Please post your thoughts and questions regarding 'Lord of the Flies' here.
Printable View
Please post your thoughts and questions regarding 'Lord of the Flies' here.
SInce no one has started a thread like this yet, I'll start it,
I have succumbed to the boring library work hours and started this novel this afternoon... I read the cover flap so I have a basic sense and allready its astonishing what young boys can do...
The ermergence of Ralph as leader and calling the kid piggy even though he explicitly said not too reminds me of my brothers torturing me when i was a kid... it took me five or six years and three countries to fully get rid of one such name... Golding portrays the boys at the start as young boys... It'll be interesting to see how they change without any reall order, or how they'll create chaos and order
However I happen to be wondering, where are all the girls???
I read the book last May so I can't remember all the details but I guess at this time in the first part of the 20th century these boys were part of an all boys school and so there aren't any girls with them on the island.
*****************S P O I L E R*******************************
It's such a shocking piece of work really with the "little 'un with the mark on his face" disappearing and never reappearing (it's insinuated that he gets burnt alive when they start a forest fire) and then the decapitated pig's head on a stick talking to the schizophrenic Simon. "The Lord of the Flies" is the pig's head's name and translated into Hebrew or something it means Beelzebub (I got that from the Hutchinson Concise Encyclopedic Dictionary)! But it's such a dark disturbing piece that it's brilliant, utterly so because of how real Golding makes it seem. And the ending- phewf!
I liked the way the twins, Sam and Eric, were fused together metaphorically and the boys began calling them Samneric like one person. Not sure what that meant but it was interesting. And then Jack and Roger being the ringleaders for the savages. I forget who was the leader and who was the sort of warrior-assassin. Roger perhaps? Oh yeah, Roger was the bloodthirsty nutcase and Jack was the bad guy of the story as opposed to Ralph being the good guy leader.
What a great story. Well deserved winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature! :banana:
Please put a note to warn others when you are posting 'spoilers'. Some haven't finished reading the book and would like to do so without knowing the details. Thank you!
why would you come to discuss the book if you haven't read it, i thought this was where you came once you'd finished it and wanted to discuss ideas and thoughts about the book :banana:
Some people could comment as they read and knowing the ending beforehand could spoil it for them.
yeah im only on the third chapter or so, yet posted the first comment...
SPOILER ********* second or third chapter, read past htat then go ahead and read this.....
When the Roger character started throwing rocks at the kid on the beach, it freaked me out, just like this guy is missing becuase society taught him to miss, did society teach him to throw anyway, is this just a natural kid thing or is he becomeing something else!!???!?
For me Simon was a metaphor to Jesus when he tries to tell the boys that the beast is within each of them, but Jack and his hunters kill him before he gets a chance to tell them what the beast is. At the end of the novel when Ralph was being hunted by the others and they finally gets help from the naval officer it seemed that the boys wouldn't be able to kill one another any more since they were on the ship. But would another ship kill all of them by the same way Jack and the hunters hunted Ralph? In the end this was a great novel. I was really drawn to Simon because of his advanced perception and how later he was sacrificed despite that he knew he would die.
Just started reading the book. Onto the second chapter yet!
I think mister_noel_y2k is right that the boys are a group of students from a all-boys school (there is a reference to school uniform in the first pages). Having said that, although the absence of the girls is explained in that way, I am at a loss to understand what Golding's original motive was. Maybe as we read on, we will be better informed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
Has anyone else noticed that the first thing the boys do is to get rid of their clothings, the first visible sign of civilisation? An omen for the turn things will take on the island?
I think I saw a documentary on William Golding and it said that while he was writing the novel he was working his day job at a boys' prep school in England. He would set them tasks and then while they worked he would work on his manuscript. They interviewed one of Golding's pupils and he said he and his friends all wondered what it was Mr Golding was working on while they did their sums and he found out later it was "The Lord of the Flies".
As for the clothes thing, yeah it's probably symbolic of the casting off of civilisation and a return to the more primitive ways of our ancestors and that the boys are becoming more savage, less sophisticated but then you forget that these are young boys on a sunny island where it's probably quite warm and clothes would just be uncomfortable. I'm not sure if the island is tropical or where it is geographically but they could just be taking off their uniforms because it's hot and the uniforms are uncomfortable.
