欧宝娱乐

David's Reviews > Lord of the Flies

Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
216180
's review

did not like it

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.

205 likes ·  鈭� flag

Sign into 欧宝娱乐 to see if any of your friends have read Lord of the Flies.
Sign In 禄

Reading Progress

Started Reading
January 1, 1983 – Finished Reading
July 24, 2007 – Shelved

Comments Showing 1-50 of 61 (61 new)


message 1: by Luv (new)

Luv "But the rest of us, no, we aren't monsters underneath."





David Interesting counterexample, but no. Milgram was about how people respond to overreaching authority, not to the absence of authority. The other study is more relevant, in that the students in that study were making their own decisions once the wheels were set in motion, but even so, the study was predicated on an unnaturally harsh and authoritarian institution. Consequently, I think it does more to support my view than what Golding appears to be saying.

Archon wrote: ""But the rest of us, no, we aren't monsters underneath."


"





David I spent five years at an Irish boarding school and, believe me, boys between the ages of 11 and 14 are every bit as monstrous as the book portrays them. The degree of physical, mental and emotional cruelty was horrific.

The phenomenon does seem to be age-related - generally speaking, the kids who were monsters at 13 turned out reasonably well-adjusted by 17 (the same wasn't necessarily true for their victims, unfortunately). Golding's portrayal seems entirely accurate for the age group in the story. Whether it should be taken as allegorical for human nature generally is, as you suggest, debatable.


David Interesting. But are there significant differences between English boarding schools and Irish boarding schools? I still think the book is more about the flaws in that system than about human nature--a point that I believe Golding completely misses.


Lucas Thomas Excuse me, but what remote wilderness have you been using to live out your 'everyone is nice if you look deep enough' fantasy? You think men are principled? Read some history; you'll be hard pressed to find 1 Ralph for every 10 Jacks. "Fancy thinking the Beast was something you could hunt and kill!"


David I never said everyone was nice, just that most people don't turn into psycho killers if you strand us in the woods for a couple of weeks. And when you look at the behavior of the Chilean miners, of the people surviving the earthquake in Japan, you find people treating one another with decency despite conditions far worse than those described in this book.

Now, I'm not saying that something like the events of Lord of the Flies _couldn't_ happen. But Golding really doesn't make it convincing. You see children descend into horrendous brutality, but you don't see any of the thought processes that make it happen--except for a bizarre excursion into idolatry that is only marginally more convincing than the violence.


David ...and it turns out there's more evidence than I realized to back me up:




Titilope I think the fact, that the book is making you debate this much about it, surely means it is worthy of more than 1 star. For a book to get one star; it wouldn't even really be worth talking about.

A novel that is able to strike up debates about human traits and characteristics is something that should be praised; whether or not you agree with the views put across in the novel? I just think, by giving it 1 star, you are letting your contrasting views to Golding's cloud you better judgement.

It's a wonderful book, and it sure made me and a lot of other think about human nature, and I really do think we all have a bit of Jack and Ralph in us. We are all capable of great evil and great good.


David Thank you for the comment, Titilope. It's an interesting take on this discussion, and I like the way you think.

Unfortunately, my experience on 欧宝娱乐 seems to indicate (albeit with limited data) that this sort of long discussion arises primarily from one-star reviews.

Of course, the discussion wouldn't happen if there weren't people who also loved this book. But still, the fact that someone else likes a book doesn't necessarily make it good or mean that I should review it more favorably. I'm sure if you looked, you could find similar discussions surrounding Twilight or The Da Vinci Code, neither of which I am interested in taking the time to read.

Taking this line of reasoning to its extreme, books like Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have led not only to debate but to war and mass murder. But the controversy doesn't make them good. From what I've read about it, The Protocols was cheesy, derivative, and largely plagiarized. But it spoke to what people wanted to think, and it inflamed their existing prejudices.

Still, I appreciate your taking a reasoned tack in this discussion, and I'm glad you found some insight, even if it was from a book I didn't care for. Thank you for raising the level of this discussion.


