I absolutely hated this book. That's my over-riding memory of it I'm afraid. I had to read it in secondary school when I was about 12 and I never remember disliking a book so much which was surprising as I was a voracious reader.

I just remember having absolutely nothing in common with the characters - a group of English upper / middle class school boys whereas I was a Scottish working class girl. I just could not relate to the story at all and just wished they would all kill each other as soon as possible so the book would finish.

The fact that we had to read the book in class at the pace of some of the slower readers (agonisingly painfully slow readers) and then discuss it afterwards, which was like trying to get blood out of a stone, probably didn't help.

Never, ever again.

“Maybe,” he said hesitantly, “maybe there is a beast…. What I mean is … maybe it’s only us.”
…
“What are we? Humans? Or animals? Or savages?”
…
Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man’s heart.

The setup of Lord of the Flies is as simple as it is iconic. A plane full of boys aged six to twelve crashes on a deserted island. Free from adult supervision, the boys try to set up their own society. But it turns out that “the darkness of man’s heart” is stronger than our better angels, and the boys slowly descend into a murderous mob.

Lord of the Flies is an allegory, with each character essentially an archetype: Ralph the optimistic leader, Piggy the voice of reason, Simon the believer, Jack the power-hungry rival to Ralph, and Roger the truly malevolent. And, of course, there are symbols everywhere: the conch shell, Piggy’s glasses, the signal fire, the beast, and, ultimately, Simon’s vision of the Lord of the Flies.

Lord of the Flies was written in the aftermath of World War II, and it carries that same pessimism about humanity that is common to many great novels of that era. The novel works precisely because of that pessimism, because it feels realistic. A group of boys left unsupervised wouldn’t live like Robinson Crusoe. They likely would devolve from order to chaos, from civilization to savagery, from innocence to a face-painted group who torture, hunt, and kill each other. It’s dark and dystopian, yet it reflects and explains so much about the world we live in. Recommended.

I read this book a long time ago, long enough to where I barely remembered anything past the basic premise. So I picked it up again, only to wish I hadn't. There's a reason why they teach this book in middle school--in order to enjoy this book, one's intellectual cognizance must be that of a child, because otherwise you'll spend the entire time picking out everything that's wrong with the book. And there's a lot to pick out.

From what little of the story that is actually coherent, I can see why this book has had a lasting effect on social commentary since it's initial publishing. The overlying illustration of how easily man can devolve back to his feral instincts is striking, yet could have been infinitesimally more effective in the hands of a decent writer.

See, I would have cared a bit more about the little island society of prepubescent boys and their descent into barbarism if you know, any of the characters had been developed AT ALL. Instead, we're thrown interchangeable names of interchangeable boys who are only developed enough to conform to the basic archetypes Golding requires to hobble his little story along: The Leader, The Rebel, The Fat-Kid, The Nose-Picker, etc. Were he born in this time, I believe Golding would have done brilliantly as a scriptwriter for reality TV.

And the plot? There's a plot? I'm guessing so, since things seem to happen, but it's kind of hard to tell since he spends pages describing irrelevant events that are never incorporated, characters that possibly exist yet probably don't, and using words that don't mean what he thinks they mean. And as the main characters are a bunch of kids not worth caring about, thus goes the way of the story.

And the prose? Dear God, the prose! Get it away! It burns us!

So yeah, this book sucked. It had potential. There were even a few parts I internally squealed at in hopeful anticipation. But whatever potential it did have was hopelessly squandered by a man who wrote like he'd never written anything before in his life. Don't waste your time.

Rating: 1* of five for clanking, clunking prose

It's a question of taste. I'm not fond of OverBlownAllegorical stories. There is no escaping this book's didacticism. Its parti pris is on display from page one. I was full up on that when I finished reading Orwell, who did it with more wit and humor than Golding does. Just not my kind of story is all.

Years after I read this masterpiece, it is still chilling.

Golding spins a yarn that could have been told centuries ago, primal human nature unmoored from civilization does not take long to break away and devolve into a feral thing.

