February '05 Book: Lord of the Flies

[Jay]

#######possible spoiler####### (if there's still anyone who hasn't finished it)

I wonder how Simon knew Ralph was going to get off the island, can't remember what exactly he said but he stressed that Ralph was going to be saved. Could he know he wasn't going to make it?
I still have to finish Flies but I'm sure Simon's to be killed.

[papayahed]

The book was kind of depressing.

[mono]

The book was kind of depressing.

I agree of it being very depressing, papayahed. Golding certainly makes obvious the darkest side of human nature, especially so early of age, considering most characters had barely reached their teenage years. ***SPOILER*** After the arrival of the ship on the island, I think that the serious hope of being saved came true also saved the stranded young boys from the danger of their own instincts, bringing them back, in turn, to a structural-functionalist ideal of society.

[Scheherazade]

I first read TLOF when I was 20 ... Now after reading it for the
second time I realise that I did not appreciate it truly then

How do we change through life, such that we had something when
young, and enjoy it when older, or the converse, we love a book in our
youth and tire of it in later years?

Corollary: Did you ever have SUCH a wonderful experience with a
book that you are afraid to re-read it, for fear that the second time will
be disappointing?

We always seek to recreate initial experiences.... but "you cant go
home again"

We can never experience again the thrill of first love, first
intoxication,.... first learning experience/discovery/insight

Age and experience brings with it so much finer focus

Locke's notion of human nature, as capable of good and evil, and
self-government, versus Hobbes notion that human nature is basically
brutish...

Why are all the characters young boys? Why no females?

Are children cruel by nature?

Can a person have absolutely no conscience?

The West tends to see infancy as innocence, sinless.... (look at Limbo
in Dante for unbaptized infants).... and the age of reason and
understanding brings the fallen nature... and sin, culpability,
accountability.

Are we all selfish and pleasure seeking initially?

I read something fascinating recently, about particles and quantum,...
which states that each individual particle is totally free, random.... just
like the concept of natural man for Locke and Hobbes.... BUT... then
entire mass of all particles (the society) is bound by statistical laws...
I thought it an interesting analogy

The bigger a group of people is the more predictable it is

With a bigger group it is also easier to get into 'mass psychology'?

Like it happened on the night Simon got killed

Even Ralph and Piggy...they longed to be the members of some group
too

From a group, from society.... factors absent when we are in solitude

I think when in a group it is easier to get rid of the limitations

Less responsibility on individual basis

Humans long for communication

It is a basic need

A large city provides anonymity for us to act out... but in a small
community, we are known, more visible, more accountable

The violence of a mob... when most of those individuals would not be
so aggressive if alone

Small societies actualy tend to work better than big ones

So, we would do things we wouldnt do normally to be a part of a
group?

The work of people like Rupert Sheldrake, morphic resonance... about
that genius monkey who realized that he could WASH the sweet
potatoes and get more food more quickly... and that potato washing
technology quickly spread to other monkey clans

I can believe peer pressure, but only until a certain point, but then of
course I'm proven wrong by Hitler

I am think of Goldhag's book "Hitlers Willing Assassins"

I still cannot get over the fact that Ralph and Piggy took part in
Simon's killing

Instincts stronger than intellect

I couldn't agree more. In a life or death situation, especially in people
of younger ages, instincts most definitely may dominate.

It was their instinct which took them there initially

The herd instinct and physical needs to have meat

Interesting.... intellect vs instincts..... the human being is the only
creature which can elect , of free will, to abstain from mating,
reproduction,.... to become celibate, ascetical

I am thinking of Maslow's pyramid/hierarchy of human needs
Humans have abstract thinking

At the bottom, air, water... at the top.... self realization/transcendence

First the physical needs

when at the top of the pyramid/hierarchy, one may even reliquish
ones life willingly

unless physical needs are fulfilled, morals can be a luxury

but.... towards the top of pyramid, you have your Gandhis fasting to
the point of near death....

I think the instinctive behavior, seen by others, it becomes easier for
them to do it, much like Bok's idea of "spread and abuse."

Once more people succumb to lower levels of Maslow's pyramid,
others also.