Titilope You're very welcome. I completely understand where you are coming from. I really didn't enjoy 1984, as I didn't like the way the characters were portrayed; thought they were a bit too unintelligent. However, I still appreciate that it is a well written book, whether or not, it is to my taste.

However, I see what you mean. Controversy doesn't always = good.


message 11: by David (new) - rated it 1 star

David 1984 is another book I should get around to reading but haven't yet. I liked Animal Farm, but that was a very long time ago, and I haven't read anything else by Orwell.

It's been my impression that the reviews on 欧宝娱乐 are supposed to be subjective. I mean, every review is subjective to some degree, but when I read the instructions (a few years back, now) I gathered that the ratings were supposed to be how much I liked the book, rather than how important I thought it was.

Appreciating that a book is well written, even if you don't like it--that's an interesting can of worms. I try to be cautious about describing a book as objectively good or bad, but I know what it's like to be impressed by the craftsmanship on something I don't personally care for.


Titilope I would recommend reading 1984; because it's just one of those books that you have to read and form your own opinion of. I didn't like it, but I just couldn't give it 2 stars; just because I'm one of those sad nerds that appreciate literature; and I just think it's well written, and it's a wonderful concept. But, I just didn't enjoy it. Put me in a bit of a pickle when deciding what to rate it out of 5.

On the other hand. You're right, I guess we should rate a book on how much we enjoy it, not on how well it's crafted.

No book is objectively good or bad. However, you can tell when a book is well written or well thought out. I guess that's something that should be praised.


Kenyon "People--even teenage boys--just aren't as savage as Golding seems to want us to believe"
Try being a child trapped on a desert island. only when you have done that are you qualified to say this.


Bethan Went to an English (if it's important) boarding school and get how it could have happened. Kids at that age can be vile and some of them can be powerful people who can lead a group against someone. I speak from experience. There are documented child killers as well e.g. the Bulger case.


message 15: by David (new) - rated it 1 star

David Kenyon wrote: ""People--even teenage boys--just aren't as savage as Golding seems to want us to believe"
Try being a child trapped on a desert island. only when you have done that are you qualified to say this."


Kenyon--unless you've been trapped on an island yourself, then you're no more qualified than I am to discuss this.


message 16: by Ana (new) - rated it 5 stars

Ana "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"

Oh just watch the news, trust me, it will persuade you.


message 17: by David (new) - rated it 1 star

David The news shows extreme cases, for the most part. And yes, you do see murders and other atrocities in the news, but almost always it's people acting within society--or even at the top of society. When the news shows situations like this (the Chilean miners, for example), the story is almost always one of people pulling together and making the best of the situation.

From what I've read, even the reports of looting after Hurricane Katrina were largely cases of individuals or small groups being vilified for trying to access food and drinkable water.

Since writing this review, I've heard one account that Golding wasn't so much commenting on society as a whole as he was responding to other books of the Swiss Family Robinson type, which show people acting together in a crisis. Apparently, Golding, a schoolteacher, thought, "That's not how my kids would behave." Which, I suppose, would make Lord of the Flies a spectacularly unfunny parody.

If that is the case, then, well, I really can't speak for the kids in the class that William Golding taught. I think it's plausible that events like the ones in this book might happen in one case out of twenty, or one out of a hundred. But still, every commentary on the book seems to talk about how it unmasks the monsters we are underneath, and I don't buy it. And nothing anyone has said here has convinced me otherwise.


message 18: by [deleted user] (new)

With regard to David's last comment, I think being trapped on an island with a shed load of other boys is pretty extreme.

If you leave boys alone in a room without anything to do for a few hours they become monstrous. I can't imagine how the boys I work with would react if left alone on an island faced with real responsibilities such as finding food and making fires etc.

However, this book is fiction. It was scary and desperate and I loved it.


message 19: by Bill (new) - rated it 3 stars

Bill Maybe Hudson's "Killing Fields" has something to say about the ungoverned teenage boy. The Khmer Rouge were very young solders.