As good today, and as haunting, as it was when it was published in 1954. This should be on a list of books that must be read.

** 2018 addendum - it is a testament to great literature that a reader recalls the work years later and this is a book about which I frequently think.

[5.0⭐]

⭐️⭐️⭐️/5

«"Prendetelo! Ammazzatelo! Scannatelo!"»

Poche parole per descrivere quello in cui, una piccola società, fondata da bambini,  può trasformarsi.
Quando penso ad un'isola deserta, meravigliosa, abitata da bambini perduti...ecco, quello che mi viene in mente è la storia di Peter Pan. Ma su quest'isola regnano anarchia e caos, sangue e terrore.
Ma come , direte voi, se ci sono solo dei pargoli, come può essere?
E qui capiamo quanto poco di innocente abbiano dei graziosi ragazzini.
Possiamo capire come l'uomo, sopraffatto dalla paura, possa dare di matto, diventare picchiatello, tocco (per usare i termini attribuiti a Simone), aggressivo, violento,sanguinario.
Golding ci mostra come il male si celi negli adulti come nei bambini.
Ma....c'è un grande ma! Questo libro ha qualche punto che mi ha smorzato tutta la storia.
A parte il fatto che, dubito fortemente, dei ragazzini riescano a sopravvivere mezza giornata su di un'isola deserta, ma poi nessuno che piange disperato (teniamo conto che ci sono 6enni sull'isola), nessuno sta male perché ha mangiato qualcosa che non doveva (mio figlio di 14 anni non credo sappia nemmeno distinguere un mirtillo da una bacca velenosa), tutti che pensano a cacciare, mangiare, giocare.....
Se penso alla capacità di adattamento di mio figlio, beh ragazzi miei, la specie umana sarebbe fottuta! Ah, io stimo tantissimo mio figlio e credo sia più sveglio dei sui 14 anni, giusto per essere chiari.
Sicuramente l'anno di uscita di questo romanzo si portava dietro una generazione completamente diversa da quella attuale, una generazione anche abbastanza maschilista. Nemmeno una bambina nella storia, paura che non sarebbe sopravvissuta o paura ad ammettere che forse, con qualche rappresentante del genere femminile, le cose sarebbero andate diversamente?

Fenomenalna.

I am having a hard time rating this book. It's such a huge classic and it made me think. A lot. But in the end, I'm not sure I can completely agree with Golding's bleak view on humanity. The plot is simple. A group of boys gets stranded on an uninhabited island and they need to figure out how to survive. Instead, they fall apart, violently, over differences of priorities and leadership issues. Golding's message here couldn't be any clearer. That humans, stripped of rules and customs set by civilizations, revert back to animalistic nature quite quickly, and even pre-teen kids are not immune to it. I understand that much as we hope for humans to always behave in a humane manner, our species very often fall short of it. Be it in classroom bullying or neighbors turning on each other in a riot. But at the same time, are the majority of humans innately violent enough to kill? Is it only the laws that prevent us from such behavior? If so, how would we explain all the small kindnesses, cooperation, and support that are not state-mandated and yet we receive on a daily basis from our fellow humans?

I had a difficult time accepting everything going on in Lord of the Flies. Shared difficulties often brew new friendships. Yet in a group of kids facing the worst of difficulties, we hardly saw any decent friendships forming. The central characters are all around the age of 12. These kids, with the exception of Ralph and Piggy, don't show much eagerness in going back home. They are not shown to miss their families. They are hardly shown to be scared to death until they think they saw a 'beast'. But they are concerned about establishing leadership and masculinity. Most of the kids quite literally turn into bloodthirsty savages. While reading the book, the early stages of their disputes seemed very plausible, the fast spiraling into madness in the latter part was not very convincing to me. At least based on my experience from that age, but that is based mostly on how girls that age behave. This brings me to the other problem with this story. There are no girls on this island. If this is to be taken as an extrapolation of adult human behavior, keeping the nature of half of them out of the count will hardly do justice. Golding in some interview said that he made it all boys because including girls would have added to the complexity much more. Maybe that would have made the story different, or maybe he wouldn't have been able to make his point on the one-dimensional brutality of humans. But the real society is complex, with men and women, good and bad, kind and violent, and simplifying it to achieve a particular point feels unfair.

