De Slegte many years ago but never read it. However now, Rory Power is bringing out a book coming July called Wilder Girls, with I heard is a feminist retelling of this. I'm hoping to compare the two, so this might just be the push for me to finally read this one :)
You can find me on
| | | |
One of the worst books I have ever read. The experience was excruciating.
30/5/20
Giving this one another shot. Tried last year and the first 30 pages were so painful. Did a lot of research on this book (spoke to a couple of people as well) and I feel like if I don't get through it this time around, I probably never will.
24/3/19
I got this book at the De Slegte many years ago but never read it. However now, Rory Power is bringing out a book coming July called Wilder Girls, with I heard is a feminist retelling of this. I'm hoping to compare the two, so this might just be the push for me to finally read this one :)
You can find me on
| | | |
March 19, 2024
I would presume that swathes of humanity in the West (and millions elsewhere) already know the story of a civilian plane crash around (Second World) war-time in which groups of upper class English schoolboys find themselves marooned on a deserted island, where there is a limited wish to remain civilised and a rampant descendance into savagery!
This startlingly immense debut novel by William Golding is woke-ism at its best! What, I hear you say? Yes... Golding, got the idea of the book from the 'Christian' pro-colonialism , when he though that the idea of marooned English schoolboys remaining civilised whilst encountering external evil as preposterous; and indeed the concept of the civilising power of colonialism; the beauty of his inversion of the original source was his idea that the evil the boys would face would be from within! A true modern classic and one of the greatest debuts of al time! All the stars, a 10 out of 12, Five STAR READ.
2024 read
PS Although read at least three times as a child, this was my first reading in over four decades as an adult!
This startlingly immense debut novel by William Golding is woke-ism at its best! What, I hear you say? Yes... Golding, got the idea of the book from the 'Christian' pro-colonialism , when he though that the idea of marooned English schoolboys remaining civilised whilst encountering external evil as preposterous; and indeed the concept of the civilising power of colonialism; the beauty of his inversion of the original source was his idea that the evil the boys would face would be from within! A true modern classic and one of the greatest debuts of al time! All the stars, a 10 out of 12, Five STAR READ.
2024 read
PS Although read at least three times as a child, this was my first reading in over four decades as an adult!
December 12, 2021
LORD OF THE REREADINGS
A couple of months ago, I picked up To Kill A Mockingbird, a book I last read in high school. What fascinated me about the exercise was how much I remembered and how much I didn鈥檛, what I appreciated as a teen and what I do now.
After that, I began wondering how I would respond to the other books I had to read and analyze as a youth. Hence my rereading of Lord Of The Flies. It鈥檚 equally powerful 鈥� shocking, even by today鈥檚 standards. And it鈥檚 all very efficiently done.
Both books are deserved classics. I don鈥檛 regret a moment spent rereading either one.
So鈥� perhaps this will become a series. What鈥檚 next: Catcher In The Rye? A Separate Peace? Anyhow, on with the review... and keep in mind that if you weren't forced to read this back in school, THERE BE SPOILERS AHEAD (or A-HEAD - if you'll excuse the pun).
What do I remember from my first reading?
鈥� The set-up, of course. After a plane crashes, a group of English boys finds themselves stranded on an island and, with no adults to guide them, form a kind of society that quickly breaks down, resulting in madness and murder.
鈥� The symbols, among them: the conch (for order and civilization, I suppose, since if one holds it one can speak in front of a group); the glasses (or 鈥渟pecs鈥�), which help create fire and, since they belong to the nearsighted, brainy yet mercilessly bullied Piggy, might also represent intelligence.
鈥� The idea of monsters, both real and imagined.
鈥� I remember being entertained by the nickname Piggy 鈥� what a childish thing, but it is memorable and symbolic in its own way. What a smart move on author William Golding鈥檚 part to call him that.
鈥� The ending. I knew a couple of children died, and that eventually the rest were rescued.
What don鈥檛 I remember from that reading?
鈥� I鈥檇 forgotten that many of the book鈥檚 鈥渉unters鈥� were (back in civilian life) members of a choir!
鈥� I鈥檇 totally forgotten about the young twins, Sam and Eric, whose names are blended by Golding into the very contemporary-sounding name Samneric.
鈥� I should have, but didn鈥檛, realize the book took place during some unspecified war.
What do I appreciate now?
鈥� The economy and compactness of the book. There鈥檚 very little fat in it (besides the fat dripping from the roasted boar). And though there are lots of vivid descriptions of clouds, forests and sun glinting on sand, nothing feels gratuitous.
鈥� How beautifully Golding captures children鈥檚 behaviour, especially in groups. This was Golding鈥檚 first novel, and he knew boys so well. (Perhaps he was raising sons at the time.)
