Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Group Read Discussion: LORD OF THE FLIES

So what did people think of the book?

A few questions to prompt discussion, but talk about whatever you need to...
* Was this the first time you've read the book, or did you read it in school?
* What did you think of the writing style?
* Did you feel that Golding's vision was realistic? Would children really have behaved in this way?
* In what way/s does the book respond to, relate to or reflect the Cold War? Is the book as relevant today as it was then?
* What does the parachutist symbolise? (Personally, that's my favourite part of the book)
* Won't somebody think of the children? I mean - Why isn't anyone looking after the littluns?

I have more questions, but since I haven't quite finished reading yet, I'll hold off for now..

It was a first read for me.

As a mother of two former "littluns", I was horrified at the thought of
6-year-olds being all alone, but I loved how they still "played" - building their little
sandcastles on the shore. I thought that was a nice touch - very believable.

And was it Piggy who mentioned that everything would be different if it were adults
on the island? From the little I've seen of reality TV, I think things would have been about the same. Possibly worse.

Melki wrote: "And was it Piggy who mentioned that everything would be different if it were adults
on the island? From the little I've seen of reality TV, I think things would have been about the same. Possibly worse. ..."

LOL! That totally would've been me as a child.... "You guuuuuuuys...... We'd be in SO much trouble if the parents came home right now!" Then I hit puberty.

I'm trying to keep an open mind until I complete the book, But I have to say, the writing really doesn't strike me as being very good. The descriptions are so garbled, I keep trying to figure out what it would actually look like - the geography etc. I remember having the same trouble in high school. There is so much poor grammar and clunky sentence structure, lines of dialogue that don't seem to relate directly to each other...... It has definitely slowed me down. That and the exhaustion of moving/house-hunting.

It's odd though, there are still a few really beautiful passages amid the dreck. The descriptions of the ocean's pull, and the scene with the parachutist in the wind spring to mind.

Argh. Here's another irritating sentence that I had to read 3 times to decide whether it actually made sense or not:
"Just one step down from the edge of the turf was the white, blown sand of above high water, warm, dry, trodden." Ummm.... what? "blown sand of above high water"? Huh?

"the white sand blown from above the high water mark" would make far more sense. (To me anyway - anyone got an English degree?)

Elise wrote: ""the white sand blown from above the high water mark" would make far more sense. (To me anyway - anyone got an English degree?)"

Ahhhhhh. I hadn't even thought of the high-tide line on the beach sand. I guess that's what he's referring to. Damn these descriptions! They don't exactly flow.

With fine detail like that it really can be the case of "two countries separated by a common language." (OK that was Britain and America, but the point is the same).

Someone's bound to argue with me, but I'm fairly sure we Brits use high-water and high-tide fairly interchangably - sounds like Aussies don't?

I enjoyed the read. I never read it in school and I'm glad that I waited until now to add the book to my "read" list. The descriptions, although oftentimes difficult to interpret, were so believable. It made me wonder which role I would have played on the island - would I have been a "civilized" young lady or a savage? I guess I'll never know unless I'm placed in that situation (heaven forbid it).
The book was rather frightening in that regard though - children 'returning' to 'human instinct' or choosing to be wise and civilized. I would expect adults to be divided along those lines. Perhaps it's my public school education, but these children were far smarter at that age than I.
Great coming-of-age story, for sure.

Ruby wrote: "Argh. Here's another irritating sentence that I had to read 3 times to decide whether it actually made sense or not:
"Just one step down from the edge of the turf was the white, blown sand of above high water..."

Having lived for years on the English coast, I don't recall "high water" as a common term, but then we rarely saw sand either, let alone white sand. "White sand" was one of those mythical things that a friend's friend saw on holiday.

It's easy enough to parse the sentence, but it still doesn't seem like proper grammar.

Derek wrote: "It's easy enough to parse the sentence, but it still doesn't seem like proper grammar. ..."

Yeah, I really didn't find it easy to parse some of these sentences. I've been held up every few pages all the way through it. Another issue I have had is with: "He did this" and "He said that", when there's actually no direct reference to a particular character. I seem to have wasted a fair bit of time trying to figure out which of the two characters in the scene is doing/saying what.

Jim wrote: "And yet it won a Nobel prize...."

I'm not saying the book has no merit - I find the subject matter fascinating, and some of the imagery is fantastic. I just found the writing style to be messy. Another example is when Golding first describes the island. I would expect the scene to be described from foreground to background, but Golding seems to grab an element from here, then there, then somewhere else. It made it more difficult for me to build a mental picture. But that's just the way my brain functions, I guess!

I do love the parachutist figure in this. The way he appeared to sit up and hunch with the wind - such a chilling description!