An author builds a world and people with unique laws, and then the
laws play out to a logical conclusion.... Ayn Rand does the same
thing in Atlas Shrugged.... but the question is.. how realistic the that
fictive world, how does it compare to real world in different historical
periods

We have seen actual instances of "feral" children.... brought back to
society.... who never learn speech.... who attempt to each chickens
raw...

I think Golding's logic seems to follow the psychological examples...

feral children being an EXTREME real life example of the phenomenon
which Golding describes...

superego, ego and back to ID

And the "spread and abuse" of the id. and the needs pyramid

Sartre said, "Hell is other people"

but maybe 'hell' is within us

perhaps both heaven and hell is within

we all have urges and such which we keep under control

agriculture implies POSTPONEMENT of immediate gratification for the
sake of some FUTURE benefit (such as a harvest)...
hunter/gatherer cultures have little postponement of gratification
(self-control)

Milton wrote: "The mind is its own place, and in itself creates / a
heaven of hell, a hell of heaven."

In the Zoroastrian Avesta scriptures, in their language (circa 2000
bc)... the word for CIVILIZATION, society.... is a word which means
"those who tend flocks"

England is that famous "nation of shopkeepers" and suddenly the
boys are thrust into a hunter/foodgathering environment

without the wisdom of how to live the hunter/gatherer way

This makes me wonder which is more complex: "civilized"society or a
hunter-gatherer society.

Do you think if they were better prepared for hunting etc, the result
would have been different?

but.... obvioulsy.... to plant a tree which will take 50 years to mature
and bear fruit.... is to be altruistic, to provide for the next generation...
there is a famous passage in Talmud about planting such a tree
imagine if hunters/gatherers had lived as the boys lived
they wouldn't have lasted

humans would be an exctinct species

we are weak creatures as individuals, and our survival depends on our
unique ability to cooperate and organize

even the most primitive tribes have an 'order'
they had probably "tribe laws"
totems and taboos

small societies actually work better than the big ones
they tend to work

everyone knows everyones face and so on
so being 'primitive' does not necessarily mean being devoid of
superego and ego

True, the needs of a society work well with fewer individuals - a
structural-functionlist-like society.

there is an interesting passage in Carl Jung's autobiographical
"Memories, Dreams Reflections" which describes the reaction of a
tribe of south american natives to the European.... really quite
revealing....where the native says, "what is it that you europeans
want, always going about with your lean and hungry look.... never
content to sit as we do and simply be" (paraphrasing from memory)

perhaps the most savage beast of all is the civilized person placed
suddenly in a jungle

or, suddenly removed from the constraints of society and law

[Scheherazade]

I remember two incidents here in the UK both involving children
was it the one with the 2 ten year olds? in one, two little boys aged

10 and 9 I think, kidnapped a 3 year old from a shopping centre, took
him out of the city and killed him by stoning
and another one, a little girl of 10 killed another boy by strangling
no explanation as to why
of course the media blamed the families

anarchy is only fueled by the repression of an order/regime/rule,....
natural man knows no similar urge to rebel and be free, i suspect
actually, if i remember correctly, anarchy actually doesn't mean total
chaos
it means that people just don't need laws

Hobbes wrote in page one of Leviathan "If men were angels, there
would be no need for government"

but... hmmm.... look at all the violence we see billed as
entertainment..... we all know 10,001 ways to murder, torture, kill,
mame,

gladiators

but look at the play of young animals
they are not very tender either

that reminds me
we werent very nice to animals when we were children

the kitten must be taught to kill prey by the mother...

a cat raised by humans does not quite understand the proper way to
handle a mouse

I think we go through periods of wrecklessness in various arenas,
sexuality, violence, overindulgence.... then, we suffer the
consequences or see the suffering we cause,.... and finally we repent
and reform...that is, IF we repent

remember "Clockwork orange"?

I have heard that cruelity to animals in childhood is a sign of trouble in
adulthood. I'm assuming they mean intentionally cruelity that goes beyond
normal childhood curiosity

Gandhi said, "You may judge a culture by how they treat their
animals"

My one college school mate became a physician... and recently told
me that he has never ever seen the truly sadistic and inhuman
pathological criminal reform in any way..... but he has seen others,
who hit rock bottom with alcoholism, or some other fault, reform and
become model people

what is interesting in Orange is that, the society programmed him to
be violent in another way or gave him license

hmm.... i am suddenly thinking about how Jung, and Joseph Campbell
speak of primitive societies in which VIOLENCE becomes ritualized....