Andrew Obrigewitsch Yes and if we where all such brutes, then how did society form in the fist place? Even an 8 your old could figure out that this concept is deeply flawed.


Andrew Obrigewitsch If Golding's premise where true, then how did society ever get civilized in the first place? If we where al brutes they we would never have gotten past acting like the kids do on the island.

That whole theory is so easily refuted yet taught in School as somehow being science, it's utterly ridiculous.


Bethan Doesn't that depend - I mean, look at the existence of genocides and war. Not everyone is like that but a society can be manipulated and galvanised by one or two sociopaths like in the case of the Lord of the Flies - sheep following the herd. People are bullied and killed all the time. Nothing about Golding's novel seems improbable to me. There are many good and peaceful types but there are also those who are not and there are many who do not really think about it.


Andrew Obrigewitsch Sure there are a few bad men, and when they get in control they destroy and kill, but that's a very small part of society. If the kids on the island would have been child convicts then the story would have been a lot more believable. But he is trying to prove that we all have evil monsters deep down inside us, which is so easily disproved it's laughable, that's what I didn't like about they story it's trying to prove a ridiculous theory.


Bethan I don't know if Golding was actually saying that? Is there more evidence to back it up other than an extreme and atypical situation like that that he is writing about.. something he said, maybe?

Anyway, I think that civilisation is about benefiting people in terms of the bigger picture. I do suspect that people are essentially selfish but unselfishness, morals, law and order can benefit you and your loved ones in the longer term, so I think that's what civilisation is about.. so I don't think Golding is even necessarily wrong if he does indeed think that people are monsters deep down. I guess it's just a disagreement here. :)


message 25: by Tanm (new) - rated it 4 stars

Tanm But aren't instances like this documented where children are soldiers and ruffians as they were brought up to be by their surroundings in places? The 'english boarding schools' is of course a different upbringing, but I think what makes it believable is the sudden control they have over the littluns, and being chief. Some bacame soldiers (hunters) and were playing characters complete with costumes (war paint) ... well, I don't think I can convince you. But without the suspension of disbelief, its hard to consider this book for all that it achieves. And you rightly gave this a one star! oh well.


Natalie Remember Piggy? On a whole, he's good, but he did contribute to killing Simon. I think the message is that we all lose our morals at one point or another, even if for a short time.


Glenn Krzeminski I think you are soooo incorrect. Societal mores keep us in line take those away and barbarism will rule. Have you never witnessed grade school children argue at kickball or watched two men beat one another in a bar?


message 28: by Greg (new) - rated it 5 stars

Greg I personally applause the scene of Simon's death as an incredibly literary moment for a multitude of reasons. One of them is the hastiness and rowdiness of the decision as well as the savage energy that surrounds it. Also because I personally believe that Simon never once wavered in his character. Throughout the exposition and rising actions of the book up until the moment when he encounters The Lord Of The Flies, Simon showed traces of mental instability as well as his rational, warm, and overtrusting personality. The moments of his official loss of sanity encompass his personality quite well, I think.
The symbol of "The Dance" is one of the darkest and most twisted allusions to the novel, and I like to associate it with a lot of modern-day applications.
Also, I love how Ralph and Piggy, the voices of reason up until this point, lose all sense in their divulgence of The Dance. They, who have exemplified persistent and constant adversity to Jack's counterpart regime, take part in the dance and lose their morality in the false bliss that Jack's Dance generates.
Lastly, I idolize this scene a lot because it represents a LOT of different concepts that are applicable in the situation. i.e. The Great Unknown, L'appel Du Vide, Freudian Psychoanalysis of the Human Psyche, The Third Wave, Conformity and Authoritarianism, and of course, the core Element Of Surprise.
Honestly I just really like this book, because of how much of an unchangeable precedent it is in the subject of both psychology and literature.


