Lord of the Flies, a poorly written book, no?

[Togath]

Subject resolved...
I'd assumed the grimdark parts of it were unintentional.
I still feel there's many better books, but I don't see it as the worst ever written anymore, and realize that it may just be because I'm not a fan of traditional grimdark:smallsmile:.

[TaiLiu]

So I talked to my younger cousin earlier(14 years of age).
She's being forced to read Lord of the Flies by her school, and then write an essay.
I've just read s summary on Wikipedia, and talked to her about the plot a bit.
It's a god-awful horrific tale...
How can people be so depraved in some places as to force children to read that pile of horse s***? From talking to her, the excuse was "to help them learn about how societies form".. Dude.. The society in the book is run by brain damaged, murderous, savage children, even "The Barnyard" would be better for children, even if it was originally made as cold war propaganda.

It took all my effort not to head over to her school, and ask her teacher "What the flying f*** were you thinking, giving that to children?!".

Even for the "children stranded in the wilderness" plot aspect, there's things such as Peter Pan, Huck Fin, and Island of Blue Dolphins(not the best tale.. but even it's better).
Comrade Togath, with all due respect, I believe you are overreacting. Your feelings are valid, and I do agree that the book can be very frightening, but it is not a pile of horse faeces. It's a fairly good book, and I suggest that you read it - perhaps your opinion may change. :smallsmile:

[Jaycemonde]

I read Lord of the Flies in middle school. And The Girl Who Owned a City. And several Tom Clancy books. And Michael Crichton. And some Stephen King. And His Dark Materials. And a book called Ghost Soldiers.

Granted, I only needed to read Flies and City. But my point stands. It gave me a very pragmatic view of life. There are all kinds of regulations out there for parents (not cousins) who feel their children aren't capable of handling something like that.

[Kindablue]

It's a beautifully written book with as timeless a message as they come that exerted a profound influence on Western culture. I think you vastly underestimate the emotional maturity of most teenaged "children."

ETA: I also find it ironic that one of your suggested replacements is Huckleberry Finn, a book that has, since the day it was published, faced more banishments and black markers for the sake of the children than any other I can think of.

[Togath]

It's a beautifully written book with as timeless a message as they come that exerted a profound influence on Western culture. I think you vastly underestimate the emotional maturity of most teenaged "children."

ETA: I also find it ironic that one of your suggested replacements is Huckleberry Finn, a book that has, since the day it was published, faced more banishments and black markers for the sake of the children than any other I can think of.

Are.. You're kidding, please tell me your kidding.
How the blazes is Lord of the Flies better than Huck Fin?(which I brought up precisely because of the illogical bannings, it's a good book, and the main reason a lot of people ban seems to be because it's historically accurate, which, the way i see it, is a reason for children to read it, since it shows them how things were back then)
One's a cheerful tale.. the other, a grim, and poorly written book, that stops just short of being a true horror tale, but strays too far from other types to really have a worthwhile plot.
Now keep in mind, I'm not against horror, I myself am a fan of it, and am A-OK.. as long as it's good, and well written, which Lord of the Flies aint(the ending for example.. is, to be frank, the worst written ending I've read, "and he turned to give the boys a moment to pull themselves together, as he stared at the ship in the distance"? What kind of ending is that to a story? It changes the plot from the boys to a random unnamed navy officer.)


Lord of the Flies even fails in the title department, since anyone drawing fully on the title for ideas about what the book is about would assume it to involve Beelzebub in soem form, likely as a Lovecraft-esc hidden, corrupting force.

And as for "is it odd I find it an appalling book?" well, a google search for "worst book ever written" tends to bring it up as top of the list(or bottom, as the case may be, topping a "worst book" list aint exactly a good thing:smallwink:) by most people.

[BWR]

I think you are in the minority here. Lots of us read it in school and I can't recall seeing it ever mentioned on the lists of '**** you read in school' or anyone claiming trauma from reading it.

You don't like it, fine. No one says you must. But "think of the children" is really, really overused and abused.

[Togath]

I think you are in the minority here. Lots of us read it in school and I can't recall seeing it ever mentioned on the lists of '**** you read in school' or anyone claiming trauma from reading it.

You don't like it, fine. No one says you must. But "think of the children" is really, really overused and abused.

And what praytell, do you take from this google page? (https://www.google.com/search?q=Lord+of+the+Flies%2C+worst+book+ever+writ ten&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)
it's pretty clear I aint the minority. And it's less "think of the children" in my case, and more "wow, this book is poorly written, why do people have children read this instead of something actually good?"

[TaiLiu]

What kind of ending is that to a story? It changes the plot from the boys to a random unnamed navy officer.
I don't think you fully understand the premise of the book. The entire work is an allegory; the officer is a deus ex machina, but the arrival of the officer also represents the ironically blurry line between civilization and savagery.