Sean - I was actually wondering as I was reading along whether it was a good depiction of the way boys interact (they're still a mystery to me). I'm glad it seems realistic to a real live male!

I do still find it odd that none of the boys (except Piggy) cared for the littluns. I thought maybe there would have been some boys who had younger siblings and would've been doing that as second nature. Then again, if they were all at boarding schools - maybe not?

Jim wrote: "And yet it won a Nobel prize. "

Actually not. It may have been the trigger that got him recognition and the nomination, but the Literature Nobel is awarded for 'body of work' - "" Lord of the Flies is not one of them.

Jim wrote: "Actually in real life I think most children would not survive. There might be some especially bright kids that had a better chance, but most modern children are taught to be completely dependent on adults."

I think that's probably true today. Less so at the time the story was written. Face it, "kids today" (I always thought I'd hate myself for saying that...) aren't allowed to do anything that would help them be able to cope in this situation. Half of them would be dead of third-degree sunburn and dehydration, a week after they were stranded.

I didn't like the book at all! I couldn't get into it. My mind wondered and I had a hard time understanding the writing. I am really bummed because I was looking forward to enjoying the book.

Ruby wrote: "Sean - I was actually wondering as I was reading along whether it was a good depiction of the way boys interact (they're still a mystery to me). I'm glad it seems realistic to a real live male!..."

There was a British television documentary several years ago where they put a group of boys around 12 years old alone in a house for a few days with cameras and no adults. The adults would only interfere if things got dangerous.

It was pretty amazing how LotF it got, in terms of the boys separating into two groups, one all about anarchy and destruction, and the other trying to maintain some level of livability in the house (as well as protecting the shy kid). The adult intervention came when the boys started sharpening sticks (I kid you not) to hunt hedgehogs.

Whitney wrote: "Ruby wrote: "Sean - I was actually wondering as I was reading along whether it was a good depiction of the way boys interact (they're still a mystery to me). I'm glad it seems realistic to a real l..."

Was it "Boys and Girls Alone" ()? I didn't see it because I was working evinings at the time, but the media were in uproar about it (e.g. - OK, The Daily Mail is about 9 miles to the polical right of the SS, but it was actually fairly typical reportage, only a bit more leaning towards how "respectable, middle-class" parents could allow it, rather than the same reports, without the qualifiers, that the rest of the British media turned in). So I read all about it rather than seeing it.

Turned out boys really are even more uncivilised at this age (the girls were pretty much as bad, but it did take a bit longer to lose their veneer of civilisation) and much as Derek said above, it turned out that "kids today" really have no "survival skills" (and that was with all mod cons in the house, if I remember rightly).

A really interesting (if dangerous) experiment (though, I gather, it wasn't nearly as "hands-off" as they liked to pretend) even if it was seen as incredibly irresponsible by the rest of the media - I suspect there was a certain amount of jealousy, it did get fantastic viewing figures for a documentary, I believe.

Elise wrote: "Was it "Boys and Girls Alone" (...)? I didn't see it because I was working evinings at the time, but the media were in uproar about it..."

No, this was several years before this program, and it was a one-off, fairly low-key program that only had boys. It may have even just been for a weekend. No obvious manipulation or set-ups. At the end their parents showed up and shook their heads over the state of the house.

Sean wrote: "I'll have to check his bio. It's quite disturbing really when you think about it: how this illusion of civilisation we've built up can be so fragile in the right (or wrong) circumstances..."

I recall reading an interview with William Golding (a very long time ago) about how the illusion of civilization was exactly what he was getting at with LotF. He said something about how we make laws and build societies without allowing for the basic savage nature of people. That the boys are merely acting out on a basic level what the 'civilized' world with its concurrent war is acting out on a grand scale underscores this point in the book.

This was the first time that I'd read this book. I find it hard to say that I "liked" the book, because it was disturbing, but I do think it was good, despite some of the muddled prose.

One random thought: When I first started the book I expected Ralph to be the psychopath "savage," not Jack. I'm not sure why, exactly.

Whitney wrote: "Ruby wrote: "Sean - I was actually wondering as I was reading along whether it was a good depiction of the way boys interact (they're still a mystery to me). I'm glad it seems realistic to a real l..."

Have any of you heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment? It's not a 'real' situation in that it was an investigation into behavioural roles, but the outcomes were quite chilling.
Men were given fictional roles as prison guards or prisoners and the resulting behaviours were observed. Although the 'roles' in Lord of the Flies were self-determined to a degree, there are some interesting parallels. The human survival instinct is strong.

One thing I kept meaning to mention was that I didn't understand why Ralph's memory was so bad. I understand that Golding was trying to convey how Ralph's sense of purpose was slipping, but at times he came across as a bit.... I guess... senile?

