I both dislike the book and dislike this comic for missing the actual point of the book, which is not in fact, haha, this is what would actually happen and it’s just a group of random kids. It was specifically portraying british aristocratic children to criticize the colonizer mindset while discussing larger issues of human nature and civility and structure vs chaos.
I haven’t read the book but how did it criticize the colonizer mindset? A cursory look makes it seem like a justification of paternalistic authority, so propaganda for kids to blindly listen to their parents haha.
If anything wouldn’t this be justification for colonization, as colonized nations were often infantalized/dehumanized?
It was specifically a contrast on the colonizer mindset that was common both in culture and literature at the time. Showing a bunch of useless british aristocrats coming to “savage lands” and rather than taming the land they were shown that without their wealth and power and being taken care of by competent natives and labourers they became the savages they claimed to be inherently divinely better than.
I liked that book. It was eye-opening. And kinda made me appreciate the relative orderliness we have in a society run by adults. As much as kids would love to run wild & free with no supervision, but I was fortunate to be a child of the 1970’s & 80s so I enjoyed the perfect balance of wild freedom with parental care at the end of every day.
Edit: I am not saying it’s not a good book. I enjoyed reading it myself. I just don’t like the picture it paints of society and the conclusions people draw from it.
When lunchtime approached at her usual morning time, Becca waited and waited, still and silent, till the sun set on the calm and foamy sea. She sat waiting in the golden hour sun, stomach churning, wondering why.
I hated it because it was totally unbelievable, just a paternalistic rationalization for authority
I was confronted with the knowledge that the adults around me all thought the only thing keeping me from murdering someone was layers of rules and supervision. Like we’re all just rabid animals barely held back by a watchful eye
Even then, I knew myself better than that. I knew people better than that
But that’s how our society treats people. Like monsters that must be managed
Fair, my analysis of it was that it was more metaphorical. That you could abstract it easily to global society at large.
The rejection of intellectualism through breaking glasses. The war caused over superstition. The one disabled kid being murdered first could be read as a criticism of extreme right wing ideology.
The Forrest burning is very reminiscent of American napalm bombing. Hell the meetings could be compared to the UN if you squint
I can see that angle, but that’s not how it was presented to me… And based on memes like this, it’s not how it was presented to most students. Teachers legitimately taught this as if it were a justification for giving us so little autonomy
Analyzing it now outside of that, I see a through line with what you’re saying. I think to really understand the intention behind it, this all points back to one thing…
“I have always understood the Nazis,” Golding confessed, “because I am of that sort by nature.”
To drive your point home, most of what you listed are on the fascism checklist. This is something Golding thought of often, because he had that level of darkness within him
And as a depressed schoolteacher, he did what many small minded people do - he projected himself onto others instead of understanding that people come with all sorts of drives and natures
I hated that damn book, but this (complete with conch) is hilarious.
I both dislike the book and dislike this comic for missing the actual point of the book, which is not in fact, haha, this is what would actually happen and it’s just a group of random kids. It was specifically portraying british aristocratic children to criticize the colonizer mindset while discussing larger issues of human nature and civility and structure vs chaos.
I haven’t read the book but how did it criticize the colonizer mindset? A cursory look makes it seem like a justification of paternalistic authority, so propaganda for kids to blindly listen to their parents haha.
If anything wouldn’t this be justification for colonization, as colonized nations were often infantalized/dehumanized?
It was specifically a contrast on the colonizer mindset that was common both in culture and literature at the time. Showing a bunch of useless british aristocrats coming to “savage lands” and rather than taming the land they were shown that without their wealth and power and being taken care of by competent natives and labourers they became the savages they claimed to be inherently divinely better than.
I liked that book. It was eye-opening. And kinda made me appreciate the relative orderliness we have in a society run by adults. As much as kids would love to run wild & free with no supervision, but I was fortunate to be a child of the 1970’s & 80s so I enjoyed the perfect balance of wild freedom with parental care at the end of every day.
If it’s really that eye-opening is debatable I would say. As another user has posted it already, this is a more realistic scenario: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months
Edit: I am not saying it’s not a good book. I enjoyed reading it myself. I just don’t like the picture it paints of society and the conclusions people draw from it.
Well imagine if one of the kids was young Donald Trump. Pretty sure it would be different.
Not really, he would disappear early on.
The idea of you debating their subjetive experience sounds funny
Lord of the flies is not based on a true story
Wat. I’m talking about them saying it was eye opening lol
Oh I see. You replied to the wrong person
Reading it in the early 00s it made me wish I lived somewhere far more interesting with far more wild classmates.
All the rules and restrictions were so internalised, I think if we were abandoned on an island half of them would just sit still and starve.
I can’t imagine any of them being interesting enough to try to start their own religious cult or anything.
Can I ask why? It was actually one of my favorites in school, so just curious for a differing opinion.
I hated it because it was totally unbelievable, just a paternalistic rationalization for authority
I was confronted with the knowledge that the adults around me all thought the only thing keeping me from murdering someone was layers of rules and supervision. Like we’re all just rabid animals barely held back by a watchful eye
Even then, I knew myself better than that. I knew people better than that
But that’s how our society treats people. Like monsters that must be managed
Hmm, interesting. To be fair, I haven’t read it since HS and that was…decades ago. Based on what you said I might reread and reassess.
Fair, my analysis of it was that it was more metaphorical. That you could abstract it easily to global society at large.
The rejection of intellectualism through breaking glasses. The war caused over superstition. The one disabled kid being murdered first could be read as a criticism of extreme right wing ideology.
The Forrest burning is very reminiscent of American napalm bombing. Hell the meetings could be compared to the UN if you squint
I can see that angle, but that’s not how it was presented to me… And based on memes like this, it’s not how it was presented to most students. Teachers legitimately taught this as if it were a justification for giving us so little autonomy
Analyzing it now outside of that, I see a through line with what you’re saying. I think to really understand the intention behind it, this all points back to one thing…
To drive your point home, most of what you listed are on the fascism checklist. This is something Golding thought of often, because he had that level of darkness within him
And as a depressed schoolteacher, he did what many small minded people do - he projected himself onto others instead of understanding that people come with all sorts of drives and natures
Humans aren’t monsters until they reach a critical mass. Then they’re just awful.
Maybe it was presented to him as required school reading so that’s why he hated it 😜