Overall, it certainly provides food for thought. But its view on humanity is too pessimistic for my taste.

PS: Thanks to Lisa of Troy, for holding a read-along which led to some amazing discussions with fellow readers.

ویلیام گلدینگ در کتاب بسیار معروف خود سالار مگس ها به سرشت شر انسان و غلبه آن بر خیر پرداخته . از نگاه او انسان همان گونه شر می سازد که زنبور عسل تولید می کند . او از آزمندی ، خشونت و خودخواهی که در ذات بشر نهادینه شده سخن گفته . به نظر گلدینگ آدمیزاد بیمار است – نه انسان هایی استثنایی ، بلکه آدم های معمولی . او در سالار مگس ها هم به همین نظریه پرداخته ، این که انسان جانور است و سرشتی جانور خو دارد .
کتاب گلدینگ در ایران بیشتر به نام سالار مگس ها ترجمه شده و به چاپ رسیده اما نشر نیلوفر عنوان کتاب را بعل زبوب انتخاب کرده . در مقدمه کتاب توضیح داده شده که بعل در زبان سامی نام هریک از خداهای محلی قدیم ، مخصوصا در سوریه و فلسطین بوده . پرستش بعل معمولا مراسمی مانند باروری و قربانی انسان همراه داشته . نام بعل که ابتدا توسط عبرانیان برای خداییان خود استفاده می شده به تدریج و در میان مبارزه میان شرک کنعانیان و توحید عبرانیان با معنای شیطان مترادف شد . بنابراین بعل زبوب یا خدای مگس ها ابتدا نام بت و خدای مردم فلسطین بوده که بعدها با تحریف یهودیان یکی از نام های شیطان شد .

سالار مگس ها ، شر همیشگی انسان و غلبه آن بر خیر

در اولین برداشت شاید بتوان کتاب مهم گلدینگ را مانند سند و مدرکی برای لزوم قانون و حاکمیت آن دانست . گلدینگ تلاش ساکنان جزیره که البته پسر بچه هایی کوچک هستند برای قانون گذاری و اعمال قانون و البته رعایت آن در محیطی مانند جنگل را به تصویر کشیده . در گام اول با انتخاب رالف به عنوان رهبر این کودکان و وضع قوانینی هرچند حداقلی و البته اجرای نصفه و نیمه قوانین توسط پسر بچه ها ، شرایط تثبیت شده و به آرامی رو به بهبود به نظر می رسد . آنان در حال ساخت پناهگاه ، جمع آوری آب شیرین و از همه مهمتر روشن کردن آتش و نگه داشتن آن برای نجات خود هستند . اما آنان که کودکانی 6 تا 12 ساله هستند نه قادر به اجرای قوانین هستند و نه اهمیت آنرا می دانند . خود رالف هم شخصیت و کاریزمای یک رهبر را ندارد . فرامین او مدام به دست جک که پسربچه ای جنگجو و ستیزه جو است به چالش کشیده می شود . کم کم پسر بچه ها به دو گروه موافق و مخالف رالف تقسیم می شوند . اکثریت به رهبری جک از گروه جدا شده و سبک و زندگی دیگری انتخاب می کند آنان شکارچی می شوند و به شکار خوک می روند . با خون ریختن و شکار کردن و رنگ کردن صورت خود با خون خوک به خوی وحشی گری خود و یا همان شر درون مجال جلوه گری می دهند و کم کم وحشی می شوند .