Catherine wrote: "Whitney wrote: "Ruby wrote: "Sean - I was actually wondering as I was reading along whether it was a good depiction of the way boys interact (they're still a mystery to me). I'm glad it seems reali..."

I have read about that experiment! It is scary how well those students took on their given roles. I guess you're free to act as badly as you want when you aren't you anymore. Jack is so much more capable of violence when he's wearing a mask. He loses his morals and humanity when he drops his old identity.

Paulina wrote: "I have read about that experiment! It is scary how well those students took on their given roles. I guess you're free to act as badly as you want when you aren't you anymore. Jack is so much more capable of violence when he's wearing a mask. He loses his morals and humanity when he drops his old identity. "

That's interesting - there seem to be two slightly different things at work. Actors who've worn masks report that each mask has a personality - I suspect that applies to clown makeup, too. But the prison experiment showed that people were prepared to do things "under orders" that they would never do normally. Partly that's "mob mentality", but the Milgram experiment had people giving "electric shocks" to students who answered questions incorrectly, purely because they were told it was necessary (actually not, but the subjects thought they were shocking the students). So, there's people doing things they would normally consider immoral: because they're told to do them; because the character of the mask would do them; or just because the next guy is doing them.

I think, in Lord of the Flies, all three things are coming into play.

I was twelve when this book came out in 1954 and sixteen when I read it. When I read this book I saw it as a blueprint for what happens when those in power are there only because of others fear. I remember thinking that Ralph would surely die on the beach with no one to speak for him. One thought I have about this book and Clockwork Orange and Catcher in the Rye is this. The world was a much different place in the 50’s and early 60’s. These three books each showcased a type of anarchy within a mainstream familiar setting. To me, as a reader, they were the first books I read that suggested that you could be evil and win or like Holden, you could just walk away from it all. I think that now. Then, I was totally drawn in by all three. Is Lord of the Flies as relevant today? Well, someone else mentioned the British T.V. experiment in the 90’s and its results, so I would say yes.

Hi all, I'm new to this group and happy to be here! I first read LOtF in high school and it pretty much went completely over my head. I read it again later and saw a film version, which gave me a much greater appreciation.

I don't know if it's a realistic portrayal of the way children would act when stranded on an island together with no adults, and I don't think it's meant to be. I interpret it as a comment on the savagery of adults and the insanity of war. It's about the fight between reason and democracy, represented by Ralph & Piggy and totalitarianism, represented by Jack. It's very significant that its set on the eve of WWII when this struggle was very real.

Jack rules through fear and superstition, and to me this makes the book extremely relevant today when many, if not most politician's try to win power by feeding people's nightmares. It also explores the dangers of conformity when people are too afraid to stand up for what they really believe in.

I taught this book and film to a Yr 9 class a couple of years ago and I was completely horrified when they all identified with Jack and joined in with his ridicule and bullying of Piggy. None of them had any idea how it ended, and it was heartening to see them all do a complete about-face when Piggy is killed. It gave me hope that civilization isn't on the very of imminent collapse just yet!

Francene wrote: "I don't know if it's a realistic portrayal of the way children would act when stranded on an island together with no adults, and I don't think it's meant to be. I interpret it as a comment on the savagery of adults and the insanity of war. It's about the fight between reason and democracy, represented by Ralph & Piggy and totalitarianism, represented by Jack."

I don't see why it can't be about both. I think various dubious experiments have demonstrated that it is probably a very realistic portrayal of what would happen, but literature should work on multiple levels.

I taught this book and film to a Yr 9 class a couple of years ago and I was completely horrified when they all identified with Jack and joined in with his ridicule and bullying of Piggy.

And you still don't think the book is realistic? They were still supposed to be civilized!

I interpret it as a comment on the savagery of adults and the insanity of war. It's about the fight between reason and democracy, represented by Ralph & Piggy and totalitarianism, represented by Jack..."

I agree with Derek that it's about both things, and I think these two things are fundamentally related. The children are showing the basic, human savagery that in later life takes a different form, namely the war that is taking place in the 'outside' world (and also the constant battle between different ideologies that you mention.) In other words, the kids are acting out on a primal level what so-called civilized society is acting out on a more complex level.

Great literature can be read on many levels obviously, and LOTF can be interpreted as both a realistic portrayal of how children would behave without adults and a comment on wider society.

However, I think it's very dangerous when we start thinking in terms of "basic human nature." The children in the experiment mentioned about were in a very controlled environment where they knew no harm could come to them. I'm assuming they knew they were being filmed at all times. The need to play it up for the cameras would have been very strong. In the other experiement referred to, again it was a controlled situation where the participants would have known no real harm could come to them or anyone they mistreated. While these experiments do give us insights into how people may act in certain circumstances I don't think we should claim they reveal the true savagery at the heart of human nature.