[Kindablue]

Are.. You're kidding, please tell me your kidding.
How the blazes is Lord of the Flies better than Huck Fin?(which I brought up precisely because of the illogical bannings, it's a good book, and the main reason a lot of people ban seems to be because it's historically accurate, which, the way i see it, is a reason for children to read it, since it shows them how things were back then)
One's a cheerful tale.. the other, a grim, and poorly written book, that stops just short of being a true horror tale, but strays too far from other types to really have a worthwhile plot.
Now keep in mind, I'm not against horror, I myself am a fan of it, and am A-OK.. as long as it's good, and well written, which Lord of the Flies aint(the ending for example.. is, to be frank, the worst written ending I've read, "and he turned to give the boys a moment to pull themselves together, as he stared at the ship in the distance"? What kind of ending is that to a story? It changes the plot from the boys to a random unnamed navy officer.)
I didn't say it was worse, I alluded to almost every one of its pages looking like this:

As soon as Tom was back we cut along the path, around the garden fence, and by and by fetched up on the steep top of the hill the other side of the house. Tom said he slipped Jim's hat off of his head and hung it on a limb right over him, and Jim stirred a little, but he didn't wake. Afterwards Jim said the witches be witched him and put him in a trance, and rode him all over the State, and then set him under the trees again, and hung his hat on a limb to show who done it. And next time Jim told it he said they rode him down to New Orleans; and, after that, every time he told it he spread it more and more, till by and by he said they rode him all over the world, and tired him most to death, and his back was all over saddle-boils. Jim was monstrous proud about it, and he got so he wouldn't hardly notice the other *******. ******* would come miles to hear Jim tell about it, and he was more looked up to than any ****** in that country. Strange ******* would stand with their mouths open and look him all over, same as if he was a wonder. ******* is always talking about witches in the dark by the kitchen fire; but whenever one was talking and letting on to know all about such things, Jim would happen in and say, "Hm! What you know 'bout witches?" and that ****** was corked up and had to take a back seat. Jim always kept that five-center piece round his neck with a string, and said it was a charm the devil give to him with his own hands, and told him he could cure anybody with it and fetch witches whenever he wanted to just by saying something to it; but he never told what it was he said to it. ******* would come from all around there and give Jim anything they had, just for a sight of that five-center piece; but they wouldn't touch it, because the devil had had his hands on it. Jim was most ruined for a servant, because he got stuck up on account of having seen the devil and been rode by witches.

The Island of the Blue Dolphins and Peter Pan have to the best of my knowledge never faced being censored or banned, so saying that you brought Huckleberry Finn up specifically because it has just looks like backpedaling to me.

The Lord of the Flies is not a genre novel, meaning it isn't meant to conform to the style and trappings of a particular kind of story. I won't argue its artistic merits, though. If you didn't like it, you didn't like it. But if I heard about a book about schoolchildren lost and savage on a desert island that was TOO HARDCORE FOR THE LIBRARY there's no way 14 year-old me wouldn't read it. That's a pretty brilliant way of getting gradeschoolers to get interested in reading, actually. I change my mind--I'm with you.

[SiuiS]

So I talked to my younger cousin earlier(14 years of age).
She's being forced to read Lord of the Flies by her school, and then write an essay.
I've just read s summary on Wikipedia, and talked to her about the plot a bit.
It's a god-awful horrific tale...
How can people be so depraved in some places as to force children to read that pile of horse s***? From talking to her, the excuse was "to help them learn about how societies form".. Dude.. The society in the book is run by brain damaged, murderous, savage children, even "The Barnyard" would be better for children, even if it was originally made as cold war propaganda.

It took all my effort not to head over to her school, and ask her teacher "What the flying f*** were you thinking, giving that to children?!".

Even for the "children stranded in the wilderness" plot aspect, there's things such as Peter Pan, Huck Fin, and Island of Blue Dolphins(not the best tale.. but even it's better).

Read the book and then judge it. Wikipedia and googling aren't going to give you a valid platform from which to speak.


And what praytell, do you take from this google page? (https://www.google.com/search?q=Lord+of+the+Flies%2C+worst+book+ever+writ ten&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)
it's pretty clear I aint the minority. And it's less "think of the children" in my case, and more "wow, this book is poorly written, why do people have children read this instead of something actually good?"

I get from this page that Phantom of Manhattan is a terrible massacre of the original phantom of the opera and the author should be ashamed.

Assuming it was supposed to point towards Flies, I get that people are bitter at how needlessly pedantic and technical such a literary vivisection is.

I got an A+ on that segment of school for screaming out during a presentation "just because a critic says Christ like figure, does not mean you need to regurgitate that! Fiction only works if it is fiction as well as a thinly veiled clump of symbols and Simon is still just a scared kid who becomes an example! Stop repeating the same mindless tripe!"

I also got suspended for swearing, during that little episode. Sometimes, a seashell is a seashell, and convenient. It doesn't always have to be a heavily laden symbol which the sages murmur about and stroke their silken mustaches, nodding to each other. Even when that's what it is.

[TuggyNE]

So I talked to my younger cousin earlier(14 years of age).
She's being forced to read Lord of the Flies by her school, and then write an essay.
I've just read s summary on Wikipedia, and talked to her about the plot a bit.
It's a god-awful horrific tale...
How can people be so depraved in some places as to force children to read that pile of horse s***? From talking to her, the excuse was "to help them learn about how societies form".. Dude.. The society in the book is run by brain damaged, murderous, savage children, even "The Barnyard" would be better for children, even if it was originally made as cold war propaganda.