Paula G. I totally agree with you. The characters didn't convince me at all. Too stereotypical - especially Jack as the "strong dictatorial hunter" and Piggy as the weak insecure fat boy. Boring read.


message 30: by Hi (new) - rated it 4 stars

Hi Lucas wrote: "Excuse me, but what remote wilderness have you been using to live out your 'everyone is nice if you look deep enough' fantasy? You think men are principled? Read some history; you'll be hard presse..."

And it's not like Ralph is some god-like creature; He teases Piggy for being fat and at first gets along with Jack. It's only later he becomes more sensible.


message 31: by Hi (new) - rated it 4 stars

Hi Andrew wrote: "If Golding's premise where true, then how did society ever get civilized in the first place? If we where al brutes they we would never have gotten past acting like the kids do on the island.

That..."


People like to stick together. Jack's tribe is still a society, just a screwed up one. I think the people how formed "society" as you mean were adults and beyond teasing people for being fat, throwing stones at little kids, and deciding that they're better than everyone else because they can sing a high C sharp.


message 32: by Turbanator (last edited Nov 02, 2015 12:52PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Turbanator we still evolved to get to the way we are today, evolved for survival. We feel good when doing things that make our survival seem more likely, like proving to ourselves that we can kill a pig by doing so, repeatedly, after the nice feeling we get the first time. The maybe we want to prove that other people can't threaten us either, and we try to prove our dominance over them, also. then maybe one of them does threaten us, maybe we hurt them a bit to tell them not to mess, maybe we kill them to completely ensure safety. It'll only happen in a situation when we feel we need to find our own security. In a situation where you're stranded, but you know help knows where you are and how to get to you, you won't do anything, because after all you're going to be safe anyway, and nobody would trust or even like you after doing something like that, so nobody would help you in later life. So you'd be less secure after you got out. In the book the boys start out with their hearts set on rescue, but as they lose sight of it (symbolised by the fire starting out being big but getting smaller as the novel goes on) they become more and more savage, and begin to test the boundaries more and more, to feel the pleasure of their power and safety more and more, as they forget the security of the outside world.


message 33: by Turbanator (last edited Nov 14, 2015 06:58AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Turbanator Paula wrote: "I totally agree with you. The characters didn't convince me at all. Too stereotypical - especially Jack as the "strong dictatorial hunter" and Piggy as the weak insecure fat boy. Boring read."

The idea was for the characters to be stereotypical to emphasise the different parts of the human psyche and different parts of society; Ralph the law-and-order man, Piggy the scientific and innovating one, Jack the ordered and power-hungry evil and Roger the disordered bloodthirsty savage, or in Freudian terms, for Piggy to be the super ego, Jack the id, and Ralph the ego. And when was Piggy insecure? He was simply annoyed at the fact that he couldn't get them to listen to him, as the voice of reason, and that Ralph told them his nickname. Throughout the rest of the book we never find out his real name - he is only referred to by his size.


message 34: by Turbanator (last edited Nov 02, 2015 01:15PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Turbanator Andrew wrote: "Sure there are a few bad men, and when they get in control they destroy and kill, but that's a very small part of society. If the kids on the island would have been child convicts then the story wo..."
Golding would disagree. His experience comes from the war, where perfectly reasonable and caring men and women would become cruel and unforgiving, including he himself, when he had to make several tough decisions. You must think you're a good person; after all, you couldn't do anything otherwise. All the people in Germany in WW2 who killed countless innocents? They thought they were good people too. They were moved by a fear for the survival for them and those they loved, along with a large amount of misinformation. The boys are no different, and Jack exploits that fear of the beast to control them and make them cruel, by making it almost a religion, and proclaiming knowledge of the beast to legitimise his (direct and indirect) actions. Of course Jack is badder than the rest of them, but we can see that all the other boys also do terrible things encouraged by him and his breaking of the rules and testing of the boundaries, all under the name of hunting and killing the beast.


message 35: by Turbanator (last edited Nov 02, 2015 11:28PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Turbanator Andrew wrote: "If Golding's premise where true, then how did society ever get civilized in the first place? If we where al brutes they we would never have gotten past acting like the kids do on the island.