鈥� There are lots of characters with Anglo names that sound a lot alike (Ralph, Jack, Roger, Robert, Simon, Henry 鈥� something that instantly 鈥渄ates鈥� it, I suppose), but Golding gradually fills you in on them. It took a while for me to understand Roger鈥檚 sadistic nature, for instance.
鈥� The theme of bullying, which is as relevant as ever. Is this a fact of nature? Does every species find someone/thing among them to tease and ridicule? Piggy is overweight, unathletic, myopic and has asthma (and another thing I didn鈥檛 notice: his speech places him in a slightly lower class than everyone else), but he鈥檚 also incredibly smart. He can see things that the charismatic, initial leader Ralph doesn鈥檛, which is why they make a good pair. But the fact that everyone, from the oldest to the youngest, teases him, is very disturbing.
鈥� The hallucinatory scenes with Simon (often thought of as the book鈥檚 most intuitive character) and the 鈥渂east,鈥� which gives the novel its title. I wasn鈥檛 prepared for the sheer nightmarish horror of these episodes. No wonder Stephen King was so influenced by this book (he borrowed the novel's 鈥淐astle Rock鈥� and uses it regularly as a setting).
鈥� The political/social allegory at its centre. How do we make a society work? Is hunting (to feed us) more important than providing shelter or coming up with a way to be rescued? What happens when people don鈥檛 pull their weight?
鈥� All of this is done so very subtly. There鈥檚 a moment when 鈥渃hief鈥� Ralph is gradually losing his power, and Piggy suggests he blow the conch to form an assembly. And Ralph knows that if he blows the conch and no one comes, it will be irrevocable. Brilliant observation.
鈥� The idea of the 鈥渂east.鈥� Is the idea of the 鈥渙ther鈥� something intrinsic and primitive? Or do we create monsters as a mere projection of our own fears?
鈥� The little visual details, like Ralph pushing the hair out of his face. It鈥檚 both a naturalistic detail and one that points out how all the boys are becoming savage (funnily enough, Piggy鈥檚 hair doesn鈥檛 grow)
鈥� I had no idea how exciting the plot got in the last couple of chapters. Golding cranked up the tension to 11. Even though I knew how the book ended, I was still turning every page, heart thumping, hoping Ralph survived being pursued by Jack and his gang.
The few things that didn鈥檛 work this time around:
鈥� The line 鈥淩alph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man鈥檚 heart鈥︹€� in the penultimate paragraph of the book seems way too on the nose. I can imagine a million students underlining that with a big "Aha!"
鈥� I forgot Piggy used the N-word. Really. It鈥檚 there.
***
I recalled a lot more of this book than Mockingbird. Once read, it has the power and heft of something that is so true and essential that it must have always been around. (I鈥檝e felt this way about other literary works, like Shirley Jackson鈥檚 short story 鈥淭he Lottery,鈥� for instance.)
But, and here鈥檚 the weird thing, I think this book is better appreciated as an adult. Younger people are so caught up in the immediacy of every complication. I remember studiously talking about themes before I fully understood them from life. Adults, because we鈥檝e lived through decades, can recognize the patterns of behaviour, the archetypal figures looming behind bullies and visionaries, both in private and public life, that emerge so strikingly in this book.
Finally: why haven鈥檛 I read more William Golding?
A couple of months ago, I picked up To Kill A Mockingbird, a book I last read in high school. What fascinated me about the exercise was how much I remembered and how much I didn鈥檛, what I appreciated as a teen and what I do now.
After that, I began wondering how I would respond to the other books I had to read and analyze as a youth. Hence my rereading of Lord Of The Flies. It鈥檚 equally powerful 鈥� shocking, even by today鈥檚 standards. And it鈥檚 all very efficiently done.
Both books are deserved classics. I don鈥檛 regret a moment spent rereading either one.
So鈥� perhaps this will become a series. What鈥檚 next: Catcher In The Rye? A Separate Peace? Anyhow, on with the review... and keep in mind that if you weren't forced to read this back in school, THERE BE SPOILERS AHEAD (or A-HEAD - if you'll excuse the pun).
What do I remember from my first reading?
鈥� The set-up, of course. After a plane crashes, a group of English boys finds themselves stranded on an island and, with no adults to guide them, form a kind of society that quickly breaks down, resulting in madness and murder.
鈥� The symbols, among them: the conch (for order and civilization, I suppose, since if one holds it one can speak in front of a group); the glasses (or 鈥渟pecs鈥�), which help create fire and, since they belong to the nearsighted, brainy yet mercilessly bullied Piggy, might also represent intelligence.
鈥� The idea of monsters, both real and imagined.
鈥� I remember being entertained by the nickname Piggy 鈥� what a childish thing, but it is memorable and symbolic in its own way. What a smart move on author William Golding鈥檚 part to call him that.