From what I understand, it's deliberate dystopic social critique. In other words, the grimdark is not a bug, it's a feature. (Note that I have not read the book, having no particular need to further reinforce my already quite ample cynicism.)


Even for the "children stranded in the wilderness" plot aspect, there's things such as Peter Pan, Huck Fin, and Island of Blue Dolphins(not the best tale.. but even it's better).

Island of the Blue Dolphins got sadder every time I reread it until finally I couldn't take it any more. Huck Finn is probably a lot better in all ways, though.

[Togath]

As odd as it sound Tuggy.. your point actually was the one that made me understand. If the grimdark aspects as intentional, than aye, it's a decent book.
Still not the best, but not necessarily the worst if those parts are intentional.

[The Succubus]

I was forced to read Pride and Prejudice and Silas Marner in my English classes. I'd have fought tooth and nail to read Lord of the Flies or similar.

I might actually have to get a copy while I'm out today to see what all the fuss is about.

[Kindablue]

I was forced to read Pride and Prejudice and Silas Marner in my English classes. I'd have fought tooth and nail to read Lord of the Flies or similar.

I might actually have to get a copy while I'm out today to see what all the fuss is about.

"Just the omission of Jane Austen's books alone would make a fairly good library out of a library that hadn't a book in it." - Mark Twain :smalltongue:

[FLHerne]

As odd as it sound Tuggy.. your point actually was the one that made me understand. If the grimdark aspects as intentional, than aye, it's a decent book.
Still not the best, but not necessarily the worst if those parts are intentional.I always read it as a particularly bleak view of human civilisation - that even people who'd usually be considered socially respectable or to be admired (a choir, say) are only a few hardships and wrong decisions away from being bloodthirsty savages.

For the record, I hated Huckleberry Finn ("in which two boys do stupid things for implausible reasons, co-incidentally stumble into the middle of everyone else's problems, and then everything turns out fine in the end").
I was about the same age (early teens) when I first read both of them*, andhae always been of the mind that Lord of the Flies is by far the better book. It's shocking and sometimes quite gruesome, but that's part of the story and certainly not a reason to 'ban' it - teenagers are definitely less emotionally sensitive than you think, at least beyond a day or two.

*(and not that many years older now)

[Maelstrom]

And what praytell, do you take from this google page? (https://www.google.com/search?q=Lord+of+the+Flies%2C+worst+book+ever+writ ten&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)
it's pretty clear I aint the minority. And it's less "think of the children" in my case, and more "wow, this book is poorly written, why do people have children read this instead of something actually good?"

Well, you take out the "Lord of the Flies" from the search text to be included (a bit of a leading question, don't you think), and "surprise" 'Lord of the Flies not anywhere to be seen (at least on the first three pages, which is all I care to devote to this silly endeavor).

I suggest you try another forum for moral support, I think the tide is against you here.

[thubby]

I considered it a profound waste of time when I read it and continue to do so today.
ignoring the violence (frankly, most can handle it just fine). the book is, at face value, insulting the audience it's being push on.

think about it. the words on the page are saying that kids, when left to their own devices are violent, murderous monsters. to quote my own book report "screw you, William Golding"

better still, you now have an authority(the school) handing this down from on high to your kids and declaring that it is worthy of study. what impression does that give kids about their teachers?
I know what I thought "you think this about us"

[Jaycemonde]

I considered it a profound waste of time when I read it and continue to do so today.
ignoring the violence (frankly, most can handle it just fine). the book is, at face value, insulting the audience it's being push on.

think about it. the words on the page are saying that kids, when left to their own devices are violent, murderous monsters. to quote my own book report "screw you, William Golding"

better still, you now have an authority(the school) handing this down from on high to your kids and declaring that it is worthy of study. what impression does that give kids about their teachers?
I know what I thought "you think this about us"

Well, if nothing else, you could at least say it taught you how not to write a book.

[thubby]

Well, if nothing else, you could at least say it taught you how not to write a book.

there are at least far more entertaining ways to do that.

[Jaycemonde]

there are at least far more entertaining ways to do that.

I'd say the most effective teachers are books one can't finish. It took me a lot of effort to get through The Subtle Knife.
I also had trouble getting through Without Remorse the second time I read it, but that was for a good (narrative-wise) reason. And the guy who did it got what he deserved via pressure chamber, so it ended well. My personal opinion is that the best authors are the ones that can make you legitimately hate the antagonists (and even some of the protagonists) as people while still loving the book.

[thubby]

I'd say the most effective teachers are books one can't finish. It took me a lot of effort to get through The Subtle Knife.
I also had trouble getting through Without Remorse the second time I read it, but that was for a good (narrative-wise) reason. And the guy who did it got what he deserved via pressure chamber, so it ended well. My personal opinion is that the best authors are the ones that can make you legitimately hate the antagonists (and even some of the protagonists) as people while still loving the book.

i don't disagree, but I'm failing to see how that's a response to what i wrote. :smallconfused:

also, for many kids the primary exposure to reading is through school. if this kind of drek is what the people in charge are calling "good", what incentive does that give kids to explore the world of literature?

