Lord of the Flies - 1954
Lord of the Flies (1954) is a novel by British author William Golding. The book focuses on a group of British boys stranded on an uninhabited island and their disastrous attempt to govern themselves. The book takes place in the midst of an unspecified war. Some of the marooned characters are ordinary students, while others arrive as a musical choir under an established leader. With the exception of Sam and Eric and the choirboys, they appear never to have encountered each other before. The book portrays their descent into savagery; left to themselves on a paradisaical island, far from modern civilization, the well-educated children regress to a primitive state.
The novel has been generally well received. It was named in the Modern Library 100 Best Novels, reaching number 41 on the editor's list, and 25 on the reader's list. In 2003 it was listed at number 70 on the BBC's The Big Read poll, and in 2005 Time magazine named it as one of the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to 2005. Published in 1954, Lord of the Flies was Golding's first novel. Although it was not a great success at the time—selling fewer than three thousand copies in the United States during 1955 before going out of print—it soon went on to become a best-seller.
Description: 243 p. 22 cm.
ISBN:
Form/Genre: Psychological fiction
Rereading this book in a later life stage, I found it much more frightening than earlier age whether college or even 25 years ago when I was reading AP English essays. I see so much truth in the portrayal of intrinsic defects in human nature which lead to defects in society, being played out all around the world today. Golden himself said society is governed by individual ethics for which no political system can substitute.
ReplyDeleteInteresting extension of the imagined rules which we all presume to act by as we discussed in “American Gods.” Society is really just an implicit agreement to get along for the good of all developed in humanity’s early history. Before technology, whether it is defined as electronic or mechanical, people needed people to complete tasks to ensure survival. The group in LoF is deprived of that technology which society has taken to be part of the social agreement and structure and don’t know how to adapt or safely regress as it were.
ReplyDeleteCurious about the point in which individual ethics govern society as the ethics instilled in individuals are filtered through the lens of the society in which that individual exists. Political system is the codification of societal ethics. Is it the surrender of control of ethics and the general abandonment of ethical responsibility to government control contribute to the weakened moral fiber or ethical ties that haunts us? Could it be why the boys, who I assume were part of the same class or at least from the same community before their plane crashed, quickly fell apart as once the governing body (teacher, adults) disappeared, they found no ties other than those they invented for their own benefit (Jack = control, leadership, admiration, Ralph = rescue, escape from sole responsibility)? The admonishment of the British officer for the boy nots upholding the moral character of true Englishmen at the end is a telling line. Strong perceived social norms are seen by those with that society to be sacrosanct and it is inconceivable that members of a group should convert or revert to different beliefs.
The wild power of the selfish id force is held in check only by a veneer of rules and moral and social codes which allow us to live together in a civilization. In the too common chaos of war and cruelty, we see the collapse of the protection that allows survival.
ReplyDeleteI suppose this is why in military or political combat, cutting off the head of the beast is the best way to encourage this degeneration into lawlessness or confusion making victory easier. In the case of Ralph et al., that head is society/adult supervision?
ReplyDeleteThe power of the loudest, the most irresponsible, demands nothing from the group but submission and loyalty. Orders must be followed mindlessly with no thought but immediate gratification. Fear drives a need to belong to the group and to shun or destroy anyone who differs.
ReplyDeleteYour point here is also interesting. The breakdown of societal responsibility or perceived priorities hastened by the battle of wills between the two loudest individuals. When things weren’t going to the liking of one, throwing a tantrum and starting a feud or public shaming was the answer. Compromise is not an inherent human quality perhaps? Certainly not a natural instinct but one that is placed upon us by societal ethics. Without compromise the large majority of the community suffers by the conflict generated by the fringes such as we see in politics and the choices both parties offer up. In the book, this to me was represented by Simon. He doesn’t ally himself with either side and is killed for his decision to not go to the extremes.
ReplyDeleteThe character I think I am still trying to place is Piggy. He has a number of qualities that place him in any number of symbolic roles. I can’t quite place it.
—Piggy’s differentness (fat, specs, asthma) made him a target from the start
Delete—Jack’s tribe actually mastered use of some order in their island sweep to catch Ralph. Is that a natural pendulum swing even if used for ill gain?
—no females in the story. not among the stranded school children, not in the rescuer, and not even in the boy’s references to home, which were all about their fathers. Would feminine innate need to nurture have been a mitigating element, making the plot impossible & opening a kettle of sexual tension pushed onto children by adult readers?