鈥� The ending. I knew a couple of children died, and that eventually the rest were rescued.
What don鈥檛 I remember from that reading?
鈥� I鈥檇 forgotten that many of the book鈥檚 鈥渉unters鈥� were (back in civilian life) members of a choir!
鈥� I鈥檇 totally forgotten about the young twins, Sam and Eric, whose names are blended by Golding into the very contemporary-sounding name Samneric.
鈥� I should have, but didn鈥檛, realize the book took place during some unspecified war.
What do I appreciate now?
鈥� The economy and compactness of the book. There鈥檚 very little fat in it (besides the fat dripping from the roasted boar). And though there are lots of vivid descriptions of clouds, forests and sun glinting on sand, nothing feels gratuitous.
鈥� How beautifully Golding captures children鈥檚 behaviour, especially in groups. This was Golding鈥檚 first novel, and he knew boys so well. (Perhaps he was raising sons at the time.)
鈥� There are lots of characters with Anglo names that sound a lot alike (Ralph, Jack, Roger, Robert, Simon, Henry 鈥� something that instantly 鈥渄ates鈥� it, I suppose), but Golding gradually fills you in on them. It took a while for me to understand Roger鈥檚 sadistic nature, for instance.
鈥� The theme of bullying, which is as relevant as ever. Is this a fact of nature? Does every species find someone/thing among them to tease and ridicule? Piggy is overweight, unathletic, myopic and has asthma (and another thing I didn鈥檛 notice: his speech places him in a slightly lower class than everyone else), but he鈥檚 also incredibly smart. He can see things that the charismatic, initial leader Ralph doesn鈥檛, which is why they make a good pair. But the fact that everyone, from the oldest to the youngest, teases him, is very disturbing.
鈥� The hallucinatory scenes with Simon (often thought of as the book鈥檚 most intuitive character) and the 鈥渂east,鈥� which gives the novel its title. I wasn鈥檛 prepared for the sheer nightmarish horror of these episodes. No wonder Stephen King was so influenced by this book (he borrowed the novel's 鈥淐astle Rock鈥� and uses it regularly as a setting).
鈥� The political/social allegory at its centre. How do we make a society work? Is hunting (to feed us) more important than providing shelter or coming up with a way to be rescued? What happens when people don鈥檛 pull their weight?
鈥� All of this is done so very subtly. There鈥檚 a moment when 鈥渃hief鈥� Ralph is gradually losing his power, and Piggy suggests he blow the conch to form an assembly. And Ralph knows that if he blows the conch and no one comes, it will be irrevocable. Brilliant observation.
鈥� The idea of the 鈥渂east.鈥� Is the idea of the 鈥渙ther鈥� something intrinsic and primitive? Or do we create monsters as a mere projection of our own fears?
鈥� The little visual details, like Ralph pushing the hair out of his face. It鈥檚 both a naturalistic detail and one that points out how all the boys are becoming savage (funnily enough, Piggy鈥檚 hair doesn鈥檛 grow)
鈥� I had no idea how exciting the plot got in the last couple of chapters. Golding cranked up the tension to 11. Even though I knew how the book ended, I was still turning every page, heart thumping, hoping Ralph survived being pursued by Jack and his gang.
The few things that didn鈥檛 work this time around:
鈥� The line 鈥淩alph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man鈥檚 heart鈥︹€� in the penultimate paragraph of the book seems way too on the nose. I can imagine a million students underlining that with a big "Aha!"
鈥� I forgot Piggy used the N-word. Really. It鈥檚 there.
***
I recalled a lot more of this book than Mockingbird. Once read, it has the power and heft of something that is so true and essential that it must have always been around. (I鈥檝e felt this way about other literary works, like Shirley Jackson鈥檚 short story 鈥淭he Lottery,鈥� for instance.)
But, and here鈥檚 the weird thing, I think this book is better appreciated as an adult. Younger people are so caught up in the immediacy of every complication. I remember studiously talking about themes before I fully understood them from life. Adults, because we鈥檝e lived through decades, can recognize the patterns of behaviour, the archetypal figures looming behind bullies and visionaries, both in private and public life, that emerge so strikingly in this book.
Finally: why haven鈥檛 I read more William Golding?
July 21, 2024
Civilizaci贸n y barbarie. 驴Civilizaci贸n o barbarie? 驴Cu谩n profunda es el alma humana? 驴Somos todos tan malos? 驴Somos buenos y en alg煤n momento la vida hace aflorar lo m谩s perverso que est谩 oculto en nuestros corazones? 驴Nacemos con una maldad adormecida y latente o las circunstancias de la vida nos transforman e inclinan hacia el mal? Este libro me ha hecho plantear estas preguntas. Me ha hecho pensar. En otras rese帽as, he comentado cu谩les fueron los libros que m谩s me han gustado y en este caso debo decir que en lo que va del a帽o, "El Se帽or de las Moscas" es el libro que m谩s me ha impactado (esa es la palabra).