What about all the situations where people have been stranded in desperate circumstances and worked together for survival? What about the countless examples of selflessness that show people are capable of acting in very altruistic ways, even when it's against their own best interests? eg. throwing themselves in front of a bullet or car to protect someone else.

Yes humans are capable of acts of great barbarism, but we are also capable of the opposite. If children were stranded together on a deserted island i don't think a LOTF scenario is inevitable or even highly likely, but that's just my opinion. Of course there would be power struggles, but that's very different from murder.

My own classroom experience with students joining in with the ridicule of Piggy provided a great opportunity to teach about bullying and mob mentality. The point I tried to make in my previous post was that when Piggy was killed the students had a very strong moral reaction, to the extent that some of them actually jumped out of their chairs and began shouting at Jack.

Francene wrote: "In the other experiement referred to, again it was a controlled situation where the participants would have known no real harm could come to them or anyone they mistreated."

In the Milgram experiment, this is emphatically _not_ the case. The subject, known iirc as the "Teacher" believes that there are actually two subjects in the experiment, but the "Student" is actually an actor. The Teacher is required to give increasing "shocks" when the Student answers incorrectly, and the Student appears to feel the shock. The dial showing the supposed strength of the shock has a Danger mark - and the Teachers routinely exceeded that level.

I agree, the limited number of experiments, make it difficult to call it "basic human nature", and the nature of experiment needed to reach scientifically valid conclusions pretty much guarantee that this _would_ have to be basic human nature for sufficient experimentation to be done. otoh, who hasn't seen an example of mob mentality?

"What about all the situations where people have been stranded in desperate circumstances and worked together for survival? What about the countless examples of selflessness that show people are capable of acting in very altruistic ways.

Personally, I still think humanity is improving - but I have to admit that humanity frequently finds new ways to try that belief. I honestly believe that groups working together for survival are the opposite side of the Lord of the Flies coin. It's _still_ mob mentality, but if your dominant characters are positive, you get positive results. In Lord of the Flies, it's not as simple as the children's society dissolving instantly into anarchy and violence: Ralph & Piggy manage to hold a large part of the group together for quite some time.

As for individual acts of altruism, I'll go so far as to say most individual people are at least a little altruistic: but altruism gets harder and harder in a group.

Derek wrote: "In the Milgram experiment, this is emphatically _not_ the case. The subject, known iirc as the "Teacher" believes that there are actually two subjects in the experiment, but the "Student" is actually an actor..."

I was going to say the Milgram and previously mentioned prison experiments are something of the opposite of LotF. In those cases, it was a case of people acting under a defined authority, rather than acting when authority is removed; but your point about people's behavior reflecting the dominant personally is valid in both cases. I think the main difference is that the kids initially lack the developed moral sense that made some of the subjects of the Milgram experiment cry and plead to stop while continuing to give the electric shocks.

Just as an aside...I am now reading a book by Philip G. Zimbardo (The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil) who was the social psychologist who designed the Stanford Prison Experiment. A lot of his experiments have focused on the effect of "deindividuation," that is the idea that being anonymous makes us more likely to behave antisocially. He compares his research with the novel in that the boys couldn't kill until they painted their faces into masks. Zimbardo includes this quote: "He looked in astonishment, no longer at himself but at an awesome stranger...the mask was a thing on its own, behind which Jack hid, liberated from shame and self-consciousness." He sees this process in the Stanford Prison Experiment with the guards who wore matching uniforms and silver reflecting sunglasses, which worked to provide a common identity for all the guards, as well as the sunglasses acting as a mask. Further, the guards were referred to as "Mr. Correctional Officer," never by name, increasing their anonymity.

So the guy behind the experiment, not only saw the similarities, but was actually influenced by Golding's ideas on human behavio(u)r.

Wasn't that guy a little bit nuts though?

That said, I have TBR'd it. I always thought the most interesting part of that whole episode was Zimbardo losing the plot himself.

Ruby wrote: "That said, I have TBR'd it. I always thought the most interesting part of that whole episode was Zimbardo losing the plot himself."

I'm still in the beginning of it, but Zimbardo does admit to taking his role as "Superintendent of the Prison" too seriously. He uses the term "irrationally obsessed."

Theo wrote: "Ruby wrote: "That said, I have TBR'd it. I always thought the most interesting part of that whole episode was Zimbardo losing the plot himself."

I'm still in the beginning of it, but Zimbardo does..."

As I recall, he wound up so caught up in the role, he became convinced the "prisoners" were plotting an escape.

Definitely not a favourite of mine.