Printable View
Thinking about the characters who died on the island... The little boy who had a mark on his face, Simon who suffers from seizures/faints (epilepsy?) and Piggy, who suffers from asthma. All physical problems... Is Golding trying to say something to us? Survival of the fittest?
Another question springs to mind: Could Simon's loss of consciousness at times account for his 'dialogue' with Lord of the Flies?
i think that you are right scheherazade. he was either unconscious or hallucinating. i had never really thought about the fact the ones that died had some impairment of some kind, but i would agree with you there too
It may be survival of the most savage which seems to coincide with survival of the fittest or maybe its more like survival of the strongest rather than fittest because in all honesty ralph was fit, one of the fittest, but not the mentally or physical strongest. Reminds me of hearing about the nazis killin gof deformed children at birth... the youn un and simon probably would have been killed at birth havign them be ailed as they are, this book was written in 1954 ten years after the nazis, it would still be a major influence in most poeples lives.
I think that was a common practise in those days although few nations would care to admit it today. I remember reading an article in TIME magazine couple of years ago that in Switzerland, they prevented mentally handicapped people from conceiving through various methods. And even used them for some medical tests.
I think the term 'fit' does not only encompass physical fitness but also the quality of being able to fit in, adapt to environment. In that sense, Ralph was not able to fit in probably because he did not want to let his civilized self go.
I wondered why it is Piggy who helps the little ones to speak up in meetings whereas it is Simon who actually who helps them out in daily life?
#######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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
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
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)....
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.
What is your final verdict on TLOF? Please join our poll! (scroll up! ;) )
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)?"
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.
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.
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?
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! :(
heh... didn't even know this version existed :D 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.
Mel Brooks? hehe, Scher might not like that version either, hehe. Though Mel's movies are fun :D
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.
Oh yes, also...
to understand the lack of girls, you have to understand the lead-up to the book. It takes place during the bombings of England. Historically, during this time, boys that attended private schools (known as public schools in England.. weird, I know) were flown out of the country to avoid the dangers of remaining in the country. And yes, those schools were all-boy schools. Ironic, though, isn't it? That when they were flown out of the country it was to protect them? And look what happens...
------------SPOILERS-------------------------------------
As many people seem to be mentioning girls in lord of the flies there is a book called "be nice" by Anabel donald which looks at what would happen if girls were shipwrecked on an island. There is also a very good television series called "uninhabited planet survive" or "mujiin wakusei survive" which also looks at human surval away from civilisation.
By the way does anyone else think it is strange that the boys are "saved" by the naval officer, but surely the society they are returning to is in ruins, possibly a worse state then the island due to the war? and the destruction of the atom bomb. I don't think they are really escaping human violence, but rather moving on to a more adult form of violence and destruction.
I definately agree that Simon is most likely a metaphor for Jesus as when he dies he is surrounded by glwing creatures that make a halo.
Is it symbollic that Piggy dies as the conch shatters, the conch was the first thing that brought the boys together and now lies in pieces parallel to their civilisation? Also surely the conch is a symboll of democracy and order, and Piggy seems to me to symbollise logic and intelligence, is it therefore a vital aspect of the plot that these things vanish together?
Hi!
I have a question about Lord of the flies context...
I don't know much about Bible context of this novel.
I know that Simon can be compared to Jesus, or Peter Simon, but why?
Please, help me because I need those information to write an essay...
Thank you :)
For example: Sparknotes
Try to google as well.
It was very depressing but it is one of the best books, I have ever read in my life.
I read it very quickly because I just couldn't find a spot to leave off at. It was scary to me the whole way through, having a son and working with school age kids, it was all just a bit too vivid for me to picture.
I am glad I read it, it was one of those books mentioned all the time that I had never gotten around to reading till this summer.
I love the novel, it's great! I read it twice now, it's very ashtonishing of what the boys can do and how they became savages. It describes very much of the human mind. And personally as a girl, I really liked the book, although i am not sure if the other girls will share the same thoughts that i do. The novel was very enjoyable and interesting..
Simon does have a symbolic function but in the simplest sense we can see him as a character whose behaviour highlights the limitations of the other boys.Quote:
Originally Posted by pauline.m
He provides a great contrast with Piggy who complains endlessly about his asthma and is always full of self-pity. Simon shows great eagerness to accompany Ralph and Jack on their survey of the island and his face glows when they become excited and have fun together. Open with his affections, he strokes Ralph’s arm shyly in a way that would perhaps embarrass the rest.
Simon is the only boy who is totally unselfish in his aims. The other main characters, Ralph, Jack and Piggy, are all intent, in their various ways, on establishing their dominance over the group. As a rift begins to grow between Ralph and Jack, the latter going hunting while most of the other boys bathe and play, it is Simon who helps Ralph with the shelters and also encourages him to assert himself for the common good. Simon is intuitive and very early has premonitions of things going wrong. When there is some discussion about the fears of the littluns, it is he who speaks of the island not being a good place and the other boys are astonished as they look at his serious face. He also mentions the “snake-thing”, something which everyone else is too nervous to do. Ralph feels that the younger boy’s remarks are thought-provoking and realises that Simon has given voice to feelings which he himself could not express. Even so, Ralph is unable really to understand Simon and speaks of him to Jack as “queer” and “funny”. Ralph also mistakes the brilliance of Simon’s eyes for mischief, not appreciating that it denotes his spiritual and visionary capacity.