I wonder if ritual is a human way to sublimate, control instinctual
violence

do you think that violence is need in society as an outlet?

Today sports being our violent outlet?

Well... look at all the violence in our entertainment.... and... also in our
religions.... (the crucifixion for one obvious example), and i suppose
the throwing of stones at satan during the Hajj in Mecca
or, the cult of animal sacrifice in so many religions

sometimes, we must FEEL something, experience something, suffer
something,... in order to be convinced, to believe.... look at the
Australian Aboriginal ritual of Walk-about

or an initiation for the adolescent...like circumcision

I read an article about humans basic two psychological needs
love and agression

isn't everything else just shades of those 2 anyways?

perhaps, two sides of the same coin sex and violence

I am thinking of the words in the old testament "I am a JEALOUS God"

jealosy is a combination of love and hate

The Old Testament is full of violence

so, if the boys on the island would have been hugged do you think it
would have been more civilized?

but actually, remember when Ralph dreamt about his home?
and his mother and father and comfort
not necessarily before the island, but while on the island

I do not understand - Ralph dreamt about home when he was on the
island ... he must have missed it heavily

maybe that is why Golding did not involve girls
girls would be holding hands and hugging each other maybe

probably, of course girls can be cruel too

or.... sexuality might enter into it.... and most schools then were all
boys or all girls

so he didn't have material about girls?

well, err... there is also some possible question about Goldings
"orientation"

it probably would have opened up a whole other can of worms

a brand new look at the book

it probably would have been very difficult to write from the point of
view of a 12 year old girl

it is very hard to write from the point of view of the opposite sex

well, also, in the times that he wrote,.... it would not be politically
correct to write about children and sexuality....

I still would like to believe that he just took boys of that age as 'mini
human beings' to explore his theories

the book seems devoid of any kind of sexuality,... or does my memory
fail me?

Before they learnt the social codes and before the order and law
instilled in them

See, I contend they new the social codes perhaps not fully instilled
but they had a grasp

Murder is taboo, and homosexuality is taboo.... Golding
explores the concept of murder,.... but not of homosexuality

Roger killing the pig by stabbing its...rectum is a sexual symbol

Golding would have to know that it would be difficult to get published
if there was an overt sexuality....

well, yes.... the idea of skewering an animal in that fashion,...
so he had to write about pig sexcuality

precisely, Golding had to be politically correct

Yes, and for boys of 5-12 sexuality is not a great concern maybe?

Most people lie a lot about their own childhood, and their sexual life
as adults

I mean, they lie by not admitting all the nasty stuff they really did... i
dont mean they lie by bragging about exploits

Who would like to admit having murderous thoughts about their boss
etc?

Perhaps it is through fiction that we vicariously live out the violence
and sexuality of our fantasy world

Well, sex would have made the situation more complicated
and he had a message to give so he concentrated on that

He touched the topic of sex in his other novels
maybe he didn't write about it because it was suppossed to be taboo
and not discussed which could have lead to alienation from the group
also

You know, I will tell you something interesting, about artistic
distortion, to create the illusion of reality the Parthenon is built with a
CURVE, and not straight, because IF it were geometrically straight,
then it would appear curved to our spherical retina
we curve something to achieve the artistic illusion of perfection.....
in literature, we distort something, in an attempt to bring out what we
are after

if you had said to another boy that you loved him, you'd have been
excommunicated at the moment

Think of Thomas Mann "Death in Venice", they say he married from a
sense of duty, but sometimes wept hysterically because he was living
a lie

you think if he were to write that book today, there would be
sexual elements in it?

Quite possibly, given todays greater freedom. A writer is a child of his time
you cannot rip one out of it

If he had grown up on some other time, he'd have been a different
person

If he had grown up on some other time he might not have written it

Jack hesitates the first time he has a chance to kill a pig, but vows the
next time he shall not hesitate.... killing is a learned behavior...

Sexuality is also a learning process... we are shy at first.... hesitant...
uncertain

Perhaps killing in this book is some metaphor, euphemism for
sexuality...

