Is humanity inherently prone to savagery or civilisation? I guess the jury's still out on that one.

Golding, however, is convinced that we are all bloodthirsty savages at heart - and he has written this novel to prove it.

I don't know whether he's right or wrong; but who cares? This book's terrific.

Thank god I'm done with this horrible book.

A plane full of British schoolboys crash lands on a deserted island with no adults. In the beginning, they try to be civilized and concentrate on being rescued, but the mind of Jack quickly (too quickly, I'd say) becomes twisted and warped into madness. The main protagonist is Ralph, the one who remained slightly sane throughout the book.
Ralph was really annoying at the start, but he grew as a character farther into the story.
I hated Jack. From the very start, he was a fucking terrible person, treating Piggy like dirt.
Piggy was my favorite character, along with Simon. And guess who dies? Both of the them. And for some reason, Jack doesn't.





I didn't think this story was realistic at all. I doubt a boy, or a group of boys, would go insane that soon. They were on the island for a few days, maybe a week. They had foot, water, shelter, but Jack kept going on about meat. He had to have his meat, pig meat. Why? I have no fucking clue. Apparently these boys couldn't live without meat for a few days and it screwed up their minds.



Okay then.

I don't get why this book is a required read in school. I get To Kill A Mockingbird and The Call of the Wild, those are beautiful books with real meaning in them.
But this?

It didn't 'teach' you anything. Honest to god, it was just the stupidest thing I've ever read. The only thing it told you was that a group of boys on a deserted island with no adults equals bad things will happen and they'll just start killing each other.

Granted, I'm looking at this from a more scholarly perspective, not just for an enjoyable read. But it was far from enjoyable considering how utterly ridiculous it was.

In the absence of society, madness ensues. When a group of British school boys ages 6 to around 12 get stranded on a deserted island, they first try to work together to survive. Quickly tempers and egos flare, causing the group to split and turn on one another. Fear drives them further apart and eventually the line of morality is erased.

I was curious to think had the ages been different, had the school children been female or mixture of genders, had they not been British, would things have played out differently? Very interesting and more than slightly disturbing.

Over the years I must have read this book five or six times. Last night I was reading it on a train with a highlighter in my hand, because I decided to teach it this year again. Teachers wreck books, of course. We all know that. On the other hand, whatever you have to study-read, you tend to carry a bit of it with you. You don't forget that book, at least. Although I must add, that it's quite risky introducing to a Scottish classroom a book with the memorable words: "The English are best at everything...."

I wasn't sure how much it would have dated. I must have read it for the first time 30 years ago. Published in 1954, the phrasing would have been pretty modern then. Even now, most of it has work well. The phrase that jumped at me -- and it only appeared once -- was when Piggy (I think) compared the boys detrimentally to 'niggers', instead of just 'savages'. Ouch. Mental note to make them look hard at this bit. After all this is such a horrible little group of boys. As complacently white as can be, one group of them from a choir school (or a public school with a choir), no less. And Ralph, the 'hero', son of a naval officer.

Golding, as a teacher in an upmarket school, presumably knew those sort of boys all too well. The boys being prepared to carry the empire forward.

Except the setting suggests the empire may not be going forward. Somebody somewhere is fighting a war that is evidently nuclear. It's never quite clear what is going on or how the officer turns up cool as cucumber on a naval cutter at the end.

Most of the young people in my class this year have (sigh) seen the film, so they know what happens. The group of boys marooned on an idyllic Pacific Island first start off having a sort of cheery adventure. There are references to Coral Island, Swallows and Amazons and Treasure Island too. They want to have fun, and one of their number -- Jack -- talks a great deal about 'fun', though his idea of fun is killing pigs.

They arrive a fairly civilised little group but they gradually degenerate. Golding's moral message is about the "darkness of man's heart" and it's a good moral companion to Heart of Darkness now I come to think about it. The boys natural fears escalate and the younger children create a mythical 'beast', which then seems to materialise as a fact when the body of a dead airman, killed a war fought in the skies overhead, floats down to the island in a parachute.

But the real beast is their own desire for control and domination, as well as an interesting bloodlust -- the word 'lust' is used of this, and the killing of the first pig is certainly described with unmistakable sexual resonance. One of the boys pushes a sharpened stick "up her ass". There are no girls in the group -- what a different novel it would have to have been if there were! -- but the pig they kill is a sow, and they interrupt her in suckling a brood of piglets. What a strange, strange thing to put into your novel. Not just the killing, but the slaughtering of a mother pig and a kind of sexual frenzy. Yuk!

But hey -- he's intending to shock. He's intending to show that this blood lust thing isn't far away from human kind, or male human kind at least, and that it doesn't take much to call it out. Even Ralph, the Aryan protagonist, feels himself getting caught up in it. Paint your face, start whooping and chanting and you can do, it seems, almost anything.