And that comment someone made about Simon being a metaphor for Jesus, that was a brilliant insight, I never thought of it that way. As I mentioned before "The Lord of the Flies" is another name for Beelzebub, so when The Lord of the Flies and Simon are having that talk in the wilderness in a pseudo-dreamlike state, it's similar to when the Devil tried tempting Jesus when he was wandering in the desert for 30 days or something. Then Simon rejects The Lord of the Flies and goes in search of his friends and then Simon being sacrificed when he has something really important to say, that they needn't be afraid. Yeah, the Jesus metaphor is really insightful and interesting. :banana:
Someone has asked me why there are no girls. Here is my conjecture. It has been over 40 years since I read the book. I enjoyed it greatly, and tried next to read "The Spire" but at that age could not maintain my interest in "The Spire."
Perhaps "The Lord of the Flies" is all boys because, as I understand it,
in Golding's time, it was popular to have all boys schools.
In America, one may see old school buildings dating from the 1920's,
with an entrance on one side marked "Boys" and around the block, on
the opposite side of the building, and entrance marked "Girls."
Also, I suppose it is more suitable for Golding to have all boys, since it
eliminates the dimension of sexuality. Of course, in theory, there
could be some sexual expression between boys, but the novel seems
devoid of that. Perhaps, the quote below, about not crying for their
mothers, is something more suitable to boys than girls.
I shall try to devote more thought to this question, and post further at
the thread:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ead.php?t=3853
http://www.aresearchguide.com/lord.html
"They cried for their mothers much less often than might have been
expected; they were very brown, and filthily dirty." (from Lord of the
Flies)
In the gripping story a group of small British boys stranded on a desert
island lapse into violence after they have lost all adult guidance.
=============
William Golding's novel, "Rites of Passage" (1980) is completely different from Darkness Visible in style and tone, though many of the underlying themes are similar. A historical novel set in the Napoleonic era, it takes place entirely aboard a superannuated British battleship. The narrator is Edmund Talbot, an ambitious and selfish young nobleman on a voyage to Australia. The crux of the narrative is the death of another passenger, the parson Robert Colley, an unctuous parson who attaches himself to Talbot and becomes the butt of the crew's and captain's vicious jokes. Colley, though, is not all he seems. His letter of religious and amatory confession, discovered by Talbot, shows him to be another Jocelin or Matty, a man living in an intensely spiritual subjective world, who is only dimly aware of the promptings of his latent homosexuality. Colley is attracted to Billy Rogers, a corrupt, lecherous sailor whose name suggests a parody of Melville's saintly nautical innocent, Billy Budd. Eventually Colley has a sexual encounter with Rogers when drunk for the first time in his life. Full of inebriated joy he wanders out onto the deck half naked and urinates in full view of the crew and passengers. Upon recovering he realizes what he has done and seemingly dies of shame, which the ship's captain passes off as a “low fever”. Talbot tries to piece together what has actually happened below decks with Rogers, and never quite succeeds.
It was 40 days Satan tempted Jesus, and thank you for complimenting me. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_noel_y2k
It may be someone inaccurate or misleading to say that Satan tempted Jesus for 40 days. We know that Jesus was in the wilderness for 40 days, and that during that time, Satan tempted Jesus. Was it three temptations? I must re-read. My memory often fails me nowadays.
Nonetheless it was the known time in which Satan tried to tempt Jesus. At this time Jesus was just baptised by John the Baptist. Satan was trying to make Jesus unholy or something....right?
Right! (since the forum software does not permit one word posts, I must embellish and inflate this to: indubitably, without question, most assuradly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, Q.E.D., Amen)
I agree that the boys are from all boys schools (different uniforms and the fact that they did not know each other before the crash suggest more than one school). Having heard that Golding was working at a similar school during the time he was writing the book, I think he perhaps felt more at home concentrating on a group he is familiar with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sitaram
Since the oldest of the boys is 12 (most of them were hardly mature enough for puberty), I am not sure if there would have been any sexual tension as such, had there been girls on the island. Maybe Golding chose such young children so that his message would not get complicated with sex, gender roles and other hazards of maturity;they would not have 'learned' much from their experiences yet; so we cannot blame the society for their doings. It is possible that they are not 'boys' but young humanbeings;gender might be irrelevant to what Golding is trying to say:that under the veneer of civilisation, humanbeings are innately savage, cruel, selfish and even evil at times.