[Jaycemonde]

i don't disagree, but I'm failing to see how that's a response to what i wrote. :smallconfused:

also, for many kids the primary exposure to reading is through school. if this kind of drek is what the people in charge are calling "good", what incentive does that give kids to explore the world of literature?

It was more an attempt to turn this conversation in a more positive direction. And I wouldn't know. I started reading seriously (as in, any book I could get my hands on, be it a strategy guide or a novel) when I was about seven.

[Kindablue]

I considered it a profound waste of time when I read it and continue to do so today.
ignoring the violence (frankly, most can handle it just fine). the book is, at face value, insulting the audience it's being push on.

think about it. the words on the page are saying that kids, when left to their own devices are violent, murderous monsters. to quote my own book report "screw you, William Golding"

better still, you now have an authority(the school) handing this down from on high to your kids and declaring that it is worthy of study. what impression does that give kids about their teachers?
I know what I thought "you think this about us"

Right, but the opposite of love isn't hate. It gave you a feeling, an emotion, it created an intense reaction that has stayed with you, and not just as "oh, yeah, I had to read that. What a bore." You're still insulted by having read it.

Bad books don't do that. Bad books roll off you like rain on plastic.

[FLHerne]

I'd say the most effective teachers are books one can't finish. It took me a lot of effort to get through The Subtle KnifeThat would be because the pacing of that was terrible - I put it down twice after getting bogged down in the enormous swamp of exposition at the start...quite good once it actually got moving though. :smallsmile:

[Telonius]

Read it next to The Chocolate War. Then, take a look at Heart of Darkness, 1984, and On the Beach.

If you're wondering about the book ... it was written in 1954. Consider what had just happened in the world. They'd just been through a two awful wars (WWI and WWII) and one seemingly pointless one (Korea). The Space Race was on, Russia had the bomb, and whether or not we'd blow ourselves up was actually uncertain. For the first time in a really long time, the entire Enlightenment project - the idea that we can better ourselves, that we're not rotten to the core, that we can get better - was really called into question.

That's the direction the book is coming from. It's not even saying something like Frankenstein, where it's more "be careful what you create." It's moral horror, the idea that we're all just a few steps and a gentle push away from savagery. That idea makes a lot of people uncomfortable. (I don't agree with it, but it's an important idea that needs to be engaged).

[Eldan]

It was more an attempt to turn this conversation in a more positive direction. And I wouldn't know. I started reading seriously (as in, any book I could get my hands on, be it a strategy guide or a novel) when I was about seven.

So did I, comics in Kindergarten and books in primary school, but we are exceptions. At least in my class, there were perhaps three kids who read on their own, out of about 25.

[Serpentine]

Lord of the Flies even fails in the title department, since anyone drawing fully on the title for ideas about what the book is about would assume it to involve Beelzebub in soem form, likely as a Lovecraft-esc hidden, corrupting force.As I understand it, you are indeed meant to be aware of that reference. I don't think I've read the book, but the Lord of the Flies reference is totally in keeping with the theme of it from what I understand. As to whether you might assume that it would be about Beelzebub... Well, you'd probably be pretty disappointed by To Kill a Mockingbird and Z for Zachariah.

[AtlanteanTroll]

think about it. the words on the page are saying that kids, when left to their own devices are violent, murderous monsters. to quote my own book report "screw you, William Golding"
No. It is not. Or at least, it isn't saying that of kids specifically. The boys in the book are suppose to be an example of all people.

[The Succubus]

Currently about half way through. Enjoying it thus far.

I read the foreward for the copy I bought today and a lot of folks in this thread are right - William Golding read a lot of books like Huckleberry Finn and so on and found the portrayals of the boys in them at odds with his own experiences as a child. Lord of the Flies is a counterpoint to all the books where boys are reckless little scamps but everyone loves them and everything is alright in the end.

I haven't finished Lord of the Flies yet but from what I've seen so far, everything is going to be *far* from alright in the end.

[Mando Knight]

I read the foreward for the copy I bought today and a lot of folks in this thread are right - William Golding read a lot of books like Huckleberry Finn and so on and found the portrayals of the boys in them at odds with his own experiences as a child. Lord of the Flies is a counterpoint to all the books where boys are reckless little scamps but everyone loves them and everything is alright in the end.
This is it exactly.

It's not a pretty story, it's not meant to be. The imagery is meant to disturb the reader. What it says about the human nature, whether you accept it or not, is not to be taken lightly.

[Gnome Alone]

I don't think it works as a critique of human nature or civilization as such when the boys are already like 12 and have been raised and brutalized in British homes and boarding schools. Works as an allegory for our own master/slave dynamic society though.

[thubby]

Right, but the opposite of love isn't hate. It gave you a feeling, an emotion, it created an intense reaction that has stayed with you, and not just as "oh, yeah, I had to read that. What a bore." You're still insulted by having read it.

Bad books don't do that. Bad books roll off you like rain on plastic.

if that were true that would make every bigot a master wordsmith.


No. It is not. Or at least, it isn't saying that of kids specifically. The boys in the book are suppose to be an example of all people.

that's probably the author's intent allegorically, but can you really deny that my interpretation is valid? it certainly fits the facts of the book.

and how well does the idea that it's about all people really hold up? if it is, why does the book only involve children? what does that let the author do that adult characters wouldn't?
the only things I've seen on that are that it depersonalizes the issue for adults (an element that is actively subverted by making a child read it), and that either the author or the intended audience wouldn't accept adults turning to savagery like that.