خوکو بکش ، سرشو ببر ، خونشو بریز

خوک در کتاب گلدینگ نقش بسیار مهمی دارد ، خوک و شکار خوک است که به جک قدرت داده و گروه شکارچی او را از گروه رالف متمایز می کند . خون خوک هم کاربردی مانند ماسک دارد ، در حقیقت همین ماسک خون آلود است که شکارچی ها را همانند وحشی ها ساخته و تفاوت بزرگی میان آنان و گروه رالف ایجاد کرده . سر خوک هم که قرار است قربانی جک به هیولا باشد عملا نمادی مانند پرچم وحشی ها را پیدا کرده و قلمرو آن ها را نشان می دهد . سر خوک در حقیقت جزیی از همان بچه هاست ، همان ذات شر که در وجود انسان است و قابل شکار نیست و با قربانی دادن هم رام نمی شود .
خوکه یکی از پسر بچه ها که به سبب چاق بودن به این نام تحقیرآمیز خوانده می شود نقش مهم در داستان گلدینگ دارد . او را می توان نماد عقل و یا دگر اندیشی میان پسر بچه ها دانست . تقریبا پشت تمامی ایده ها اوست و دیگران از جمله رالف اندیشه های او را اجرا می کنند. نویسنده ضعف همیشگی این طبقه را با نشان دادن ناتوانی بدنی خوکه بیان کرده . او بدون عینک چیزی نمی بیند و بیماری آسم دارد . خوکه نه از طرف حاکمیت و رقیب آن جدی گرفته می شو�� و نه بچه های دیگر ارزش او را قدر می دانند و سرنوشت او هم سخت دردناک است .
گلدینگ با مهارت و استادی تقابل تمدن و وحشی گری را نشان داده ، تمدن با وجود آنکه راه نجات پسربچه ها به سوی دنیای خارج است اما از آن جایی که نیاز به همکاری ، مسئولیت پذیری ، تلاش و زحمت دارد کم کم از طرف پسران نادیده گرفته می شود . دربرابر نجات ، آنان بازی ، شنا ، سرگرم شدن و شکار و خون ریزی و از میان محدودیت های وضع شده از طرف قانون و رالف ، بی قانونی ، آنارشیسم و جک را انتخاب می کنند . با دور شدن آنان از تمدن ، خوی وحشی گری در میان آنها افزایش می یابد . آنها پس از شکار خوک نوعی رقص سنتی اجرا می کنند که فرقی با آیین وحشیان ندارد . در جهان نویسنده ذات شر و خوی وحشی گری به نژاد ، رنگ ، سن و یا جنسیت بستگی ندارد و همه افراد به گونه ای آن را دارند .
پایان کتاب نشان دهنده بن بستی ایست که در جهان 1954 و هنگام جنگ سرد وجود داشته و البته الان هم به گونه ای دیگر وجود دارد . گلدینگ به خوبی پوچی ، بی هدفی و از همه مهمتر بن بست اخلاقی را در سالار مگس ها نشان داده ، جهان پدران که نابود شده و جزیره پسران هم ویران و آتش هم خاموش شده .
گلدینگ کتاب را با کنایه و طعنه به پایان رسانده ، جزیره پسران فرق چندانی با جهان ویران پدران ندارد ، گویی در جهان او مجالی برای خیر نیست و شر است که همه جهان را فرا گرفته است .

I HATE THIS BOOK!!!

Maybe there is a beast… maybe it's only us.


This book doesn't fall under horror category, right? Then why did it scare living crap out of me?

Lord of the Flies is a story about a group of boys who get marooned on one island after their plane crashed. Now, from the first page of this book, I had this uneasy feeling for some reason. And the more I read, the more that feeling grew. I've already heard that this book was not an easy book to read and that there were some pretty disturbing scenes. But still, I did not expect this.

And what scared me the most was just how realistic (at least in my opinion) this book was. And how these children are not any different than adults. I'm positive that we would get similar outcome if a group of adults got marooned on an island. And that is why (unlike The Maze Runner) this book got it right. And I'll definitely re-read this book in the future many times, because I fell that this is one of those books that just needs a re-read to be completely understood.