With this fact of Golding only writing of boys on the island, I wonder if he attempted stating anything about international politics, being almost entirely dominated by males (though I know we can only proceed so far with the subject of politics); and, of course, with every political and economical organization, there usually exists a dichotomy, as that between the two groups of boys, thinking of the origin of most wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
In my neighborhood, when I was growing up, sexual activity started in boys around age 10 or 11.
That sounds about right for guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sitaram
Society did not teach him to miss but that throwing stones at the little kid is wrong but due to the primival urge in him, when Roger starts throwing stones, he sort of compromises:he satisfies his urge to throw stones at someone younger than him while still keeping in line with the teachings of the civilised world by not actually hitting him. I think along with Maurice's sand throwning incident, this signals the decay the children are going through. They are now struggling to keep in mind the right and wrongs as they were taught by the society and feeling the desire to give in to their savage desires(which would be unacceptable in a civilised world). Even little Johnny cannot resist the temptation and tortures Percival once he realises he can upset his friend by throwing sand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
I am not sure if they are becoming 'something else' but maybe Golding is trying to say that now away from society, their masks are coming off and they are showing their true colors as humanbeings.
Couple of questions:
Do you think the fact that the the little boy who mentioned the beast for the first time is the first casualty is significant? How about the mark on his face?
Golding seems to be very particular about boys' physical appearances in some incidents. Symbolic?
Yes, the problem of the little boy seems to be interesting.
Remember, when the officer asked Ralph if anyone had died - Ralph said that two (Piggy and Simon most probably) - notice that he didn't actually say anything about the little boy; he forgot. Perhaps it is meant that the little boy is so small, so unnoticable that the big ones do not even notice his death - it seems a bit symbolic to Us - couldn't it be compared to a state where the death of some "little person" isn't actually noticed.
The mark seems a bit grotesque to us. Like - it was a detail that helped us remember a member of the mass. Maybe some other little boys perished in the fire but only his death was noticed for he said he saw the snake and had the mark on his face.
i think it refers again to the religious theme. the little one is marked like cain was marked by god, that is he was condemned to perdition. similarly the little one mentions the beast which could mean the devil and so having mentioned him confirms his fate and is burned alive, the flames symbolic of hell or perhaps the burning of heretics- that is he mentioned the evil and so must burn for it. :banana:
about the boy with the face, not finished book but getting there, i think the mark was to say that they the child is the only one that could have been recognized instantly... he stood out, he and piggy, by him mentioning the beastie puts fear into the hearts of the younger ones knowingly and the older ones try to act like adults and say its not really there. It also goes to show that some things we notice right away, facial features that are outstanding, ways in which to seperate kids and look at who's who...
as for girls and boys, if you place a whole bunch of young children into a room together with similar haircuts you won't know which is female or male.. they all look the same, its when they get older, and by their actions that you begin to learn... in this nature all children could be represented as one gender instead of two and makes since being from an all boy's school.
i tried reading this book just before i went to bed, scared myself silly and ended up reading dante till about four in the morning, the beastie is a scary, especially because you're reading it from the fears of the children and putting yourself in the position, has this happened to anyone else?
It is very clever of Golding to coincide the appearance of the ship, negligence of children to keep the signal fire going and the hunting of the first pig. Poignant chapter (4).
it was, completly caught me by surprise but it kind of started all of these issues between ralph and jack...
SPOILER **** Chapter 9
I can't beleive the killed SImon, I liked Simon, he seeemed the only one iwht half a brain, but why?!?!?! they thought he was the beast, and simon knew, he knew that the beastie was themselves, the kinda comical chat between him and the lord of the flies in the previous chapter made sure the he knew that he was as well as every child there was the beastie, they were afraid of themselves and he new this, new this to the point of being killed... (what kind of fits were he having?) it seems kind of a parrallell of society how the people with the knowledge of whats really oging on get killed before they can experess it, and for expressing it. Its like poeple want to be ignorant rather than living.
Jester, Simon could also be thought as a paralell to Jesus. Look to my first post here.
