Lord of the Flies in Catching up on Classics (and lots more!)

Mar 25, 2008 Brad rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: classic

Can someone tell me where the anarchy lies in this book?

All I can remember about discussing this book in high school is that it was supposed to be about anarchy, about how we descend into madness and "chaos" without law and order to hold our childlike hands. Every time I've overheard a conversation about LOTFs since, it has been the same thing: somewhere in the discussion someone mentions anarchy, as though that one word can sum up everything Golding was doing. Even the afterword by E.L. Epstien Can someone tell me where the anarchy lies in this book?

All I can remember about discussing this book in high school is that it was supposed to be about anarchy, about how we descend into madness and "chaos" without law and order to hold our childlike hands. Every time I've overheard a conversation about LOTFs since, it has been the same thing: somewhere in the discussion someone mentions anarchy, as though that one word can sum up everything Golding was doing. Even the afterword by E.L. Epstien calls "Jack ... the leader of the forces of anarchy on the island," and still I wonder "Where is the anarchy?"

I don't see it anywhere. Anarchy reigned on the island for all of ... what? Eight pages in my edition. Then Ralph pulls up the conch and anarchy is over. The conch comes, the meeting is called, and society rears its ugly head, and that felt to me like the point of Golding's book -- the ineluctable need to "civilize" ourselves and what that civilizing drive really looks like.

It's a fucking ugly drive.

Many see Ralph as the best of the kids, the natural leader who is looking out for the good of the many. I don't see it. I see a selfish little shit, whose only desire is to leave the island (a desire that I think has little value or necessity) and return to civilization, and while stuck on the island to build himself a shelter so that he can play "society" as comfortably as possible. He tells everyone and us that they need shelter, but the actual need for shelter never appears beyond Ralph's constant bitching. He becomes the leader of the democratic government, leaves too much power to Jack and the hunters so that he can avoid early conflict, then spends his entire time telling everyone what is important, what they should care about, and he can't stand it when they have different priorities. Everyone was eating, breathing and drinking, Ralph (apart from those your need for a fire burned to death the first day). They didn't need you or your rule as "chief."

Then there's Piggy. Whiny, bright ideas Piggy, always pissing and moaning about right and wrong. Always needing others to police those who "wrong him" always wanting to make more rules, always opining about the need for them all to be more civilized. Always backing Ralph to exert his power, to use the conch to gain control, to talk and impose his will on the littluns and the hunters. He's in fear for himself, and he's more than willing to have other impose their will on still others to make him feel safe. But he takes no personal responsibility. He talks and talks and lectures and lectures but never does.

Then there is Jack. I don't think he's really any worse than Ralph, nor do I think he is better. He has other priorites that are just as fucking selfish. He wants meat. He believes that more food, better food, should be the priority -- and he's sure that his position as the strongest, the best provider, should give him a right to power. He doesn't give a shit about the fire and rescue. Then he -- like Ralph in practice and Piggy in support -- places his own idea of society on the group, and like Ralph he's responsible for some deaths. Ralph gets away with his deaths in the minds of readers because they were a foolish "mistake," and the killing of Simon is too personal and bloody to be forgiven, so Jack is seen as the force for evil on the island. Yet the catalyst for the killing of Simon was genuine (albeit misplaced) fear and superstition of "the Beast" they all (not just Jack) talked themselves into. Ultimately he rejects Ralph's power, Ralph's vision for their society, and he sets up his own, with his own rules and regulations and controls and defenses.

And now I go back again to the question I can't stop thinking about: Where is the anarchy? I don't see any anarchy here (unless it is in the nameless, faceless, uncared for littluns that populate Ralph's benevolent dictatorship. It's important to note, since I am talking about them, that Jack makes his littluns an active part of his tribe, while Ralph barely notices their existence. Nice leadership, Ralph). I see imposition of social constructs, I see a drive to law and order, I see a desire to remake the social structures from whence they came. I see imposition of control at every turn, and it's a control that instantly takes on the trappings of a "system" with rules and rituals and imposed consequences.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not espousing anarchy as a real world possibility (it is an ideal that fascinates me, but I know that it is a practical impossibility); I am not saying it would have made for better living conditions on the island (although I highly doubt it would have made them worse); but I am saying that I never saw anything approaching anarchy in Golding's writing, unless it was as the unspoken, hinted at ideal of a world beyond "civilizing" influences.

What I did see was Golding telling us that all our instincts to govern and control and civilize have dire, ugly and pitiable consequences, no matter where we sit politically or philosophically. I saw it in Ralph and Piggy and Jack, and it was driven home when the naval officer -- the "saviour" of the boys on the island -- saved them from their own little wars to return to a "grown-up" society at war, playing the same ugly games on a grander, uglier scale. I saw a mirror, and I didn't like what Golding made me see. ...more

32 likes · Like · see review

Oct 23, 2009 Laura rated it really liked it

Shelves: audio-books, british-literature, 1001-books-you-must-read-before-you, read-2013, nobel-prize

From BBC Radio 4 Extra:
William Golding's classic story about a group of boys plane-wrecked on a deserted island. New dramatisation by Judith Adams, with Ruth Wilson narrating.

