Post by Chicago Jake on May 22, 2006 0:55:47 GMT -6
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
This is one of those books that everyone has heard of, but few have actually read, unless they read it in junior high school as part of an assignment, and probably didn't appreciate it then. If I'm wrong on this assessment, please spank me and let me know! I don't mean to sell anyone short.
Anyway, I am one of those people who had always heard of this book, but never got around to reading it until lately. It has long been on my list of "classics I should read", but I finally actually DID read it this month, mostly because of recent events here at the TNMC. As you all know, I consider the TNMC message board as a sociology experiment as much as it is a fun diversion, so this book was a perfect companion piece.
The book is set during World War II, and is about a bunch of British schoolboys who find themselves stranded on a tropical island, far from all civilization, and left to their own devices with no laws, no rules, and no adults. At first, they do their best to set up a civilization dedicated to providing for sustenance for all members in the short run, and achieving rescue in the long run. For a short time, all is well.
But.... as time goes by, the veneer of civilization begins to crumble, and the makeshift society wears thin. They become more and more primitive, savage, and cruel. Eventually, all pretense of civilization is GONE. The book treats this as if it is an inevitable process, and the unavoidable doom of mankind.
Is it really inevitable? The book doesn't claim that it must be, but seems to imply that it most likely will be. The microcosm of the schoolboys mirrors the megacosm of the world at large, represented by the nations engaging in WW II. Why should the boys be any better than their adult counterparts?
In a way, I found this book to be a fascinating counterpoint to another of my favorite short novels, Orwell's "Animal Farm." While AF seems to imply that any microcosm left to itself will ultimately fall into a totalitarian society, LotF seems to to imply that any microcosm left to itself will ultimately fall back into an anarchistic society. Are these opposite theses? Or merely different interpretations of the SAME thesis? I'm not sure. But both books can engender endless debate.
Looking forward to YOUR analyses and interpretations!.......Jake
P.S. - "Lord of the Flies" is a translation of the Greek "Beelzebub" or "Satan"
This is one of those books that everyone has heard of, but few have actually read, unless they read it in junior high school as part of an assignment, and probably didn't appreciate it then. If I'm wrong on this assessment, please spank me and let me know! I don't mean to sell anyone short.
Anyway, I am one of those people who had always heard of this book, but never got around to reading it until lately. It has long been on my list of "classics I should read", but I finally actually DID read it this month, mostly because of recent events here at the TNMC. As you all know, I consider the TNMC message board as a sociology experiment as much as it is a fun diversion, so this book was a perfect companion piece.
The book is set during World War II, and is about a bunch of British schoolboys who find themselves stranded on a tropical island, far from all civilization, and left to their own devices with no laws, no rules, and no adults. At first, they do their best to set up a civilization dedicated to providing for sustenance for all members in the short run, and achieving rescue in the long run. For a short time, all is well.
But.... as time goes by, the veneer of civilization begins to crumble, and the makeshift society wears thin. They become more and more primitive, savage, and cruel. Eventually, all pretense of civilization is GONE. The book treats this as if it is an inevitable process, and the unavoidable doom of mankind.
Is it really inevitable? The book doesn't claim that it must be, but seems to imply that it most likely will be. The microcosm of the schoolboys mirrors the megacosm of the world at large, represented by the nations engaging in WW II. Why should the boys be any better than their adult counterparts?
In a way, I found this book to be a fascinating counterpoint to another of my favorite short novels, Orwell's "Animal Farm." While AF seems to imply that any microcosm left to itself will ultimately fall into a totalitarian society, LotF seems to to imply that any microcosm left to itself will ultimately fall back into an anarchistic society. Are these opposite theses? Or merely different interpretations of the SAME thesis? I'm not sure. But both books can engender endless debate.
Looking forward to YOUR analyses and interpretations!.......Jake
P.S. - "Lord of the Flies" is a translation of the Greek "Beelzebub" or "Satan"