The Unrealistic, Overdramatic, and Unrelatable Lord of the Flies

[Brooke]

The Unrealistic, Overdramatic, and Unrelatable Lord of The Flies

Golding, William, and Edmund L. Epstein. Lord of the Flies: A Novel. New York: Perigee, 1954.

This book was selected in the curriculum for my high school English class to read. Although some of the novels within the curriculum were interesting and offered a lot of valuable underlying messages, I cannot say that this was the case with Lord of the Flies. In the introduction of the book, I was intrigued, thinking that this might be an exciting book with an action plot. The initial moment that caught my attention was the scene where a plane crashed into an island and young survivors are forced to find a way out, undergoing some basic struggles of life. In the beginning, it seemed as if it may be somewhat realistic and easy to relate to. Unfortunately, after getting past the introduction, it was very apparent that none of this was accurate. The Lord of the Flies is unrealistic because of the reasoning for escalation and eventual outcomes.

This novel was extremely hard to get into; the degree of how unrealistic the text is was unappealing. The beginning of the novel was very stagnant; the initial lifestyle the boys developed was smooth and within order. The boys developed a system in which they elected someone. The chose Ralph to be leader of the group. Ralph then appointed another boy, Jack, to be the leader of the group of boys responsible for hunting food for everyone. This system appeared to work for a substantial period of time, but when the system was corrupted the order of events that occurred after immediately escalated at a rapid severity. The first event of savagery occurred when Jack insults Piggy, then slaps him across the face. The next event of direct contact between the boys is not long after, when the boys attack Simon. As Simon approaches the group of boys, they interpret his shadow as an imaginary beast, which provokes their fear. This fear drives the boys to attacking Simon. Together, the boys rip Simon apart with their bare hands and teeth.

I don’t think every aspect of this book was horrible, such as the underlying messages of loss of innocence and the savagery of human nature, but overall I believe this book is poorly written. The details of this novel are not engaging, and the plot could have been much better. As I said, in the introduction I saw lots of potential for interesting directions this book could have gone. Instead, the author chose to make the plot unrealistic, overdramatic, and unrelatable. In other words, for every scenario throughout the book, something more realistic is possible. For example, earlier I explain how the group of boys killed Simon out of fear when he approached them from the edge of the forest. It is more feasible that instead of getting to a point in which they kill Simon, they would run away at the sight of him due to fear, or recognize Simon among attacking him.

The underlying messages are definitely relevant to the age group of young adult literature, but the plot seemed inappropriate by the rate at which the boy’s system of order situation escalated. It is likely that disorder would occur in a situation such as this without well established and carried out laws, but unrealistic that in a one-day time period the boys would go from being friends to having a massive murdering spree.

One Star review that I agree with:

I agree with this review for many reasons; one of which is because nothing in the book is worth caring about. There is nothing in the book that I felt a connection with. One personal example of why it was difficult to make a connection is because all of the characters were male and I have a outsider female perspective. Although this book had potential, the majority of the book seemed as if the author just threw random unrelated ideas together. To me, an example of this would be the symbols. A conch shell, a pair of glasses, a sow’s head, a beast, and a fire all seem extremely random when you think about the symbolism as a whole. To me, this demonstrates poor writing in the way that the details are not engaging; they don’t build onto one another but instead introduce completely new ideas.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

5 Star review that I can understand but do not agree with:

I can relate to this review because in the real world, some disorder among humans would occur in a situation like the boy’s where they must create their own ruling and justice system with no form of expertise leadership. I can also agree that humans in general can be “blinded with egotism and lust for power”, and that “tragedy and destruction in society are inevitable(Silvana).” These statements are easy to agree with because there are examples of how they are true broadcasted daily throughout news across the world, while also being prevalent in this novel. For example, once the leader of the hunting group, Jack, is successful during a hunt, he becomes obsessed with the idea of hunting and killing. His ego of being a successful hunter later provoked him to attempt to hunt and kill another boy, Ralph, because of a disagreement about leadership amongst the group. Her overall opinion of how The Lord of the Flies perfectly illustrates these traits in society is where I disagree with this review. I think this story is a very unrealistic version of how things would play out in society if there was no standardized ruling and justice systems. A more realistic outcome, such as reevaluating and determining a successful conclusion after one catastrophe occurs, is one of many outcomes that are much more likely to happen.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...