Parece mentira que los personajes principales son tan s贸lo ni帽os de entre 6 y 12 a帽os. Hasta parece inveros铆mil, pero lo inveros铆mil es algo que en la literatura se sale de su propio cauce, aunque la realidad aporta cuestiones similares.
Ya desde el principio, el autor nos mete de lleno en la trama argumental de la historia. William Golding no pierde tiempo en explicar la ca铆da del avi贸n, ni como se salvan los ni帽os y perecen todos los adultos sino que directamente nos muestra a unos ni帽os tratando de sobrevivir en una isla desierta de la forma m谩s visceral, tomando decisiones propias de los adultos y haci茅ndose hombres de golpe.
Naturalmente y como en todo tipo de situaciones, aparecen los l铆deres. Aquellas personas hechas para hacerse cargo de la situaci贸n pero con formas totalmente antag贸nicas para pensar y actuar en los momentos m谩s dif铆ciles.
De esta manera conoceremos a los tres personajes principales del libro: Ralph, Jack y Piggy. Encontramos en Ralph una caracter铆stica que sobresale claramente y que es la del sentido com煤n. Toda decisi贸n que pasa por sus manos es analizada fr铆amente para buscar un bien que sea el mejor para todos. La idea de hacer una fogata y mantener el humo constante en el aire con la esperanza de que los vea un barco es simple en s铆, pero es a la vez dif铆cil de sostener en el tiempo.
Contar谩 con 茅l con Piggy. Ese muchacho gordito de amplias gafas cuyo principal emblema es la sensatez. De esta manera sus personalidades ofician de equilibrio ante los sucesos que vendr谩n y estar谩n los mellizos San y Eric, caracterizados por la fidelidad que le profesan a Ralph incluso hasta el final.
En la contraparte de esta historia nos encontraremos con Jack, un muchacho impulsivo y agresivo, de esos que acostumbran a hacerse los guapos en el barrio. Tiene un instinto casi salvaje. Para 茅l, lo 煤nico que interesa es cazar, matar, subsistir a base de lanzazos contra cuanto jabal铆 se le cruce. Asar la carne y comerla de a dentelladas. Hasta eso llega su forma de vivir y eso es lo que exige de sus s煤bditos (hay un punto que los otros muchachitos adquieren ese mote).
Lo secundar谩n con un fanatismo ciego Roger, un chico violento (tal vez m谩s que Jack) y Maurice, una especie de lugarteniente efectivo a la hora de los castigos.
En el libro, Golding utiliza ciertos elementos como simbolismos para tratar de mantener algo de ecuanimidad en una atm贸sfera tan desbalanceada como la de esta isla desierta. La caracola es el elemento para expresarse y a su vez para escuchar al que tiene algo que decir y se transformar谩 en un objeto del deseo. Todos querr谩n tener el control de este artefacto cuya funci贸n principal es la comunicaci贸n, pero pierde el sentido para el que se lo intent贸 utilizar en un principio.
Otros elementos tiene otro objetivo como la fiera, del que yo intuyo representa el miedo que todos llevamos dentro. Todo aquello a lo que tememos y no podemos controlar. Al principio atemoriza a los peques de 6 a帽os y posteriormente, este miedo los alcanzar谩 a todos.
Las posiciones de Ralph y Jack son completamente antag贸nicas, enfrentadas, irreversibles y鈥� peligrosas. Tarde o temprano la situaci贸n se ir谩 desvirtuando. Todo se reduce a cazar o salvarse y el clima se pondr谩 denso, pesado y sangriento.
Varias veces, se repite la frase 隆Mata al jabal铆! 隆C贸rtale el cuello! 隆Derrama su sangre!, algo que considero totalmente de espanto...
El 煤ltimo de los elementos que regulan la vida de estos ni帽os es El Se帽or de las Moscas, simbolizada por esa cabeza de jabal铆 clavada en una estaca. Este nombre es uno de los tantos que se utilizan para denominar al Diablo. Es la encarnaci贸n del mal, una especie de t贸tem infernal que infectar谩 la mente de los ni帽os m谩s oscuros y ya no habr谩 vuelta atr谩s.
Cuando estaba llegando a la 煤ltima parte del libro y ante las escenas finales que enfrentan a ambos bandos de ni帽os volv铆 a reflexionar que eran seres humanos como yo, como el autor o como t煤 lector que tambi茅n, si le铆ste el libro puede que te hayas preguntado algo que yo s铆 me pregunt茅:
驴Somos tan malos?
Parece mentira que los personajes principales son tan s贸lo ni帽os de entre 6 y 12 a帽os. Hasta parece inveros铆mil, pero lo inveros铆mil es algo que en la literatura se sale de su propio cauce, aunque la realidad aporta cuestiones similares.