The kind, poetic, imaginative Simon gets butchered (teeth and nails at this point -- not spears). PIggy is despatched by Roger, the executioner. The whole of their little society is clearly turning into a Stalinist regime, with each boy taking his place, as prescribed by Golding, which is what you get to do when you write an allegory.

It's a powerful read, though more repetitive, in linguistic terms, than I remembered - almost as repetitive as D H Lawrence in places. At the highpoint, towards the end, when Ralph is completely isolated and being hunted down, the word 'ululation' is done to death. But at least you can't read this book without learning what it means!

What I both like and don't like about it is the way it makes me want to argue. The whole thing is completely manipulated. Is this what would happen? Would the darkness of man's heart take over?

I have not much doubt that man's heart is dark, I guess, but when I got off the train I left my very lovely reddy-orangy furry scarf, and the chap who was sitting opposite me (I didn't speak to him during the journey) ran after me with it. It brightened my day. Perhaps he was a 'Simon' and would quickly get trampled if our civilisation were to decline.

But look Golding, my lad -- that bit where you allow the man in the parachute to get dumped, dead, on the island, scaring the boys out of their wits -- if that hadn't happened -- your choice plot element -- well, the three boys Jack, Roger and Ralph, would have established Absence of Beast. It might all have turned out very differently.

If Piggy hadn't been wearing glasses, there would have been no fire....

If it had started raining sooner....

If Ralph had been a bit more intelligent....

If the pigs had been a bit better at getting away....

On an island, living on fruit and getting scratched and cut, one or two of them would have developed fatal infections and their main enemy would probably have been illness and death, which would have drawn them together a bit. Even the biting insects would probably have driven them potty. One or two of them, it's my bet, would have descended into depression and just dwindled away.

It wouldn't have been like The Coral Island, but it wouldn't have been the inevitable collapse of civilisation either.

Steven King likes this book. It fits beautifully with his love of dramatic thriller, increasing isolation of central brave character, and underlying opposition between good and evil. Here evil wins, though.

Ralph is about to be exterminated when the officer arrives, so the deus ex machina is just there as an ironic way to end the book. That bastard is even 'embarrassed' when Ralph bursts into tears. That's British stiff upper lippery for you.

I don't believe, in the boys' behaviour. I don't believe that Jack, the killer (I nearly said Jack the Giant-Killer), is there just below the surface, although I do believe that wars bring out the worst in us. I don't believe that Roger -- just a little boy -- is the natural henchman, with a desire to execute his peers running just below his veneer of civilisation.

But then perhaps I do. I've seen it, haven't I? Seen nasty young people doing nasty young things nastily. Conditioned into that, in their turn, by not very delightful adults, damaged adults.

Oh bloody Golding -- go away! I put my money on man's intelligence. You gotta use your head to survive, whichever allegory you seem to be inhabiting. And sometimes you do survive and sometimes you don't, but the 'darkness of man's heart' is offset by the light, which always returns.

The trouble is, the dark heart goes for power - doesn't it? And the desire for power and control over others can be wielded quickly and wrongly by just a few people. It's what's happening all over the world at this minute.

And yet -- the majority are good-hearted souls, who will pick up your scarf on a train and return it to you. There are more good guys than bad ones. Some of them are quietly and happily reading books at this minute. Otherwise, what would be the point?

In William Golding's Lord of the Flies, the dark side of human nature goes unchecked. This leads to the devolution we see among the boys who are stranded on an uninhabited island. Whether or not you agree with Golding's central idea here, it is a well written and interesting novel. I'm not sure what my thoughts were at the time, but I remember having read the story sometime in junior high school. I'm perhaps a bit more cynical of this breakdown in society now (or perhaps not)! I saw parallels to JG Ballard's work, but, even if it is simply a high-rise apartment, Ballard's take on society seems more complete.

Golding's unrelenting attack on reason (and how easily it can be displaced) begins on the opening pages and continues until the boys are rescued. For me, that played not quite successfully against an engaging story. 3.25 stars

I.
Lord of the Flies is a quintessential novel about the dark side of human nature, a parable showcasing the thin barrier between civilization and savagery. Golding deliberately used children to highlight that the allure of savagery is inherent in human nature regardless of age. This essay-review will explore several themes that emerge from Golding's masterpiece. Major spoilers follow, so if you wish to avoid them, consider returning after reading the novel.

II.
The boys on the island begin with the democratic ideals of their upbringing, but quickly descend into totalitarian chaos. Golding uses various symbols to illustrate this transformation.

The conch shell represents civilization, democracy, and order. They use it to assemble the group and organize their discussions. The conch's destruction coincides with Piggy's death, symbolizing the definitive end of order, morality, and rationality, and the triumph of savagery.