The message of the book is deeper and more universal than
seuxuality

No matter how civilized people think they are, they're still animals if
taken out of civilization?

Civilization is only skin deep. Scratch it, you will get the raw selves again

I'm not buying only because they were children on the island and not
adults

It is easier for children to give up their semi learned/half baked
civilization?

Remember that plane crash ? the survivors ate the dead bodies of
fellow travellers?

right but they didn't kill each other for food

I am always impressed by how infants can give love to anyone,
regardless of color, gender, physical beauty
but an older child is more zenophobic and biggoted

When cornered, we dont hesitate to regress to our savage self

Maybe as kids they were able to devolve to animals?

But infants are very selfish as well. They dont want to wait for food
They dont care if mommy didnt sleep all night

Well, a cat or dog does not empathize with us... but the still give a
form of unconditional love

Would they still if we didnt feed them?


This raises in my mind the issue or question of whether or not it
conceivable for there to be a totally self-less love/sacrifice which is
not quid-pro-quo, something in exchange for something....

I doubt if there is ANY selfless deed

I am certain there are mothers, whose children are incapable of doing
anything in return (for example, retarded chldren)... yet the mothers
love and sacrifice for them

But then the mother gains joy from seeing the child happy. you get self satisfaction



Spark Notes says the conch shell represents law and order....
(interestingly in India, in scriptures, virtuous heros are always
trumpeting on conch shell)....

[Scheherazade]

I have a footnote in a philosophy book, "Every man is Napoleon to his
dog. Hence the popularity of dogs"

Plato imagines a selfless act, in the Republic, when the one who frees
himself from the bonds of the cave and the shadows of illusion,
returns to the cave to free the others...

Perhaps compassion is a cultural thing, something learned, like a
tradition...

Although it changes from one person to the next, it is a cultural thing
as well

Example? is one culture more compassionate then another?

Think of the Buddhist vow of the Bodhisattva, very similar to Plato's
cave analogy,... a vow never to enter the liberation of Nirvana, but to
intentionally retain some faults, to be reborn again and again into the
world, until all suffering beings are liberated

Well, look at Gandhi's whole thing, about sacrificing himself for the
sake of others, and his love for the Beatititudes (sermon on Mount),
yet he personally rejected Christianity as a religion for himself

But to deny yourself nirvana for the sake of all the other beings
seems a little steep.

For Goldings scenario to reach the ultimate extreme of savagery,
there must be ZERO compassion and concern for others, and TOTAL
ABSOLUTE concern for the self

During World War II, with the blitz bombings of Britain, Britain made
plans for local underground resistance in even of invasion. Each town
police constable was asked to provide names of candidates... each
candidate was given a sealed envelope of instructions, to be opened
only in event of invasion.... after the war, some people opened their
envelope, and the first instruction was to KILL THE the constable...
since he knew the identity of the resistance squad... so they asked
one old man if he would have killed the constable... and he said WHY
YES of course,.... my patriotic duty... well, we do not think of British as
eager to do such a thing

so we all kind of agree it is a cultural thing

in Goldings book, we are looking at a theoretical spectrum... at one
end, beelzebulb, satan, absolute savage depravity.... and the other
end, culture, morality, empathy for others, altruism
might not charity be a society forced thing? I mean... could it be that
people could feel the need to donate from other reasons than
compassion?

I wonder what they were think the instant they knew they were
rescued?

they realised the situation they were in and became 'boys' again crying etc... relief

can they really be boys again or are they changed in some way?
Ralph realises that he is changed forever NOW that he has lost his
innocence which will never to come back

In so many words it says he is crying for his lost innocence

In a bizarre way its a "coming of age" book

lost innocence, lost youth, lost virginity, lost purity

gain of maturity demands sacrifice of loss of innocence...

we dont have to take a walk on the darkside to be mature?

one may write about anything, but if it is not from experience it will
probably be lousy

where does the imagination come into play?

Golding taught in boys schools, and lived through WWII

Orwell didnt live in a Big Brother age

Imagination comes into play, but in the context of what we know....
I'm thinking all you need is to have felt the emotions your writing
about, everything else can be faked.

Well, perhaps he studied the development of communism... and
totalitarian regimes...