Ya desde el principio, el autor nos mete de lleno en la trama argumental de la historia. William Golding no pierde tiempo en explicar la ca铆da del avi贸n, ni como se salvan los ni帽os y perecen todos los adultos sino que directamente nos muestra a unos ni帽os tratando de sobrevivir en una isla desierta de la forma m谩s visceral, tomando decisiones propias de los adultos y haci茅ndose hombres de golpe.
Naturalmente y como en todo tipo de situaciones, aparecen los l铆deres. Aquellas personas hechas para hacerse cargo de la situaci贸n pero con formas totalmente antag贸nicas para pensar y actuar en los momentos m谩s dif铆ciles.
De esta manera conoceremos a los tres personajes principales del libro: Ralph, Jack y Piggy. Encontramos en Ralph una caracter铆stica que sobresale claramente y que es la del sentido com煤n. Toda decisi贸n que pasa por sus manos es analizada fr铆amente para buscar un bien que sea el mejor para todos. La idea de hacer una fogata y mantener el humo constante en el aire con la esperanza de que los vea un barco es simple en s铆, pero es a la vez dif铆cil de sostener en el tiempo.
Contar谩 con 茅l con Piggy. Ese muchacho gordito de amplias gafas cuyo principal emblema es la sensatez. De esta manera sus personalidades ofician de equilibrio ante los sucesos que vendr谩n y estar谩n los mellizos San y Eric, caracterizados por la fidelidad que le profesan a Ralph incluso hasta el final.
En la contraparte de esta historia nos encontraremos con Jack, un muchacho impulsivo y agresivo, de esos que acostumbran a hacerse los guapos en el barrio. Tiene un instinto casi salvaje. Para 茅l, lo 煤nico que interesa es cazar, matar, subsistir a base de lanzazos contra cuanto jabal铆 se le cruce. Asar la carne y comerla de a dentelladas. Hasta eso llega su forma de vivir y eso es lo que exige de sus s煤bditos (hay un punto que los otros muchachitos adquieren ese mote).
Lo secundar谩n con un fanatismo ciego Roger, un chico violento (tal vez m谩s que Jack) y Maurice, una especie de lugarteniente efectivo a la hora de los castigos.
En el libro, Golding utiliza ciertos elementos como simbolismos para tratar de mantener algo de ecuanimidad en una atm贸sfera tan desbalanceada como la de esta isla desierta. La caracola es el elemento para expresarse y a su vez para escuchar al que tiene algo que decir y se transformar谩 en un objeto del deseo. Todos querr谩n tener el control de este artefacto cuya funci贸n principal es la comunicaci贸n, pero pierde el sentido para el que se lo intent贸 utilizar en un principio.
Otros elementos tiene otro objetivo como la fiera, del que yo intuyo representa el miedo que todos llevamos dentro. Todo aquello a lo que tememos y no podemos controlar. Al principio atemoriza a los peques de 6 a帽os y posteriormente, este miedo los alcanzar谩 a todos.
Las posiciones de Ralph y Jack son completamente antag贸nicas, enfrentadas, irreversibles y鈥� peligrosas. Tarde o temprano la situaci贸n se ir谩 desvirtuando. Todo se reduce a cazar o salvarse y el clima se pondr谩 denso, pesado y sangriento.
Varias veces, se repite la frase 隆Mata al jabal铆! 隆C贸rtale el cuello! 隆Derrama su sangre!, algo que considero totalmente de espanto...
El 煤ltimo de los elementos que regulan la vida de estos ni帽os es El Se帽or de las Moscas, simbolizada por esa cabeza de jabal铆 clavada en una estaca. Este nombre es uno de los tantos que se utilizan para denominar al Diablo. Es la encarnaci贸n del mal, una especie de t贸tem infernal que infectar谩 la mente de los ni帽os m谩s oscuros y ya no habr谩 vuelta atr谩s.
Cuando estaba llegando a la 煤ltima parte del libro y ante las escenas finales que enfrentan a ambos bandos de ni帽os volv铆 a reflexionar que eran seres humanos como yo, como el autor o como t煤 lector que tambi茅n, si le铆ste el libro puede que te hayas preguntado algo que yo s铆 me pregunt茅:
驴Somos tan malos?
June 1, 2007
I absolutely hated this book. That's my over-riding memory of it I'm afraid. I had to read it in secondary school when I was about 12 and I never remember disliking a book so much which was surprising as I was a voracious reader.
I just remember having absolutely nothing in common with the characters - a group of English upper / middle class school boys whereas I was a Scottish working class girl. I just could not relate to the story at all and just wished they would all kill each other as soon as possible so the book would finish.