[TaiLiu]

Why does the book only involve children?
No, there's an adult at the end of the book.

[snoopy13a]

No, there's an adult at the end of the book.

Which is the whole point. The British naval officer at the end reveals that adults are really no different than the boys on the island. Just as Jack is trying to kill Ralph, the British navy is trying to kill its enemies.

And I'm flabbergasted at the Jane Austen criticism.

[TaiLiu]

Which is the whole point. The British naval officer at the end reveals that adults are really no different than the boys on the island. Just as Jack is trying to kill Ralph, the British navy is trying to kill its enemies.
Indeed!....

[Ifni]

and how well does the idea that it's about all people really hold up? if it is, why does the book only involve children? what does that let the author do that adult characters wouldn't?

My read is that children are usually quite strongly characterized as innocent, at least in mainstream Western culture. Having children do such things is a lot more shocking, and hence thought-provoking, than having adults do it, and sets up a loss-of-innocence theme that would not really be possible with adults. (There's a ton of dystopic/post-apocalyptic fiction involving adult-run societies becoming savage and militarized after the "fall of civilization"; they're not usually considered especially shocking.)

[Jaycemonde]

My read is that children are usually quite strongly characterized as innocent, at least in mainstream Western culture. Having children do such things is a lot more shocking, and hence thought-provoking, than having adults do it, and sets up a loss-of-innocence theme that would not really be possible with adults. (There's a ton of dystopic/post-apocalyptic fiction involving adult-run societies becoming savage and militarized after the "fall of civilization"; they're not usually considered especially shocking.)

Pretty much this. In The Girl Who Owned a City, some non-specified virus had wiped out pretty much all of the human race that had already gone through or was going through puberty (in other words, physically matured) and kids were left to their own devices. It was pretty heavily implied that a lot didn't make it through the first few months, but others (namely, the ones that holed up in an old high school, fortified it, stolen guns from a nearby police station and essentially forged a barony) managed to live comfortably for a few years until political backstabbing resulted in a huge change in leadership. The thing to remember is that these aren't kids who were being forced to fight some backwater war by somebody else, they were just kids who happened to be smart/observant enough to know that they needed to work together to fend off the bigger, meaner kids who'd always gotten by through bullying and threats until they suddenly found themselves in a world where they were literally encouraged to hurt others for survival.

The mental image of a convoy of dump trucks being driven by ten- and eleven-year old kids while more rode in the back with shotguns is still one of the most awesome things in the world, dark as it seems out of context.

[Togath]

I support Thubby's veiws to be honest.. the whole "ah, so that's why" thing I said was more to try to keep this thread from spiraling out of control..

[Tavar]

that's probably the author's intent allegorically, but can you really deny that my interpretation is valid? it certainly fits the facts of the book.

and how well does the idea that it's about all people really hold up? if it is, why does the book only involve children? what does that let the author do that adult characters wouldn't?
the only things I've seen on that are that it depersonalizes the issue for adults (an element that is actively subverted by making a child read it), and that either the author or the intended audience wouldn't accept adults turning to savagery like that.
Oh, they would certainly accept Adults turning to Savagery. But this was written in the "children are innocent/purer" phase(possible also as a counter to the "we're better without society"): he could have had adults, but that would have lessened the shock, and diluted the point. Additionally, it's important to realize he was writing a response to works such as Coral Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coral_Island).

[thubby]

I support Thubby's veiws to be honest.. the whole "ah, so that's why" thing I said was more to try to keep this thread from spiraling out of control..

for that plan to work, this forum would have to be "in control" to begin with.
(un)fortunately, we're all delightfully mad. :smalltongue:

[The Succubus]

Finished reading it this morning. Sorry, thubby, but I loved it.

There's a lot of valuable lessons that can be drawn from the book. I think the use of children as opposed to adults is not to offer a damning verdict on them but instead it serves more as a catalyst to the events that unfold.

What Golding is trying to show in the book is what happens to human nature when civilisation is switched off. Children, except in very particular circumstances, such as those in royalty, generally receive less social conditioning, purely because time hasn't had as much influence on their behaviour yet. As a result, the process of decivilisation and progress of savagery can be accelerated, making the story more plausible from a narrative standpoint. Children are also more prone to flights of fancy and imagination whereas an adult has had a lot of false beliefs about the world stripped out by the process of education. The identification of the beast, for example, is something that simply wouldn't be believable if the main characters were adults.

The section where Simon is hallucinating about the Lord of Flies talking to him is definitely trying to say something about religion I think, along with the Hunter tribe's views on the beast. However (and let's say a big happy hello to our mod team :smallsmile:), this is a branch of discussion I won't be pursuing.

[TuggyNE]

As odd as it sound Tuggy.. your point actually was the one that made me understand. If the grimdark aspects as intentional, than aye, it's a decent book.
Still not the best, but not necessarily the worst if those parts are intentional.