Hemingway went to Spain, in civil war, and wrote for whom bell tolls

Orwell didnt live in a communist society and surely nothing like
1984

Fitzgerald lived the life he wrote about...

What about Star Wars? Jules Verne

Well,.... then perhaps.... those who write all write from a life
experience, if only in the sense that they have lived a life which drives

them to such a unique form of introspection

perhaps empathy is needed in good writing, the quality to feel
someone elses' situation

Faulkner said, "I write about the South because it is all I know, and
there is not time and energy to live this life, AND write, AND learn
something other than the South

Faulkner had to "punch" up his experiences though, well probably

Christie is not a murderer nor King is a psycho

Jane Austin didnt write about jungles, she wrote about sitting rooms,
and what she knew

Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) was actually on a Mississippi riverboat

Verne was not under the sea nor on the moon

Henri Remarquez actually fought in World War I

Herman Wouk wasn't a navey admiral during WWII

then again, how great is Wouk, in the scheme of things...not that he is shabby, i wouldnt mind being Wouk

and there are those who write historical novels....

fantasy/scifi

Ayn Rand wasn't a male archtect

I think that Sinclair Lewis truly picked topics that he had experienced
something about

A young teenaged forum member sent me his novel, and I was quite
impressed,... and he said... oh,... its not that good, its immature.... but
I said, you are a teenager writing about what you know first hand.


I just think that you don't need the experience to write about it.

Perhaps it helps to make it more realistic

It is one thing to say that it is wise to write about the culture and the
religion and the age bracket and the society we have experienced...
and it is quite another to assert that a male may not write about
childbirth, or a woman who has never had a child...

I think if one wants to write, it just makes good sense to stick to what
you know.... your country your times your culture....

Golding wasn't a 12 year old boy stuck on an island

Obviously, scifi and fantasy writers are not experiencing dragons and
martians...

But... I am willing to bet that someone like Ursula Leguin is great
because she explores WHAT SHE PERSONALLY knows within the
vehicle of fantasy and sci fi

thats what I'm saying- you don't need to personally experience
something but have the abiltiy to empathize with that situation...

I am not saying that one cannot write about what one has never
experienced, what is totally alien... i am just saying that it has less
chance of being significant

Take a look at successful writers, whose first book comes from the
heart... and then the make the mistake of trying for a second or third
book, when it just isnt there...

There are some excellent works based on experience but also some
truly based on imagination

Persig's Lila is probably a good example of a sequel which is a
mistake,.... "Zen and the Art of motorcycle maintenance" was great,
but he just didnt have a second book like that in him

Maybe those who soley rely on experience are not able to produce
second/thrid works

Whereas those who use their imagination can?

Probably Harper Lee was wise not to write another book

Out society has an unfortunate tendency to say "what have you done
lately" and give people a feeling of inadequacy if they do not
constantly produce...

They are considering Dylan Thomas for a Nobel on some of his
amazing song lyrics from the 60's.... and they interviewed him and
asked him if he could write the same great stuff today...
and he said NO, flat out.... he couldnt do again what he did then
the times are different, social relevance is different, and, Dylan is
different...

I could not write the same poetry now that I did as a teenager....
as a teenager, I could not write the things I write now on religion and
philosophy

To really write about something well, one needs to be around the
experience, ones own or others... but the converse, to have some
incredible experience, does not mean that one will write about it,
unless one has the gift and inclinatiion

Experience is a good starting point but I personally think it is not the essential ingredient

Imagination in my opinion precedes experience

And imagination creates things which cannot even possibly exist... like
the amazing poetry of Wallace Stevens...

Wallace Stevens was not a Rimbaud and not a Baudelaire, and he had
the wisdom to stick with his own voice....

Imagination takes you a lot more place then experience, on some
levels you still need experience

For me Rimbaud was really into what he was and did, his life..... and
Wallace Stevens stuck with what he knew.... even though it was all
pure fantasy...