The fact that we had to read the book in class at the pace of some of the slower readers (agonisingly painfully slow readers) and then discuss it afterwards, which was like trying to get blood out of a stone, probably didn't help.
Never, ever again.
I just remember having absolutely nothing in common with the characters - a group of English upper / middle class school boys whereas I was a Scottish working class girl. I just could not relate to the story at all and just wished they would all kill each other as soon as possible so the book would finish.
The fact that we had to read the book in class at the pace of some of the slower readers (agonisingly painfully slow readers) and then discuss it afterwards, which was like trying to get blood out of a stone, probably didn't help.
Never, ever again.
May 11, 2008
I was Piggy (well, in personality at least, though not in portliness). I hated everyone who picked on him. I still do. Should people be forgiven for what they do on a deserted island? That depends on whether you think their true nature has revealed itself, or their humanity has been corrupted by circumstance and stress. In a world where almost every human trait is now considered a product of both nature and nurture, would Golding have written his tale differently today? No, I don't believe so. He was quite ahead of his time to believe some of the boys, though certainly not the majority, still remained moral despite the situation. The question is, what would have happened to me? It was impossible not to wonder after I read this book.
October 27, 2020
Lord of the Flies is a parable of the human nature鈥�
Ever since primordial times man is ruled by two opposite forces: a wish to create and a wish to destroy鈥� And to destroy is much easier than to create鈥�
And since primordial times man is ruled by fear鈥� And the greatest fear is the fear of the unknown鈥� To make the unknown less cruel and dangerous man tries to placate it offering the unknown sacrifices and worshiping鈥�
Millenniums pass but the primordial instincts remain and they make man look for an enemy and fight.
His mind was crowded with memories; memories of the knowledge that had come to them when they closed in on the struggling pig, knowledge that they had outwitted a living thing, imposed their will upon it, taken away its life like a long satisfying drink.
Ever since primordial times man is ruled by two opposite forces: a wish to create and a wish to destroy鈥� And to destroy is much easier than to create鈥�
There was the brilliant world of hunting, tactics, fierce exhilaration, skill; and there was the world of longing and baffled commonsense.
And since primordial times man is ruled by fear鈥� And the greatest fear is the fear of the unknown鈥� To make the unknown less cruel and dangerous man tries to placate it offering the unknown sacrifices and worshiping鈥�
鈥淲e鈥檒l kill a pig and give a feast.鈥� He paused and went on more slowly. 鈥淎nd about the beast. When we kill we鈥檒l leave some of the kill for it. Then it won鈥檛 bother us, maybe.鈥�
Millenniums pass but the primordial instincts remain and they make man look for an enemy and fight.
November 9, 2008
Over the years I must have read this book five or six times. Last night I was reading it on a train with a highlighter in my hand, because I decided to teach it this year again. Teachers wreck books, of course. We all know that. On the other hand, whatever you have to study-read, you tend to carry a bit of it with you. You don't forget that book, at least. Although I must add, that it's quite risky introducing to a Scottish classroom a book with the memorable words: "The English are best at everything...."
I wasn't sure how much it would have dated. I must have read it for the first time 30 years ago. Published in 1954, the phrasing would have been pretty modern then. Even now, most of it has work well. The phrase that jumped at me -- and it only appeared once -- was when Piggy (I think) compared the boys detrimentally to 'niggers', instead of just 'savages'. Ouch. Mental note to make them look hard at this bit. After all this is such a horrible little group of boys. As complacently white as can be, one group of them from a choir school (or a public school with a choir), no less. And Ralph, the 'hero', son of a naval officer.
Golding, as a teacher in an upmarket school, presumably knew those sort of boys all too well. The boys being prepared to carry the empire forward.
Except the setting suggests the empire may not be going forward. Somebody somewhere is fighting a war that is evidently nuclear. It's never quite clear what is going on or how the officer turns up cool as cucumber on a naval cutter at the end.
Most of the young people in my class this year have (sigh) seen the film, so they know what happens. The group of boys marooned on an idyllic Pacific Island first start off having a sort of cheery adventure. There are references to Coral Island, Swallows and Amazons and Treasure Island too. They want to have fun, and one of their number -- Jack -- talks a great deal about 'fun', though his idea of fun is killing pigs.
They arrive a fairly civilised little group but they gradually degenerate. Golding's moral message is about the "darkness of man's heart" and it's a good moral companion to Heart of Darkness now I come to think about it. The boys natural fears escalate and the younger children create a mythical 'beast', which then seems to materialise as a fact when the body of a dead airman, killed a war fought in the skies overhead, floats down to the island in a parachute.
