February '05 Book: Lord of the Flies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sitaram

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.

"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)

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

Since the oldest of the boys is 12 (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.

In my neighborhood, when I was growing up, sexual activity started in boys around age 10 or 11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sitaram

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 Jester

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!!???!?

---

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.
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.