We could chew on this book forever. That is an element of discussion in itself.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn your challenge to saying individual ethics govern society, you rightly argue a round robin that society instructs the individual. This brings us back to the question of whether innate goodness is viable. Societal norms do shift over time and between cultures, so is it possible there is a constant thread inside us that assures our survival despite our irresponsible selfish tendencies? This is my personal belief, but I hold that God or good exists in us as our soul or in religious parlance, the Holy Spirit. That doesn’t prevent bad from happening, but it presents a barrier to the dominance of evil. In this vein, Simon, to me, represents spirituality, which must be destroyed in order that raw evil can prevail. I agree he is moderation, the quiet middle, outshouted by extremes, as seen in politics today.
DeleteAs for Piggy, so much has been written of his voice of intellect and reason, like Simon destined to die in order for wicked abandon to win. He also speaks for self reliance, what must be done to organize and create order even as Ralph, chosen as sometimes bewildered leader, listens to him as an an anchoring sage. His broken glasses are a perfect symbol of the decline of reason heard as Piggy’s voice. Hope dies with Piggy.
I’ve never seen this in the volumes of dissection, but I think Piggy’s physical unattractiveness is telling of the shallowness with which we esteem outer appearance and our blind willingness to revere the current snazzy model. Piggy’s sage voice held no competition for the wild fun of emotional impulses.
LoF should not leave us depressed and totally disillusioned, rather serve to warn and strengthen us. Can we equate to the intellect and foresight of our founding fathers to install a system of checks and balances to protect us from a selfish impulsive figure come into power, or from ourselves? Is this why Golden’s novel has again become a popular read?
I am interested in your further insights into Piggy in particular.
Final thoughts on Piggy. I can see that he is intended as the voice of reason but is the voice of reason normally so shrill? His appearance and general attitude to as much to antagonize the boys as anything else. Of course people don't like being told what to do and even less so when they are being told to trade in something 'fun' for responsibility so Piggy's attempts to lead, instruct, etc. come off as nagging and whining. While one can, with a slightly more open mind, overlook his physical characteristics as a reader, the characters, even Ralph, could not which only amplified his rather grating way of talking. Society in the book had taught the boys to pick on those that stood out physically and still does. Except now we have a word for it.....fat-shaming. The character with the smarts a natural target and tying him together with the pigs being hunted / a game distraction rather than a source of reason poignant. I see his role and his death as the ties to civilization and abandonment of reason for instinct. I just can't get over that he seemed to be a bit whiny. I understand his devotion to the conch and the order it represented but I think 25% of his dialogue was repeated huffing, "I've got the conch!"
DeleteIn the back of my copy of the book they had suggested reads for those that were interested in reading more books in the same vein and one of the more modern items was a re-imaging of the story with an all female cast. Gender roles and representation carry additional weight in these recent times but a mixed gender scenario probably wouldn't have seen the book change too much more. If the boys were reverting back to tribal or feral instincts, the hoarding of the girls as nurturers and future of the pack would probably have caused even sharper division. For the time, boys were taught to be strong and live up to the masculine archetype, particularly British lads. At the same time, in most war pieces set at this time, soldiers are calling upon their mothers to take care of them in combat. Most letters written home from battlefronts are also to wife, mother, sister. Public face vs private face I suppose.
Good break down all around. The book resonates for the reasons you have put forth and while it is certainly terrifying for its reality, it also carries a re-affirmation of positives in ourselves, our conduct, and how we operate as a society.
Rereading our work so far and stuck on your comment in LOF in which you argued
Deletethat individual ethics are determined by the lens of their society, not the reverse in which I implied individual code drives society. It is a round about and I can’t come up with the chicken or the egg. I’m trying to relate to today’s situation in the White House. The lack of character and the widespread corruption seem to give people permission to act out their ugliness..the id without filter. Maybe Sophie’s philosopher will shed light.
So many points we touched which could generate more discussion and application.
LOF came out in 1954 when cold war fear of Communism drove all thinking. We have suffered multiple conflicts since. The theme is throughout and ongoing that whether we hunt each other with pointed sticks or missiles, we are driven by a fundamental wildness within to struggle against the peaceful ordered coexistence which would allow us to live in an Eden- like world to the advancement and betterment of all. Even religion, which has the potential by moral code to hold our base instinct in check, has been wielded as a divisive weapon. This book doesn’t leave the reader with hope. It reflects what we see today. And for that it is very scary.