Piggy's glasses symbolize intellect and rationality. As they break, so does the boys' connection to reason, leaving only instinct and violence in their place.

Jack's war paint allows him to shed his identity and moral restraints. Behind the mask he is no longer Jack Merridew, a schoolboy shaped by civilization, but becomes an untamed savage. This suggests that civilization is a fragile construct that represses, rather than erases primal instincts. Ultimately, when survival is at stake, power shifts away from intellect and social order, leaving only primal instincts.

The beast embodies the fear of the unknown that spirals into hysteria. The boys' belief in the beast reflects how societies create enemies to justify violence. Their descent into paranoia mirrors the ideological manipulation seen in totalitarian regimes, an aspect of Ur-Fascism.

The pig's head on a stick, or the titular Lord of the Flies symbolizes the dark side of human nature. The name is a translation of Beelzebub, which is synonymous with Satan. The boys cannot escape the beast because it is within them.

The paradisical island itself resembles the Garden of Eden, yet the boys bring destruction with them. Instead of harmony, respect, and reciprocity, they act diabolically and create conflict, showing that humanity carries its own downfall wherever it goes.

Ironically, the boys were fleeing from a nuclear war, only to replicate its brutality on the island. They're rescued by naval officers, but what happened on the island is just a miniaturized version of what is already happening globally around the world.


III.
Leadership on the island quickly fractures into two opposing models: Ralph's democratic approach and Jack's totalitarian dictatorship.

Ralph is confident, assertive, and athletic, reflecting a childhood with a strong father figure. He is elected as leader, albeit in far from ideal conditions--the boys are disoriented and scared, and are swayed by charisma. He believes in order and democracy but struggles to enforce them. Ultimately, Ralph is a tragic hero because he refuses to abandon his principles even when it costs him everything. While he is power-hungry, he isn't inherently evil and he preserves his humanity and caring for the community. He could have joined Jack's tribe, but instead, he chooses exile, losing both power and a true friend--Piggy.

Jack Merridew is also assertive and authoritative, but is unsophisticated. He is a demagogue, driven by power rather than principle. Jack represents aggression, dominance, and the primal need for control. But, unlike Ralph, Jack is a provider. He brings meat and security which is more appealing than Ralph's fading authority, and the boys flock around him.

Piggy is intelligent but physically weak and socially awkward, making him an easy target. He is naive, anxious, and insecure, and doesn't even get to use his real name. Piggy's upbringing, with an overprotective mother and aunt and absent father, suggests how early experiences can shape an individual's social role. Piggy embodies reason and logic, yet his lack of charisma ensures that no one listens to him. Piggy's physical weakness and inability to assert himself contribute to his tragic death.

Simon represents innate human goodness and has a deep connection to nature, often seen as a Christ-like figure. He represents the person who causes cognitive dissonance by revealing uncomfortable truths to the public. His hallucination--the conversation with the pig's head--reveals the novel's core idea: the beast is not an external force but the evil within every human. Simon's murder symbolizes how societies silence those who challenge collective delusions.

Roger begins as a quiet boy but evolves into a sadist. He bullies the littluns, tortures Samneric, and kills Piggy with a boulder shattering the conch with it. The murder marks the complete breakdown of morality, and the destroyed conch erases the last sign of civilization. He represents the executioner in every totalitarian regime.

The decision of Samneric, the twins Sam and Eric, to abandon Ralph symbolize the loss of individual identity in the face of groupthink and societal pressure. Samneric represent the ordinary people who form the backbone of every society. The general public do not lead, nor challenge authority. They enable totalitarian dictatorship to exist. In totalitarian systems, power does not exist solely in the hands of an oppressor--it requires a majority willing to tolerate oppression in exchange for a certain compensation.

Democracy, capitalism, and other sophisticated social structures seem fragile against the pull of tribalism. In times of crisis, primal instincts take over. Jack may be a tyrant, but he is also a provider. When the brain struggles for basic survival, higher needs--reason, morality, order--fade into the background. People gravitate toward strong, charismatic leaders like Ralph and Jack, regardless of their flaws. Physically weaker but intelligent, book smart figures like Piggy are dismissed--not because they lack value, but because they don't inspire faith in survival.

The novel ends ambiguously, with the boys' rescue occurring against the backdrop of a global conflict. Ralph preserving his principles is a glimmer of hope about the world because even in the face of immense danger, the good may prevail. Thus, Ralph's survival and Piggy's death suggest that principled persons are more important in preserving the moral order than knowledgeable ones. While factual knowledge can eventually be rediscovered, moral principles are essential for guiding its application and preventing its destructive use.