I wonder about the choir boys... If we look at this book at a religious level, do you think they symbolise 'institutionalised religion'? I agree that Simon could be representing a Jesus-like figure and he was a part of the choir -institution- in the beginning. However, later on, the institution (Church) and Simon (Jesus) are estranged and the choir boys go on terrorising ordinary people and become oppressive, trying to get rid of everyone who stand in their way or disagree with them (like in the Spanish Inquisition). Is Golding showing his disappointment and disapproval of the religious system?
That's a good thought, and it's probably right.
A later thought regarding choir boys... Their attitude towards Piggy who comes to symbolize scientific and logical thought is also interesting. From the very beginning they are prejudiced against him and refuse to listen to what he has to say by mocking and ridiculing him, causing others disregard him as well (again Inquisition). And similarly towards Ralph as well, who is a democratic leader.
spoiler, finish book first
piggy's real name..., I wonder why we never knew it, with everything happening in the world, piggy's aunt might never know, how or why her nephew died? the mere fact that he goes unnamed surprises me, he doesn't even name himself, or try to say that he has antoehr name...
Piggy seems to me to be that thing inside that we all hate, that thing that takes away our confidence but gives us strength as well... piggy is us, each of the boys, he represents something that the boys recognize and try to destroy becuase they cannot recognize weakness in themselves. (am i making any sense?)
Ralph might have only mentioned two deaths becuase to him thats how many there were, simon and piggy's deaths were the only ones that matter, not all the boys came out of the trees, jack nor roger did, and they didn't name names so i don't know who did come out but it seems that the little uns did nothing to spark an interest in ralph and niether did any of the big uns despite the fact that they were trying to kill him, they just lost hte right to be acknowledged in death...
those choir kids are telling me that by giving one child, one single child power over the others in a nondemocratic matter we are seeting that child up for a fall... the discipline and the orders by jack to the choir are representative of our society with one leader ruling everything and individualality slowling falling away, jack has been replaced instead of a dictator but by media, peers and addictive substances that have control, and everyone, all of us are like that choir following every footstep or order that he makes.
Those who have participated in LOTF discussions, if you would like to join the Live Chat on MSN, please send your email addresses (preferably a hotmail one) to me via Forum PM so that we can arrange a date and time (sometime during the last week of the February). Thank you!
I wonder if there's a link between Piggy and The Lord of the Flies which was a pig's head. :banana:
Spoiler-
i think the reason that Ralph doesn't mention the little un that died is because Simon and Piggy stick out in his mind b/c they were murdered. which all goes with the fact that when they got on the island they were innocent childern but no longer.
I like the fact that Sam and Eric is made into one. I think Golding did this b/c they were always together, did everything as one. I can only think of one time they acted seperate and that was when they were guarding the fort and Ralph approached them. One immediately told him to leave while the other was more helpful, and one eventually told Jack where Ralph was hiding.
I was relieved in the end when the officer came to rescue them, but i find it ironic that it was the fire that was meant to kill or find ralph that was seen from the sea. I mean the whole book he's fighting to keep a fire going and in the end he's fighting for his life not the fire.
My book has notes at the back that is someone discussing what they believe Golding was thinking i guess. Anyway the scene where they kill the pig that gets its head cut off is implied to be sexual (when Roger sticks the pig in the rectum).
I also find it ironic that the rescue comes from an officer, soldier;people who fight professionally. It is not religion, politics or science which comes to their rescue.
That is an interesting thought, noel. Reminded me something I read about Piggy's death:Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_noel_y2k
However, I am not sure if (or what kind) Golding was trying to establish a connection between Piggy and the pig's head as Lord of the Flies.Quote:
Roger, the character least able to understand the civilizing impulse, crushes the conch shell as he looses the boulder and kills Piggy, the character least able to understand the savage impulse. As we see in the next chapter, Ralph, the boy most closely associated with civilization and order, destroys the Lord of the Flies, the governing totem of the dark impulses within each individual.
I think the pig's head in relation to Piggy would probably be that Piggy's influence was dying and that with time Piggy would end up with his influence.
Cab you elaborate on this please, Bong? I am not sure I am following you. Thanks :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bongitybongbong
With every successful pig hunt Piggy's influence was weakened, but the pig head represented the end of Piggy's influence on the other boys except Ralph.
Unless the pighunts were symbolic foreshadowing of piggy's demise?
I thought that's what I wrote...here. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me