But the real beast is their own desire for control and domination, as well as an interesting bloodlust -- the word 'lust' is used of this, and the killing of the first pig is certainly described with unmistakable sexual resonance. One of the boys pushes a sharpened stick "up her ass". There are no girls in the group -- what a different novel it would have to have been if there were! -- but the pig they kill is a sow, and they interrupt her in suckling a brood of piglets. What a strange, strange thing to put into your novel. Not just the killing, but the slaughtering of a mother pig and a kind of sexual frenzy. Yuk!
But hey -- he's intending to shock. He's intending to show that this blood lust thing isn't far away from human kind, or male human kind at least, and that it doesn't take much to call it out. Even Ralph, the Aryan protagonist, feels himself getting caught up in it. Paint your face, start whooping and chanting and you can do, it seems, almost anything.
The kind, poetic, imaginative Simon gets butchered (teeth and nails at this point -- not spears). PIggy is despatched by Roger, the executioner. The whole of their little society is clearly turning into a Stalinist regime, with each boy taking his place, as prescribed by Golding, which is what you get to do when you write an allegory.
It's a powerful read, though more repetitive, in linguistic terms, than I remembered - almost as repetitive as D H Lawrence in places. At the highpoint, towards the end, when Ralph is completely isolated and being hunted down, the word 'ululation' is done to death. But at least you can't read this book without learning what it means!
What I both like and don't like about it is the way it makes me want to argue. The whole thing is completely manipulated. Is this what would happen? Would the darkness of man's heart take over?
I have not much doubt that man's heart is dark, I guess, but when I got off the train I left my very lovely reddy-orangy furry scarf, and the chap who was sitting opposite me (I didn't speak to him during the journey) ran after me with it. It brightened my day. Perhaps he was a 'Simon' and would quickly get trampled if our civilisation were to decline.
But look Golding, my lad -- that bit where you allow the man in the parachute to get dumped, dead, on the island, scaring the boys out of their wits -- if that hadn't happened -- your choice plot element -- well, the three boys Jack, Roger and Ralph, would have established Absence of Beast. It might all have turned out very differently.
If Piggy hadn't been wearing glasses, there would have been no fire....
If it had started raining sooner....
If Ralph had been a bit more intelligent....
If the pigs had been a bit better at getting away....
On an island, living on fruit and getting scratched and cut, one or two of them would have developed fatal infections and their main enemy would probably have been illness and death, which would have drawn them together a bit. Even the biting insects would probably have driven them potty. One or two of them, it's my bet, would have descended into depression and just dwindled away.
It wouldn't have been like The Coral Island, but it wouldn't have been the inevitable collapse of civilisation either.
Steven King likes this book. It fits beautifully with his love of dramatic thriller, increasing isolation of central brave character, and underlying opposition between good and evil. Here evil wins, though.
Ralph is about to be exterminated when the officer arrives, so the deus ex machina is just there as an ironic way to end the book. That bastard is even 'embarrassed' when Ralph bursts into tears. That's British stiff upper lippery for you.
I don't believe, in the boys' behaviour. I don't believe that Jack, the killer (I nearly said Jack the Giant-Killer), is there just below the surface, although I do believe that wars bring out the worst in us. I don't believe that Roger -- just a little boy -- is the natural henchman, with a desire to execute his peers running just below his veneer of civilisation.
But then perhaps I do. I've seen it, haven't I? Seen nasty young people doing nasty young things nastily. Conditioned into that, in their turn, by not very delightful adults, damaged adults.
Oh bloody Golding -- go away! I put my money on man's intelligence. You gotta use your head to survive, whichever allegory you seem to be inhabiting. And sometimes you do survive and sometimes you don't, but the 'darkness of man's heart' is offset by the light, which always returns.
The trouble is, the dark heart goes for power - doesn't it? And the desire for power and control over others can be wielded quickly and wrongly by just a few people. It's what's happening all over the world at this minute.
And yet -- the majority are good-hearted souls, who will pick up your scarf on a train and return it to you. There are more good guys than bad ones. Some of them are quietly and happily reading books at this minute. Otherwise, what would be the point?
I wasn't sure how much it would have dated. I must have read it for the first time 30 years ago. Published in 1954, the phrasing would have been pretty modern then. Even now, most of it has work well. The phrase that jumped at me -- and it only appeared once -- was when Piggy (I think) compared the boys detrimentally to 'niggers', instead of just 'savages'. Ouch. Mental note to make them look hard at this bit. After all this is such a horrible little group of boys. As complacently white as can be, one group of them from a choir school (or a public school with a choir), no less. And Ralph, the 'hero', son of a naval officer.
Golding, as a teacher in an upmarket school, presumably knew those sort of boys all too well. The boys being prepared to carry the empire forward.
Except the setting suggests the empire may not be going forward. Somebody somewhere is fighting a war that is evidently nuclear. It's never quite clear what is going on or how the officer turns up cool as cucumber on a naval cutter at the end.