...more

8 likes · Like · see review

May 17, 2008 Maggie rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: fiction, adventure, british, boxall-1001, classics, horror, guardian-1000, dystopia-utopia

This is one of those books that is so complex, I discovered something new each time I thought about it. Hence I never fully understood it and therefore never saw it in all its brilliance, but what I did see was enough to tell me it is worthy of its "classic" label.

Everything in the book is a symbol. (Trying to spot all the symbols marred my enjoyment of the book somewhat, but it was a necessary pursuit to understand the book. Perhaps if I read this again, I would enjoy it more.) The richness of This is one of those books that is so complex, I discovered something new each time I thought about it. Hence I never fully understood it and therefore never saw it in all its brilliance, but what I did see was enough to tell me it is worthy of its "classic" label.

Everything in the book is a symbol. (Trying to spot all the symbols marred my enjoyment of the book somewhat, but it was a necessary pursuit to understand the book. Perhaps if I read this again, I would enjoy it more.) The richness of the book lies in its allegorical nature. Ralph represents civilisation, Jack represents savagery, and Simon represents innate goodness. Piggy is rationality, Roger is cold-blooded evil, and the littluns are the innocent commoners. The conch represents the rules that govern society, Piggy's spectacles represent hope, and fire represents life. And the fates of every person and everything represent something in the bigger scheme of things. The shift of power from Ralph to Jack symbolises increasing savagery, Simon's death represents the death of goodness, and Jack's tribe stealing fire from Ralph's symbolises the former seizing life from the latter.

The combination of these symbols tells of the innate savagery of mankind that emerges when rules and social norms are stripped away. Having children form the society on the island is a master stroke. Children are the least tied to social norms, and are least likely to hold on to these when pioneering a society. Hence what emerges is Man in his basic form, before societal influences take over. And the distressing truth is that at our core, many of us are not good people. Sure, there are those like Simon who is inherently good, but most of us are like the rest. Even Ralph, the hero, only manages not to succumb to savagery by holding on tightly to the laws of civility. It is frightening to think that perhaps all that keeps society at peace is fear of the law. In the struggle for survival, when other fears outweigh this fear, what will keep us afloat?

This book uses children as an allegory for the adult world, and I liked how this was made even clearer through the background of a world at war. Though the children view adults as saviours who will rescue them, these same adults were the ones who created the need for the children to be evacuated, and it is the work of adults that the plane carrying the children was destroyed by an atomic bomb. When the children are rescued, it is ironic that the officer who disapproves of the killings the children have done will most likely return to fighting and kiling after delivering the children to safety. ...more

Like · see review

Nov 15, 2008 Nola Tillman rated it it was amazing

Shelves: fiction-drama, 1001-books-to-read, classics, fiction-young-adult, fiction-horror

Like many, I'm sure, I originally read Lord of the Flies as a high school student. Almost two decades later, I read it again to discuss it with my teenage daughter as part of her curriculum, and I'm impressed by how much more vivid the story has become.

The writing is filled with a number of well-penned images, and the entire book is a study of the decay of society due to the inner demons of man. Despite the fact that I read this in AP English, many of the images went over my head; I'm certain th Like many, I'm sure, I originally read Lord of the Flies as a high school student. Almost two decades later, I read it again to discuss it with my teenage daughter as part of her curriculum, and I'm impressed by how much more vivid the story has become.

The writing is filled with a number of well-penned images, and the entire book is a study of the decay of society due to the inner demons of man. Despite the fact that I read this in AP English, many of the images went over my head; I'm certain that my teacher pointed them out, but to me, they were only symbolic. Maturity (and perhaps a greater cynicism than I had in my youth) has proven them to lie deeper than I understood on first read.

Several of my friends mentioned that they did not enjoy the book, and I can't say that I did, either. It's not a 'happily ever after' type book; the characters don't learn from their mistakes and are only saved from them via 'deux ex machina' - the arrival of a rescue ship.

However, although the characters did not have the opportunity to right their wrongs or change, that does not mean that the reader does not. Like 1984 and other books of more dismal literature, Lord of the Flies gives the reader the opportunity to examine their own lives.

For myself and my daughter (who has yet to finish it), we have discussed what it means to be a leader instead of a follower. If nothing else, the novel illustrates the flaws of simply following along with the crowd. The fact that it was penned only a decade after WWII lead to a parallel discussion of the citizens of Germany at the time, and how steps that, to those not directly affected, can seem small can lead to major issues. We discussed how being a leader doesn't necessarily mean running for office or serving in otherwise visible ways, but simply means not following the crowd, stopping to think about the results of ones actions.

We also had several discussions on what it means to be civilized, how art, and science, and culture are things more easily developed when food is plentiful and leisure time is available. The irony, of course, is that Jack's group, a choir, could be identified as the most 'cultured' at the start of the novel, yet they become the most wild. Is it enough to cling to civilization when everyone around you sheds it? How do you persuade others that life is not simply about 'fun' things like hunting and dancing? More importantly, how do you persuade yourself? As my 13 year old said regarding a life with no rules, where you do what you want - "Who wouldn't want that?" But simply wanting something doesn't make it what one needs.

I'm glad that I reread this novel, though I admit I did so only grudgingly. I think that those who read it only "that one time in high school" (or maybe college) should try it again as an adult, and see what it says to you. ...more

Like · see review