Simon always has time for the littluns, picking fruit for them when they cannot reach it, and giving them the choicest. In contrast, most of the others either leave these young children to their own devices or tease them malevolently as Roger does when he kicks over their sand-castles or throws stones at Henry. Jack finds it amusing to suggest using a littlun as a “pretend” pig, and even Ralph, when he thinks that the beast is attacking in the night, hopes that it may prefer littluns.
Both Simon and Jack are fond of going alone into the jungle but, whereas Jack is preoccupied with hunting pigs and finds the forest “uncommunicative”, Simon goes to a quiet spot where he listens to the sounds of the island. He sits surrounded by “dark aromatic bushes” and, as the light fades, he sees the candle-buds open, “their wide, white flowers glimmering under the light”. These are the flowers which Jack had once slashed with his knife because they were useless as food and, as Simon partakes of a spiritual, religious experience in communion with nature, these “animal” interests of Jack and even the practical concerns of Ralph and Piggy seem almost trivial. Ralph has a desire for order and Piggy has knowledge but, without Simon’s spirituality, they are incomplete as persons.
lots of symbolism. i had to write a paper about it and i cant fit all of the symbols into my essay!
-pink symolizes innocence: golding starts the book calling EVERYTHING pink: the boys' thumbs, thighs, skin, the trees, the granite. as the book progresses, the color scheme tilts more towards brown (symbolizing LOSS of innocence). the longer the boys are on the island, the browner they become [aside from the all-holy simon, who is curiously refered to as 'tan' while the other boys are always called brown] In reference to hunting, jack says "They don't smell me. They see me, I think. Something pink, under the trees"
Also, the conch (representing, obviously, order and law) is always described as pink, but later in the book, golding describes how the pink fades to white(loss of innocence). before they set foot on it, castle is refered to as pink. later it is described as red, several times.
Piggy represents conscious and morality, or "the right thing".
piggy's specs represent ration, knowledge, and sensibility
"He wiped his glasses and adjusted them on his button nose. The frame had made a deep, PINK "V" on the bridge."
[rationing, knowledge, and sensibility lead to good morals, which gives people innocence]
-simon loves the little ones, just like jesus is known to have loved the children.
-if you remember in the bible, satan uses hunger, fear, and lonliness to try and tempt jesus into being "evil" in the desert. In golding's novel, the lord of the flies tempts simon and the boys on the "good side" in three ways also: man-hunts, war paint, and tribal dances.
-read some of luke in the bible, approximitley luke 22:15-30... it gives a religious take on the leading relationship of ralph and jack.
-the ocean and sea represent some sort of intangible area of "goodness". Both Simon and Piggy (the two characters other than ralph that were resistant to evil) are washed away into the sea after their deaths. Hope comes and goes in the form of ships in the ocean.
one thing, though, I can't figure out for the life of me. I KNOW the color green represents something by the way golding goes out of his way to include it in his descriptions. but what???
great book...:)... a shocking story of a conflict between the civilizing and the barbarian instinct that exists in all human beings...when you start reading it, you imagine this perfect Utopia, a magical Never-Never Land to dispose of it as you wish....but i think none of us could have imagined what was going to happen in the end...a great book that keeps your attention till the very last moment...
- - - - - - - - IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK, DON'T BOTHER READING THIS POST - - - - - - - -
Even though there is an absence of females in this book, that doesn't mean there is an absence of feminism. There is one character in particular that is the "female". He helps the littluns, is "weak", and relys on others. _____ (of course) is the mother!
Also, "ummyeah"s post is fairly accurate, although there is something I'd like to add to his conch shell with changing color. The pink sybolizes innocence, and as the story goes on, and as Jack takes over, the conch turns a whiteish color, and eventually breaks as Piggy dies. That scene is the final straw, when the conch breaks and Piggy dies is final "this is it" there is nothing to save them, its no-holds-bars after their innocence is gone and the evil inside each of them final takes over.
Also, the big fire on the mountain represents a sort of hearth and unity.
And the Naval officer at the end. It's Goldings way of saying "Yea? Guess what? A guy who is paid to kill people and who job it is to kill people ultimately saves Ralphs life." Ironic, no?
Overall, the book was good. The symbols were great, although Goldings writing style drove me nuts, it seemed like he had like 3 paragraphs of just describing the island, and 3 paragraphs of dialogue each chapter instead of intertwining them together, ya know?
We read this in our 10th grade English Honors class.
i watched a documentary a while back called "boys alone" or something to that effect which was basically acting out Lord of the Flies, but in a house. It was really interesting how the group dynamic evolved, there was the typical quiet, introverted one, the loud leader type, the pacifier, etc. There was actually a point where the camera men had to intervene because the boys started poking this hedgehog with a stick and it was cruelty to animals blah blah blah (rather reminiscent of jack and his tribe and their spears). Anyway.