Well, awesome! Glad to have fostered understanding. :smallsmile:


There's a lot of valuable lessons that can be drawn from the book. I think the use of children as opposed to adults is not to offer a damning verdict on them but instead it serves more as a catalyst to the events that unfold.

What Golding is trying to show in the book is what happens to human nature when civilisation is switched off. Children, except in very particular circumstances, such as those in royalty, generally receive less social conditioning, purely because time hasn't had as much influence on their behaviour yet. As a result, the process of decivilisation and progress of savagery can be accelerated, making the story more plausible from a narrative standpoint. Children are also more prone to flights of fancy and imagination whereas an adult has had a lot of false beliefs about the world stripped out by the process of education. The identification of the beast, for example, is something that simply wouldn't be believable if the main characters were adults.

That makes sense.

And now I really don't need to ever read it, since I've stripped every bit from the discussion and wikipage and what-not. :smalltongue: :smallwink:

[SiuiS]

It was more an attempt to turn this conversation in a more positive direction. And I wouldn't know. I started reading seriously (as in, any book I could get my hands on, be it a strategy guide or a novel) when I was about seven.

Ditto.

I need to point out however than in California, and indeed more of America than I am comfortable with, 5th grade is the peak of reading skill and it drops from there.

Kids don't do critique though. They don't look at books and wonder what they mean. Kids read stories to have stories. Deeper analysis comes later, or when forced.


Right, but the opposite of love isn't hate. It gave you a feeling, an emotion, it created an intense reaction that has stayed with you, and not just as "oh, yeah, I had to read that. What a bore." You're still insulted by having read it.

Bad books don't do that. Bad books roll off you like rain on plastic.

There is that. What do you personally think, Bloo?
I liked it, barely. I found it trite at times, but over all not bad. The analyzing it was bad, though. Ugh.


As I understand it, you are indeed meant to be aware of that reference. I don't think I've read the book, but the Lord of the Flies reference is totally in keeping with the theme of it from what I understand. As to whether you might assume that it would be about Beelzebub... Well, you'd probably be pretty disappointed by To Kill a Mockingbird and Z for Zachariah.

Indeed.
I have to laugh at the idea of Lovecraftian corruption though. It's becoming cliche...


I don't think it works as a critique of human nature or civilization as such when the boys are already like 12 and have been raised and brutalized in British homes and boarding schools. Works as an allegory for our own master/slave dynamic society though.

Hmm. That's true.

I think the book isn't so far off, honestly. I've witnessed the dichotomies involved many times. Even so far in age as 23. Group gets together, forms a power structure based off of rules from a prior system, and it's quickly twisted by those who are willing to engage others viscerally.

My last example was a small LARP group that tanked as one guy, a jerk charmer who probably belongs in prison, came into the group and slowly affected it, making those who were more sporting not want to show and those who liked to cheat, scrap and be Guys Hanging Out clustered together. It was neat, if sad.


if that were true that would make every bigot a master wordsmith.

A bigot getting a reaction out of you is like a moron reciting what they recall of a story you already know; the concept evokes emotion, the moron reminds you of the concept. You also get mad at how stupid their application is, they are.

So, not really.




And now I really don't need to ever read it, since I've stripped every bit from the discussion and wikipage and what-not. :smalltongue: :smallwink:

See my stance in the D&D next thread; while I understand your time is valuable, I really don't think a wiki walk is sufficient to really give you what you need, here.

[TuggyNE]

See my stance in the D&D next thread; while I understand your time is valuable, I really don't think a wiki walk is sufficient to really give you what you need, here.

Not my time, so much; I have a lot of leisure (have you seen my posting rate? of course you have!) and I read very fast.

Instead, it's mostly my attitude: reading unpleasant books is not how I want to do things, especially if they're likely to be counterproductive in recovering from depression; in this case, the lesson the story offers is one I feel fairly sure I have already learned, and I do not think I would enjoy it, so there seems no reason to bother.

(For example, I read A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich once about ten years ago, and really didn't like it much at all. But arguably it was a useful book to have read, once, despite being so unpleasant. Similarly Animal Farm.)

[The Succubus]

The other lesson I got from the book was about the nature of power. I'm going to quote a couple of other power lessons because they're rather in keeping:

Game of Thrones:

The scene where Varys poses a riddle for Tyrion. "A king, a priest and a merchant are in a room with a mercenary. Each of them wants the mercenary to kill the other two.

"Kill them," says the king, "for I am the ruler of the realm."

"Kill them," says the priest, "for the gods have commanded that they must die."

"Kill them," says the merchant, "and I will give you gold."

Which of them does the mercenary kill?
Order of the Stick:

A lesson in power from everyone's favourite unholy abomination. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0657.html)

The illusion of power is a power in itself. When Ralph picks up the conch and blows to gather all the kids together, they make him the leader because it was him that gathered them all together. There was nothing particularly special about him - he wasn't exceptionally strong like Jack or smart like Piggy. He was just a boy with a conch shell. Yet the group sees power in it - whoever is holding the conch gets to speak at the meetings.

And yet later, Jack becomes a leader, through a show of strength and as the conch shatters into fragments, it dawns on Ralph that he never really had any power over the group at all.

The lesson is the same for the riddle I mentioned above - power is where people believe it resides.