I am trying to bend and change myself, because I have this obsession
with heavy laden symbolism, like pynchon, and kundera,... and i am
making a real effort to get out of my rut,.... read other things... look at
what other people say, other tastes... I may even read Little Women

I want to understand literature and readers in its totality, and not just
from my own prejudices

I have a hard time getting into symbolism and the like

I have read Christie, cheap paperback.. even Barbara Cartland

If everyone is reading certain things.... and some author enjoys great
popularity, then it is good to study it and understand why
he/she is so wildly popluar

I did watch the movie Shawshank Redemption, which is simply
awesome... to come up with a story like that, forget symbolism....or
the Green Mile

Perhaps such an author is torn between books that pay the bills, and
the books they REALLY want to write it is conceivable
imagine a story about an author who is torn between those two
motivations

I am glad that the forum is here to push me to do something that is

I need something to force me towards variety...
I need something to shake up my values, make me question


I would like to thank Sitaram for providing the summary. My computer failed to save it for some reason.

[Scheherazade]

What is your final verdict on TLOF? Please join our poll! (scroll up! )

[Sitaram]

LOTF is one of those books that is now required reading (at least it was in the 1960s) as a book that will make young people better people. Books which improve or books which are very historic are required reading. My 88 year old father was required to read Red Badge of Courage (Stephen Crane) in the 1930s. I had to read it in the 1960s. My stepson had to read it in the 1990s. It is historic (Civil War) and it teaches us that war is evil. Nowadays, "Man's Search for Meaning" (Viktor Frankl) is required, as it teaches the evils of the Holocaust, and also teaches how to find inner strength in the face of difficulties and meaning in suffering. "The Jungle" (Upton Sinclair) taught the evils of and industrial society which exploits poor immigrant workers.

LOTF definitely earns a place in the posterity of required reading. It make us ask ourselves "What would I really do if I were totally free and there were no law (the natural man)?"

[mono]

I had to read Golding's Lord of the Flies in high school, roughly around the same time as J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye, then we compared the two, which had relatively similar qualities. Reading it the second time seemed even more satisfying, I thought, and I would never regret it.

[frozenlight]

first of all, hello everybody... the way i came across this forum was googling for lord of the flies that i read about a week ago and that still haunts me (and being haunted by a book hasn't happened to me for quite a long time).
i won't write whole pages about what genius interpretation i may give to the many simbols i came across. i love the fact that the strong, dark statement about the real nature of human beings, in essence dominated by basic instincts that are only kept under control by the influence of society, is conveyed with the help of what seems to be, at first sight, just another kids adventure book (my mother actually made fun of me when she heard i was reading about some boys playing on a desert island). and another thing: it's damn well written. every single phrase has a purpose, every gesture has a meaning, while descriptive passages combine "fine writing" with deeply striking images (like in the scene when simon's dead body is dragged away at sea).
i'm just a little sorry that i saw the movie about 5 years ago before reading the book, but it almost didn't spoil the pleasure of reading it. great piece of writing that i strongly recommend.

[Scheherazade]

Yay! I have finally found a copy of TLOF video;will be watching it tomorrow hopefully. It is a 1990 version. Hope a good one. Anyone seen it?

[Scheherazade]

I have finally watched the movie:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100054/
What a disappointment it was! The characters hardly seem right, there are unexplained changes to the text and the message is hardly clear. American children from a military school are stranded on an island with a sick and delirious Captain (adult). It takes place in present time. The children swear and use slang far too much (full of f- and sh- and whatnot).
No KitKats for this movie at all!

[frozenlight]

heh... didn't even know this version existed anyway, what i saw is a 1963(?) film by mel brooks. i couldn't write a proper review right now, since this happened about 5 years ago (and, by the way, i was in 6th grade), but i remember bering quite impressed at the time.

[Jay]

Mel Brooks? hehe, Scher might not like that version either, hehe. Though Mel's movies are fun

[GangstaConnie]

Well, in regards to the sexuality in the book... the only real sexual expression is sort of hidden. It lies in the murder of the sow. Reread that part... I believe it's in chapter 8. In essence, the boys rape her without actually raping her.


And Simon is epileptic, but he isn't truly hallucinating when he has the conversation with the Lord of the Flies. What he does is projection... he gives the part of himself that is discouraging and doubtful to the pig's head and embodies the confident, strong part of himself. This part in the book is the real battle between good and evil, and the good prevails, as when Simon awakes from his ensuing seizure, he no longer hears the voice of the Lord of the Flies, implying that the good did win.