That..."


Society was formed by the mutual advantages and chances for survival it presented man with. As they say, two heads are better than one. The lust for survival is still there, however, now man hides that under a mask of friendship, because, after all, the more friends you have, the more favours you get. Everything man does can be traced to some sort of advantage to his survival.


Turbanator David wrote: "Kenyon--unless you've been trapped on an island yourself, then you're no more qualified than I am to discuss this. "
He wasn't discussing it, he was just pointing out that you can't be sure that your point is true.


Turbanator David wrote: "Interesting counterexample, but no. Milgram was about how people respond to overreaching authority, not to the absence of authority. The other study is more relevant, in that the students in that s..."
Jack wielded overreaching authority, and authority was never absent. Ralph was chief from the get-go, and the conch was a symbol of authority. And the Stanford Prison evil was caused by the lack of any moral restraint, and the seeming social acceptability of their actions.


message 38: by Turbanator (last edited Nov 14, 2015 07:11AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Turbanator David wrote: "...I've heard one account that Golding wasn't so much commenting on society as a whole as he was responding to other books of the Swiss Family Robinson type, which show people acting together in a crisis. Apparently, Golding, a schoolteacher, thought, "That's not how my kids would behave." Which, I suppose, would make Lord of the Flies a spectacularly unfunny parody. ..."

Golding was commenting on society as a whole, and also believed that that's what his kids would do.


Turbanator David wrote: "...and it turns out there's more evidence than I realized to back me up:

"


This page concerns itself entirely with situations in which people still had hope. In the aftermath of the earthquake, people knew they would be rescued. In the Blitz, the propaganda lifted the spirits of the people. In Lord of the Flies, the boys get more an more savage as time goes on and they lose all hope of rescue. Ralph finds it harder and harder to remember why they're keeping a fire going, and eventually loses the ability to make eloquent speeches to lift the spirits of the others. Jack and his hunters eventually only want fire to cook. After they kill their first pig, the hunters seem to forget that rescue is more important than food, and think Ralph should apologise for getting worked up about it.


message 40: by Turbanator (last edited Nov 21, 2015 04:16AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Turbanator David wrote: "I spent five years at an Irish boarding school and, believe me, boys between the ages of 11 and 14 are every bit as monstrous as the book portrays them. The degree of physical, mental and emotional cruelty was horrific.

The phenomenon does seem to be age-related - generally speaking, the kids who were monsters at 13 turned out reasonably well-adjusted by 17 (the same wasn't necessarily true for their victims, unfortunately). Golding's portrayal seems entirely accurate for the age group in the story. Whether it should be taken as allegorical for human nature generally is, as you suggest, debatable.
"


That's slightly generalising, isn't it? I'm sorry about those horrific sounding experiences you had, but I'm pretty sure that 11 to 14 year-old boys are not all monsters. Some may be, but people generally believe that they are doing the right thing. Any adult could be the same, if it was safe enough to be.


Turbanator Cat wrote: ""Apparently, Golding, a schoolteacher, thought, "That's not how my kids would behave.""

Thats one of the problems I think. If you look at psychology, there are stages of moral development as well ..."


The only reason he used boys was because of the other young-british-boys-go-on-a-dashing-adventure island stories. Golding based the book on his experiences in the war of what adults did to each other, so his point is still valid. Look at things like ISIS. These people are doing horrifying things, because they believe it is the right thing to do. Ask yourself, are their morals any less developed than yours?


Dr.ShadowHallows Honestly, I think it isn't meant to be directly linked to kids, and instead to the more broader theme of savagery and order. However, I believe Golding uses kids because they are the most innocent, but when put through events you eventually loose sight and grow to become someone terrifying. That was why in the end it showed the officer who was, you could say, just as savage as the children.