[Aedilred]

Instead, it's mostly my attitude: reading unpleasant books is not how I want to do things, especially if they're likely to be counterproductive in recovering from depression; in this case, the lesson the story offers is one I feel fairly sure I have already learned, and I do not think I would enjoy it, so there seems no reason to bother.
The danger of not reading a book and relying on criticism etc. is that you completely forfeit your ability to form your own impression of the book and remain reliant on - usually - the critical orthodoxy. If you read the book and then read the criticism you might find you disagree with even widely-accepted themes and interpretations, or find meaning, resonance or personal significance in passages that haven't received much attention.

I'd argue that in any discussion of a text, the text itself should be the starting point, not an optional extra. I have to admit I found the OP and the reasoning behind that argument rather disturbing for that reason, not to mention the idea that a book about a bunch of plane crash survivors on an island who attempt to form a society then start killing each other included "grimdark" passages by accident.

Apart from anything else, the whole idea reminded me rather eerily of Donnie Darko.

[thubby]

The danger of not reading a book and relying on criticism etc. is that you completely forfeit your ability to form your own impression of the book and remain reliant on - usually - the critical orthodoxy. If you read the book and then read the criticism you might find you disagree with even widely-accepted themes and interpretations, or find meaning, resonance or personal significance in passages that haven't received much attention.


as true as that is, we as humans only have so much time to spend on books. the ability to rely on others to weed out potential wastes of time and locate gems in an ocean of material is important.

I know plenty of people turn to the forums for this sort of thing and we're as good as any critic.

[Tavar]

Right, but that's not really the argument he used at first. Initially, it was more "I've read the wiki, so I know everything there is to know about the book". Which, as other people pointed out, is a deeply flawed position.

[Pepz]

I'd like to join in with my own history with the book. When I was 15 I first heard about the book, sought it out in the library and read it. Two months later I read it again because it WASN'T a regular book like we had to read in class. It doesn't have the boy meets girl mechanic 99% of all books have. The grim aspect of the book shocked me (The end of Piggy was unexpected, horrifying and then waltzed over with more terrible actions) and I loved having the feeling that anything could happen and all bets were off. Lord of the Flies to me is a great read and has a view on people anyone should be aware of, be it via this book or another, even if they do not agree with it.

Secondly, I'd like to respond to this:



Right, but the opposite of love isn't hate. It gave you a feeling, an emotion, it created an intense reaction that has stayed with you, and not just as "oh, yeah, I had to read that. What a bore." You're still insulted by having read it.
Bad books don't do that. Bad books roll off you like rain on plastic.


if that were true that would make every bigot a master wordsmith.

HP Lovecraft has already been mentioned in this thread. It is a well known fact that dear HP was a racist, worse than most people in his time were. Every time I read the Redhook horror or the Tale of Arthur Jermyn I am confronted with this nasty aspect of one of my favourite writers. This does not make the stories bad stories, they are great and fun. It's part of the story for me, it's a part that I know I do not agree with but it allows me think about how the author, the story and the reader all interact in an unending struggle of meaning and emotion.

[Emmerask]

Right, but the opposite of love isn't hate. It gave you a feeling, an emotion, it created an intense reaction that has stayed with you, and not just as "oh, yeah, I had to read that. What a bore." You're still insulted by having read it.

Bad books don't do that. Bad books roll off you like rain on plastic.

that is only true for some books not all.
For example the sword of truth series, they are by all counts pretty bad books (bad character design, stories with more holes then plot etc etc you will find very very few people who think its anything but bad), except maybe the first... which was avg in every way.
yet I still feel insulted by the author trying to force his twisted and frankly disgusting world view onto me :smallwink:

[Amidus Drexel]

For example, I read A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich once about ten years ago, and really didn't like it much at all. But arguably it was a useful book to have read, once, despite being so unpleasant.

I find it interesting that you found that book particularly unpleasant... obviously the subject matter is unpleasant, but it's written in a way to make it seem less so; quite a bit less so. I think it's one of the best books I've read.

--

As far as Lord of the Flies goes, I think it's a good book, regardless of whether or not you agree with the message (or even care about the message at all - it's well-written). I will agree that making an earnest attempt to analyze it was mind-numbingly tedious, but that goes for analyzing (in excruciating detail) just about anything, really. I enjoyed reading it separate from school far more than I did in school.

[TuggyNE]

Right, but that's not really the argument he used at first. Initially, it was more "I've read the wiki, so I know everything there is to know about the book". Which, as other people pointed out, is a deeply flawed position.

What? No no no. I merely don't think I'd profit much from it, since (as near as I can figure), I already more or less understand the lessons it would probably teach, even if it might have some technically new insight, and the value gained is not worth the annoyance.

Basically, it's a judgement call that known and unknown unknowns about the book are not significant enough to warrant actually trying it out, not a declaration that there is no possible way I could get anything out of it — strictly speaking, even if I hated it, I would probably get something out of it, no matter how trivial.


I find it interesting that you found that book particularly unpleasant... obviously the subject matter is unpleasant, but it's written in a way to make it seem less so; quite a bit less so.