Most of the young people in my class this year have (sigh) seen the film, so they know what happens. The group of boys marooned on an idyllic Pacific Island first start off having a sort of cheery adventure. There are references to Coral Island, Swallows and Amazons and Treasure Island too. They want to have fun, and one of their number -- Jack -- talks a great deal about 'fun', though his idea of fun is killing pigs.
They arrive a fairly civilised little group but they gradually degenerate. Golding's moral message is about the "darkness of man's heart" and it's a good moral companion to Heart of Darkness now I come to think about it. The boys natural fears escalate and the younger children create a mythical 'beast', which then seems to materialise as a fact when the body of a dead airman, killed a war fought in the skies overhead, floats down to the island in a parachute.
But the real beast is their own desire for control and domination, as well as an interesting bloodlust -- the word 'lust' is used of this, and the killing of the first pig is certainly described with unmistakable sexual resonance. One of the boys pushes a sharpened stick "up her ass". There are no girls in the group -- what a different novel it would have to have been if there were! -- but the pig they kill is a sow, and they interrupt her in suckling a brood of piglets. What a strange, strange thing to put into your novel. Not just the killing, but the slaughtering of a mother pig and a kind of sexual frenzy. Yuk!
But hey -- he's intending to shock. He's intending to show that this blood lust thing isn't far away from human kind, or male human kind at least, and that it doesn't take much to call it out. Even Ralph, the Aryan protagonist, feels himself getting caught up in it. Paint your face, start whooping and chanting and you can do, it seems, almost anything.
The kind, poetic, imaginative Simon gets butchered (teeth and nails at this point -- not spears). PIggy is despatched by Roger, the executioner. The whole of their little society is clearly turning into a Stalinist regime, with each boy taking his place, as prescribed by Golding, which is what you get to do when you write an allegory.
It's a powerful read, though more repetitive, in linguistic terms, than I remembered - almost as repetitive as D H Lawrence in places. At the highpoint, towards the end, when Ralph is completely isolated and being hunted down, the word 'ululation' is done to death. But at least you can't read this book without learning what it means!
What I both like and don't like about it is the way it makes me want to argue. The whole thing is completely manipulated. Is this what would happen? Would the darkness of man's heart take over?
I have not much doubt that man's heart is dark, I guess, but when I got off the train I left my very lovely reddy-orangy furry scarf, and the chap who was sitting opposite me (I didn't speak to him during the journey) ran after me with it. It brightened my day. Perhaps he was a 'Simon' and would quickly get trampled if our civilisation were to decline.
But look Golding, my lad -- that bit where you allow the man in the parachute to get dumped, dead, on the island, scaring the boys out of their wits -- if that hadn't happened -- your choice plot element -- well, the three boys Jack, Roger and Ralph, would have established Absence of Beast. It might all have turned out very differently.
If Piggy hadn't been wearing glasses, there would have been no fire....
If it had started raining sooner....
If Ralph had been a bit more intelligent....
If the pigs had been a bit better at getting away....
On an island, living on fruit and getting scratched and cut, one or two of them would have developed fatal infections and their main enemy would probably have been illness and death, which would have drawn them together a bit. Even the biting insects would probably have driven them potty. One or two of them, it's my bet, would have descended into depression and just dwindled away.
It wouldn't have been like The Coral Island, but it wouldn't have been the inevitable collapse of civilisation either.
Steven King likes this book. It fits beautifully with his love of dramatic thriller, increasing isolation of central brave character, and underlying opposition between good and evil. Here evil wins, though.
Ralph is about to be exterminated when the officer arrives, so the deus ex machina is just there as an ironic way to end the book. That bastard is even 'embarrassed' when Ralph bursts into tears. That's British stiff upper lippery for you.
I don't believe, in the boys' behaviour. I don't believe that Jack, the killer (I nearly said Jack the Giant-Killer), is there just below the surface, although I do believe that wars bring out the worst in us. I don't believe that Roger -- just a little boy -- is the natural henchman, with a desire to execute his peers running just below his veneer of civilisation.
But then perhaps I do. I've seen it, haven't I? Seen nasty young people doing nasty young things nastily. Conditioned into that, in their turn, by not very delightful adults, damaged adults.
Oh bloody Golding -- go away! I put my money on man's intelligence. You gotta use your head to survive, whichever allegory you seem to be inhabiting. And sometimes you do survive and sometimes you don't, but the 'darkness of man's heart' is offset by the light, which always returns.
The trouble is, the dark heart goes for power - doesn't it? And the desire for power and control over others can be wielded quickly and wrongly by just a few people. It's what's happening all over the world at this minute.
And yet -- the majority are good-hearted souls, who will pick up your scarf on a train and return it to you. There are more good guys than bad ones. Some of them are quietly and happily reading books at this minute. Otherwise, what would be the point?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62,796 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.