Marcela David, if you haven't been stranded on an island without food or shelter, I think you cannot be 100% sure what you would or would not be capable of doing. and "we aren't monsters underneath" - there is no we, you cannot know what other people are no matter for how long you have known them, and, unfortunetly, sometimes you cannot even be sure of what you would or wouldn't do in a certain situation. life and people are not all black or white.


message 44: by Christopher (last edited Mar 12, 2019 12:00PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Christopher Roxby Oh, trust me.... People are much MUCH worse than Golding paints them. -Personal experience talking.


message 45: by Misha (new) - added it

Misha Well, maybe the book was just not your cup of tea and that I understand. However, I do not for one moment believe that this book deserves a single star rating i.e. it was the worst thing you have ever read. If anything I think you were over exaggerating.

Now for the claim that you 'just don't buy it'. What aren't you willing to concede if you yourself gave a perfect example of how people can be brutish in the way that Golding has portrayed? The expansion of the British Empire was a great way of comparing the savagery of Jack and his group.

And if you want further proof that people can be as cruel as the dictatorship of wild (psychologically malleable) children then --and I'm sorry for being so extreme -- look at Hitler and the atrocious things he and his followers did. Just as Hitler brought about a fear of Jews, so to did Jack cultivate a fear: a fear of the Beast.

I think it can be said that humans are more than capable of going mad and allowing deaths to be justified.


message 46: by Angela (new)

Angela Kivlehen People are savage by nature. That I can agree with. I can see that the author was trying to point that out. During times of crisis, there is always a global panic that involve riots and people losing their shit. But at the same time, I'm just not convinced that the kids on the island would really break that easily.

If I remember right, it was less than a day and automatically that one kid was like, "I have to hunt a pig, I have to hunt a pig." I just don't see it happening that fast in such a situation especially with six year old kids


reading tings Golding is talking about the potential for chaos that resides within us like reactants waiting for the right conditions and the right catalyst to start off a reaction - some of these reaction might be reversible- with the right conditions and the right catalyst- but some aren't.


message 48: by Chunky (new)

Chunky RAGU Hello there David, when you said "But the rest of us, no, we aren't monsters underneath." I couldn't do anything but highly disagree. In the book LOTF I don't believe Golding said in any way shape or form that every guy is like that and is a monster. If you look at the plot and realize all the boys have gone through so far and how young they are, although those actions are wrong, it makes perfect sense to what happens. If boys were left alone on an island with no women and no adults to help them problem solve, they would be a war between two groups to determine alpha. The conflict of the boys being stranded was solved when the coast guard showed up and the "savages" started crying again which showed the boys still have some sympathy to being rogue. I'm sure if you were left on an island by yourself, which your cringy middle school profile picture looks like you were, then I'm sure you would freak out too. You would be crying because you would want your $10 small Starbucks drink and will want to go to a hairdresser to cut that nasty beard. I can't believe you would accuse my boyfriend William Golding of doing such a thing.


Chelsea Bennett I believe you have missed the point the book. This was written post war. During war even the rest of us were driven to extremes which is the exact point of the book. You don't need to go to an English boarding school to understand it but you do need to understand the time it is set in and what came before it.


message 50: by Nick (new) - added it

Nick Dentino What would you expect? That killing two innocent boys isn't savage enough for you? OK i understand that you don't agree that we 鈥渁ren't the type of brutes Golding wants us to believe鈥�. However a group of boys were stranded on an island, by themselves with no form of authority. It was obvious that at some point they would stray away from society and evolve into different beings because why? Survival. You wouldn't know if your an actual brute until you鈥檝e experienced it for yourself, but you didn't. The only thing i'm trying to say is that the boys believed they could get by if they did what an adult would do and try to get rescued.鈥淲e did everything adults would do. What went wrong?鈥� However that was not the case, they did everything an adult would do and that's where it all went downhill. The boys began to split up once rules began to tear them apart and eventually the other group became savages and killed two of their own and called themselves savages!! Dont do around saying people aren't capable of being savage without being put under certain circumstances!


芦 previous 1
back to top