ReplyDeleteThe struggle of humanity against our animal nature is certainly no stranger to writing, religion, and culture. Perhaps much of it comes from our desire to better ourselves and differentiate ourselves from the animal population of the planet, to justify our actions, however destructive to environment, each other, etc. By painting opposing tribes as less than human, it gives us the right to destroy them as they are not held in the same esteem. It is a wordy way of acting out our basic survival instincts to perpetuate our group at the cost of others. We just have fancier words or use religion to justify it.
ReplyDeleteThe precepts of religion do provide moral guidance but also indicate very clearly that the imagined communities of believers and everybody else who by lack of that belief are not on the same level in terms of salvation, treatment, eyes of the greater power. Most do include tenets that urge the recruitment of the others into the religion but that in itself is also acknowledgement of superiority. It is true that conversion for the purpose of saving non-believers has a benevolent purpose but also indicates that a shrug of the shoulders for all those left behind to the demons and flames when the Rapture comes is all that is needed. Didn’t join our tribe so that’s what they get. Jack and the painted tribe demonstrate this pretty deftly in their treatment of SamnEric as well as Piggy and Ralph.
There are numerous moral codes, religious structures, and political systems enforcing societal ethics co-existing in the world today. By that basis alone, humanity is still tribal on a global scale as well as with the different imagined communities themselves. Perhaps we are just not evolved enough yet to be able to completely overcome our nature and acknowledge that the existence of multiples is ok. There always seems to be some quality, some aspect that is picked even within the social experiment that America is imagined to be which is focused on to separate. There is no over-arching human sense of community that isn’t countered, contradicted, or subverted by our invented societal, racial, religious, or political rules. I might be stretching here but not much when I pull the fact the physical beast in the book is a human corpse is proof that the beast hunting us all is us.
Though, and this stuck with me as well per my earlier point about Simon, he as the silent one, the non-affiliated with identified tribes, is also the physical beast which results in his death. Re-enforces the inability of human nature to compromise as those that don’t pick sides as equally destroyed by those on the sides. Thus Ralph’s group’s denial and guilt at their participation in the act. The destruction of the planet, great parts of non-affiliated or non-same earthly population/elements is a historical cycle.
Besides the obvious themes and symbolism, description of the island and the boys themselves soften the plot trail and give a literary relief to a didactic experience. The island could have provided survival if order had prevailed. Even with simplistic adjectives, the beauty of the reef and plant life gives relief to the tension.
ReplyDeleteThis book has endured because it is a parable of all times. We can advance technology but human nature has remained the same since earliest man. We clothe ourselves differently but as Conrad powerfully showed, we can’t escape our dark hearts. And now I’m depressed.
It is hard to come out of the book without a degree of fear and sadness. The wording and descriptions were terse but to great effect as one feels this book as opposed to simply reading it. Since it is a look into human nature it seems to touch the more emotional, instinctive level of the brain as opposed to the thought based portion. At least upon reflection I feel that way. I can think about it now in part because of your excellent thoughts but recalling how I felt when reading it is harder. Fear upon closing that cover but while reading it, it was something that resonated on a different level. It was a battle of instinct vs learning, nature vs nurture.
ReplyDeleteGolden was brilliant in delivering his theme in the guise of children and having the adult savage terror of their degeneration revert of just crying boys at the feet of their rescuer. Much has been made of the Biblical symbolism of characters and objects, but it never seems strategized nor does it take away from the flow of the tale itself. It makes the reader evaluate his own beliefs. Yes, man unencumbered by rules of civility does have capacity to do harm, but humankind has survived because evil hasn’t prevailed. We’ve done awful things to each other and our planet throughout our existence, but I choose to believe that a greater power exists to balance and correct our floundering. If rescue hadn’t come to the microcosm of the island, the boys would have all perished just as all humans would have already perished if left to our own worst instincts. It is a choice to believe in ultimate good or God, by whatever spiritual name we give, but it is our door to hope for better than we as a society give and an anchor for us to follow individual ethics, which is all that keep us safe from Jack’s tribe.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure how much I can add here. Your point was strong and I do agree that hope and making sure that we focus and build upon the triumphs of good are perhaps the only way to move forward. The following or reclaiming of individual ethics might be the way but how it is incorporated into the greater framework of human society, I don’t know. We are all in danger of being Simon as much as we are Jack or Ralph.
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts were well presented and drew upon a multitude of experiences and disciplines so I send admiration for the presentation. It is much harder to be the first one to put down this level of thought first in this discussion format so that makes it all the more impressive.