The point is, i liked this book on a psycological/sociological level; it was interesting to observe the break down of civilisation and how the boys characters developed as they were forced to make choices way beyond their years in such a hostile and unfamiliar environment. You wonder whether if they has kept their "equalising" school uniforms, and respected the law and order symbolised by the conch such tragic events would have unfolded...If the boys had been girls i think it would have been a different story all together. Not wanting to seem stereotypical, but i think girls would have done more talking and discussing, so in a way, a sense of civillisation would have remained.
An interesting one...
Girls would've just slowly but surely torn down each other's self esteem by catty, sarcastic remarks and exclusion, but at least there wouldn't be any blood. ;) The psychological scars would be deep but there'd be no physical evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by bootlegger
I haven't read every page in this discussion so forgive me if someone else has said this.
I think the reason why there are no girls on the island is because the island is a microcosm of the world. Ralph and Jack (and other characters like Piggy and Simon) represent the leaders of certain political groups or countries. Because there were few women leaders during the time the book was written, the kids on the island were all boys.
Yes, it is ironic. What's even more ironic is the boys weren't even saved. The boys nearly destroyed the island when they started a fire and they were bound to destroy themselves anyway when you see their actions by the end of the book. As I said earlier, I believe that the island is really just a small version of the world itself. Remember at the beginning of the book when Piggy says "Did you hear what the pilot said? About the nuclear bombs? They're all dead," and then continues to say that there were no grownups anywhere. There are only two possibilities for that: World War 2 or some other war.The book was written in the fifties so I think World War 2 is out. The only other thing happening where nukes were a risk was the Cold War. I think this book takes place in a time when nuclear bombs had taken out most of the planet.Quote:
And the Naval officer at the end. It's Goldings way of saying "Yea? Guess what? A guy who is paid to kill people and who job it is to kill people ultimately saves Ralphs life." Ironic, no?
Now, back to where I said the boys weren't really rescued. That's because they were rescued by a naval ship - something that is designed to kill other people. The boys were taken from one war on a small island to a full-scale war all around the world. It's the same situation with a different location. Hardly a rescue if you ask me.
hey.. id just like to say that the point of the story is the degeneration of civilised to savage.. i think yoos are readin in to it too much.. but i think ther reelly good points like about simon being like jesus, but william golding wrote the book to express his feeling towards human nature.
I think its a really sad, coming of age book. i love all the charecters (even roger lol) and just love the plot. Its weird trying to write all the thoughts that are running through your head down.. it gets confusing.
Ralphs the best!!
http://www.online-literature.com/for...732#post245732
go on and add your peice of the story x
I have a question that probably nobody will know. Here it goes anyway. Why did the boys' plain crash in the first place. I'm pretty sure it was shot down but why? There have been numerous reasons why the plane was even in the sky in the first place:
A:Field Trip
B:Escape Britan because of an atomic war
I don't know which one is right, or is either one is. If somebody knows why the plane was up in the sky, and or why it was shot down, it would be deeply appreciated.
If anybody also knows what school in England these boys went to, that would be great too. (I'm sure nobody knows this)
I loved the book despite its slight faults. The story at times lent itself a bit sparse, and hard to follow the thoughts of things at times.
Though I liked how all of his characters if spoken with an accent had an inflection in their speechs on the page. The democratical society, fascism, or in this case feudalism rearing its ugly head.
What I absolutely hated though was the fact that I had been expected to anaylze this, and analyze that, to form my opinions on the microcosm of a socio-political world. (This sort of stuff is not only boring, but in most cases will sour someone on a book.)
I honestly spent less than two weeks reading the actual book.
hi, everyone! i m new here.
juz drop by to ask a few questions.
below is a passage extracted from the book, and i hav a few questions to ask.
Laughing, Ralph looked for confirmation round the ring of faces. The older boys agreed; but here and there among the little ones was the dubiety that required more than rational assurance.
‘He must have had a nightmare. Stumbling about among all those creepers.’
More grave nodding; they knew about nightmares.
‘He says he saw the beastie, the snake-thing, and will it come back tonight?’
‘But there isn’t a beastie!’
‘He says in the morning it turned into them things like ropes in the trees and hung in the branches. He says will it come back tonight?’
‘But there isn’t a beastie!’
There was no laughter at all now and more grave watching. Ralph pushed both hands through his hair and looked at the little boy in mixed amusement and exasperation.
Jack seized the conch.
‘Ralph’s right of course. There isn’t a snake-thing. But if there was a snake we’d hunt it and kill it. We’re going to hunt pigs to get meat for everybody. And we’ll look for the snake too…’
‘But there isn’t a snake!’
‘We’ll make sure when we go hunting.’
(a) With reference to this extract, comment on the relationship between the older boys and the ‘littluns’ at this stage in the story.
(b) To what extent are the older boys responsible for the tragedy that occurs shortly after this extract?
thank you very much