Ironically, that might have contributed. I don't remember my exact thought process, but it went something like this: "wait, the book ends with the dude getting sent off to prison camp and this paltry 'kindness' garbage from the guard? I thought this was going somewhere! DO NOT WANT" (except that this was before I'd discovered Internet memes, so phrased differently).

[Killer Angel]

The other lesson I got from the book was about the nature of power. I'm going to quote a couple of other power lessons because they're rather in keeping:

Game of Thrones:

The scene where Varys poses a riddle for Tyrion. "A king, a priest and a merchant are in a room with a mercenary. Each of them wants the mercenary to kill the other two.

"Kill them," says the king, "for I am the ruler of the realm."

"Kill them," says the priest, "for the gods have commanded that they must die."

"Kill them," says the merchant, "and I will give you gold."

Which of them does the mercenary kill?

The lesson is the same for the riddle I mentioned above - power is where people believe it resides.

Well, sometime, the power is real.
For example, I could say that the power is in the hand of the mercenary, and not 'cause we believe it, but 'cause the other ones depend from him. It's up to the merc to decide how to apply it.

[Dienekes]

if that were true that would make every bigot a master wordsmith.



that's probably the author's intent allegorically, but can you really deny that my interpretation is valid? it certainly fits the facts of the book.

and how well does the idea that it's about all people really hold up? if it is, why does the book only involve children? what does that let the author do that adult characters wouldn't?
the only things I've seen on that are that it depersonalizes the issue for adults (an element that is actively subverted by making a child read it), and that either the author or the intended audience wouldn't accept adults turning to savagery like that.

Considering the world during the course of the book is in the middle of a violent and bloody war that may have destroyed Britain. Yes. It's very obviously an allegory for mankind at large. Yes the children were incapable of ruling themselves, but so was everyone else.

Anyway, the Lord of the Flies was and still is one of my favorite books that I was forced to read when I was in school. It didn't help that I was bullied as a kid, and seeing a book where the brutality, stupidity, and arrogance of the children around me was brought up and examined in a way that was actually interesting and entertaining was awesome. Also, do you know how rare it was for kids to get a book where no, the good guys don't always win and the world can be a dark place is brought up? This was the only one I had, and it was amazing and different from every other moralizing on the nature of goodness we got at kids. Even if it was only an averagely written book it should be continue to be read in younger classrooms for that reason alone. Which I don't think it was, I remember it being very vivid and captivating.

[Black Jester]

Lord of the Flies is basically a more child-affine version of Hobbes' Leviathan, (without the glorification of the whole absolute ruler thing), basically describing the bellum omnium contra omnes in a very confined and relatable framework.
and as such, it is a really good book for children, especially when it is not taken on its own but when compared to another book with a more naive idealistic depiction of human behavior, to allow the students to make up their own minds when they compare two antithetic depictions of human behaviour (or the nature of a man, if you prefer) after the basic thesis - antithesis synthesis structure.

You may not like or share Golding's (or Hobbes' for that matter) idea of people without control equals chaos, and it is not supposed to be a pleasant one; but denying an insight like that this perspective exists (and exists for a very good reason) is foolishly and quite irresponsible when it comes to the education of young people. It would likewise be foolish to omit an opposite position of a more naive idealistic depiction of humanity, but fortunately that is much more frequently provided, especially for a younger audience.

[Serpentine]

Also, do you know how rare it was for kids to get a book where no, the good guys don't always win and the world can be a dark place is brought up?I had John Marsden and KA Applegate for that, and to a lesser extent Paul Jennings (though he was more about weirdness).
Nothing to that extent, though, obviously.

[Amidus Drexel]

Ironically, that might have contributed. I don't remember my exact thought process, but it went something like this: "wait, the book ends with the dude getting sent off to prison camp and this paltry 'kindness' garbage from the guard? I thought this was going somewhere! DO NOT WANT" (except that this was before I'd discovered Internet memes, so phrased differently).

Er... it starts with him already in prison camp... I mean, he doesn't get out by the end, but nothing significantly worse happens to him in the interim...

[Greenish]

What? No no no. I merely don't think I'd profit much from it, since (as near as I can figure), I already more or less understand the lessons it would probably teach, even if it might have some technically new insight, and the value gained is not worth the annoyance.Well, it's a pretty good read. Then again, quite a few books are (and consider yourself lucky, for more than a few of them are available in English).

[TuggyNE]

Er... it starts with him already in prison camp... I mean, he doesn't get out by the end, but nothing significantly worse happens to him in the interim...

Different guy. I meant the nooby one. (Sorry, I have blanked out on nearly all their names. Maybe the fact that I cared less about the main viewpoint character than a secondary character is also telling?)

[Dienekes]

I had John Marsden and KA Applegate for that, and to a lesser extent Paul Jennings (though he was more about weirdness).
Nothing to that extent, though, obviously.

If you got to read Animorphs for a school assignment I would be extremely jealous of you.

Though I don't know the other 2 authors there, in Animorphs case Lord of the Flies is just better written and much darker.

[Serpentine]

Man, that would be sweet. Nah, I was deeply disappointed in my school's texts - I would've killed for something like Lord of the Flies.
Better written, certainly, but I dunno about it being darker - Animorphs gets pretty grim. I haven't actually read LotF, though (think I saw a movie version a long time ago).