Lord of the Flies
discussion
What if there had been both girls and boys?
date
newest »
newest »
The destination would still have been the same - Chaos and Savagery - only the journey there would have differed, but only in that introducing girls just introduces more variables. There still would have been cliques and power struggles and ultimately the descent into chaos and brutality. The social dynamic changing with girls there would only be minor compared to the overall point.
I think if girls had been on the island then less kids would have died. Not to sound sexist or anything but I think the girls would have watched out for the younger kids better, saving the lives of the little toddlers who wandered off to their deaths just by being visual. I also think that some of the girls could have talked the boys out of savagery towards the end just by being girls. I know that the eldest kids were only like twelve but there is still interest in the opposite sex at that age and sexuality is a great advantage to getting what you want. Sure some boys would have scoffed at the girls but there is always one who wants to play 'Tarzan' to the 'Jane's and would have protected and listened to the ladies. Piggy for one would have been considerate.
The hunters would've become rapists as well as killers.
James wrote: "I'm sure we can all imagine how horrible it might have been, but let's remember that this is a work of fiction. Things worked out the way they did in Lord of the Flies because that is how the autho..."Man, what a buzzkill. The point of this thread is to explore possibilities that the author did not in his work. It's a valid question - what if there were both boys and girls. The answer actually says more about the respondent than society.
I think this is an interesting point. What I would say is that power and lust for power can bring out the evil in any man. This isn't even just a suggestion made by an author, human has shown this tendency throughout history. How I would oppose to my own view on the topic would be by saying 'But kids may be different' however the main idea of the book kind of is that kids aren't different and under no rules, they also tend for chaos. I guess there are two ways to put girls into the book: 1) an island full of boys and girls 2) a book written by an author that chose to feature both girls and boys in it.
For choice #1, if this weren't a fictional book but a result of conditions, it would be easier to say girls would actually make a difference as it is obvious they seem less tendant to violence, which is a point that can be argued upon.
For choice #2, I would say there wouldn't be much difference. Because the reason the book was written in the first place was to show us what we are capable of. And girls or no girls, the author has the power to direct events to fulfill this purpose.
Precisely, my dear unimaginative one. So, given the "rules" Golding wrote into his story, and the overall theme and characterization of unsupervised children, what would happen if girls were involved in the story as well as boys?
You, James, seem to not want to debate this issue at all, but to express your undying devotion to canon. I can respect that you love this work enough to find it perfect. But dude, give us creative types a break. If you don't like the topic, find one that you do.
Bah, I'm done with you. I really don't need the pseudo validation of proving my creativity to you. It is enough for you to note that I consider myself creative.
As far as mentioning canon, yes you did - maybe not directly, but it was certainly implied by your text and tone. When you mentioned that the author wrote the exact story that he did, no more and no less. This also implies that creative changes to the story shouldn't be explored because the work is complete.
I notice your rating compared to mine. I'm not blind, and I'm not stupid. Do I care what your level of love for this novel is? Not particularly. Do I spend much time imagining who you are and what you must be like? Don't flatter yourself.
A tinch ironic, wouldn't you say? :}
Maybe this conversation here is an example of how things might have turned out in the book if there was girls and boys on the island and they didn't agree on things. XD
Lohengrin wrote: "The hunters would've become rapists as well as killers."Ha I was thinking the same thing too.
No, I don't believe that if would face any prominent changes. As Will stated, "The destination would still have been the same - Chaos and Savagery - only the journey there would have differed".Even without girls, the killing of the female sow is frequently thought to be a description of rape, instead of murder.
So, in essence, no. The moral of the story wouldn't have changed. I believe that the reason Golding didn't introduce girls to the plot was because it would overcomplicate things to more than its already messed-up, chaotic state.
It would also have the connotations of a romantic novel, something that he might not want people to associate with his character or story.
Lohengrin wrote: "The hunters would've become rapists as well as killers."I was thinking the exact same thing.
"“I think women are foolish to pretend they are equal to men, they are far superior and always have been.” --William Golding
I think they would have taken over the show without even realizing it. Ralph would let them do it because of their "wisdom" (just like he admired Piggy's wisdom. Not saying women are wiser than men, but it seems more likely that they would band together to come up with a more intricate plan of how to get rescued.)The boys may have become angry at this take over and separated to create their own gang and it would become a competition between the two groups. The girls would watch over the littluns of course.
It may have started out as fun: Having another group to compete with on the island. But eventually the solitude of the island and lack of structure would begin to cause savagery.
After the first killing of Simon, the girls would not stay quiet about it like the boys did, I don't think. They would likely get some kind of revenge, or set out to "teach those boys a lesson." Or they might focus all their attention on protecting the littluns and wait for danger to come to them, all the while building up a fortress.
It would make for a much more complex story. Probably more entertaining too. But it wouldn't be an allegory anymore. Or it would be a very different one.
The girls would have been used as 'tools' if they couldn't fight back. It'll be like in the past where the head of a group trade off their daughters to settle an argument or as a treaty trade. Other than this rape issue, I think girls would be able to downturn the events a little. For example, the boys would have to be hunting to provide meat for the girls or to vie for their attention and approval. They would also have cleaned themselves more appropriately for that reason.
I agree it would be a much more complex story. Girls can really be the opposite of boys. Not to mention puberty makes girls very erratic and volatile.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
I wonder what would have happened if there were both girls AND boys.
Besides the fact that girls would use different means to terrorize one another and so forth, what kind of dynamics would have formed between the boys and the girls? Provided that the girls wouldn't want to go hunting since they're mostly opposed to that kind of violence - Do you think the boys would be annoyed with the girls, just like they were with the younger kids? Would they be appreciated? What about sexual bondings? What about feelings of "possesion"?
Personally, I think it would have been worse. I'm interested to hear your thoughts!