IV.
In 1965, six Tongan boys stole a boat to escape their strict boarding school. A storm wrecked it, leaving them stranded on an uninhabited island for 15 months. They survived through cooperation, utilizing their practical skills to build shelters, find food, and maintain a sense of community until their rescue. Their story contrasts sharply with the events in Lord of the Flies, showcasing cooperation instead of violent descent.

However, key differences exist. The Tongan boys had pre-existing relationship and trusted each other. They faced no internal threats--no Jack-like figure, they had survival skills, and knowledge how to mend injuries. Unlike the boys from Lord of the Flies, the Tongan boys were all physically strong and providers.

While the Tongan boys' experience highlights the positive potential of human nature, it doesn't necessarily invalidate Golding's exploration of its dark aspects. It simply highlights the importance of context. Lord of the Flies explores what happens when destabilizing factors are present, and a group of strangers, thrust into a survival situation, must create a society from scratch. The contrasting narratives of the Tongan boys and the boys in Lord of the Flies highlight different aspects of human nature. History shows both the horrors of human nature (countless wars and genocides) and humanity's capacity for solidarity (international response to natural disasters like the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami).

'Ισως ένα από τα πιο πρωτοποριακά και 'σκληρά' μυθιστορήματα της Βρετανικής Λογοτεχνίας των μέσων της δεκαετίας του '50, το οποίο είχε τέτοια μακροπρόθεσμη επίδραση, ώστε θα μπορούσε κάποιος να πει ότι αποτέλεσε και τη βασική ιδέα στις reality τηλεποτικές εκπομπές 'επιβίωσης', όπως το 'Survivor', το 'Nomads' κ.τ.λ.

Ήταν η πρώτη συγγραφική προσπάθεια του Γκόλντινγκ, η οποία, αφού απορρίφθηκε πολλές φορές από αρκετούς εκδοτικούς οίκους, κατέληξε να εκδοθεί μέν, αλλά στην αρχή να πουλήσει λίγα αντίτυπα στις Η.Π.Α (www.wikipedia.org). Σε σχετικά σύντομο χρονικό διάστημα, όμως, αγαπήθηκε από το αναγνωστικό κοινό, έγινε best seller, και έφτασε μέχρι καί στις αρχές της δεκαετίας του '60 να αποτελεί ένα από τα προτεινόμενα βιβλία σε πολλά σχολεία και κολλέγια.

Πολλοί αναγνώστες, ξεκινώντας το βιβλίο, ενδεχομένως να σχηματίσουν την εντύπωση ότι πρόκειται για μια απλή περιπέτεια επιβίωσης παιδιών και εφήβων σε ένα εξωτικό νησί, έπειτα από ένα αεροπορικό δυστύχημα. Όντως, το 1ο μέρος του βιβλίου εστιάζει στην προσαρμογή τους στο νησί, την εύρεση τροφής και τη διατήρηση ενός συλλογικού πνεύματος (αλληλεγγύης). Ωστόσο, εδώ ο συγγραφέας δίνει μεγαλύτερο βάρος στη περιγραφή της βλάστησης, του δάσους, του βουνού και, γενικά, περιγράφει με υπερβολικές λεπτομέρειες τη φύση στο νησί, με κίνδυνο να κουράσει και να αποπροσανατολίσει το αναγνωστικό κοινό, αφού ούτε οι χαρακτήρες αναπτύσσονται επαρκώς, ούτε υπάρχει έντονη ή σημαντική δράση.

Το 2ο μέρος του βιβλίου, όμως, αιφνιδιάζει τον αναγνώστη με την έντονη πλοκή του, τα 'σκοτεινά' στοιχεία της ιστορίας που 'αγγίζουν' το ψυχολογικό θρίλερ, και τη πάλη των ιδιαίτερων χαρακτήρων των ηρώων του μυθιστορήματος. Εντυπωσιάζει το γεγ��νός ότι, ενώ, οι ήρωες είναι παιδιά και έφηβοι μιας 'κλειστής' κοινωνίας που προσπαθεί να επιβιώσει σε ένα νησί, επιδεικνύουν μεγαλύτερη αγριότητα και αμείλικτη διάθεση από τους ενήλικες.

Το βιβλίο με παραστατικό, αν και, αρκετές φορές, με ωμό τρόπο, θίγει σοβαρά ζητήματα όπως είναι η ομαδικότητα, η αλληλεγγύη, η συντροφικότητα, η κοινωνικοποίηση, η πάλη λογικής-συναισθήματος/σωματικής δύναμης-πνευματικής δύναμης, ο εγωϊσμός, η ηγεσία, η στέρηση αγαθών που οδηγούν στην εξαθλίωση και, τέλος, η οικουμενικότητα, η οποία, στις μέρες μας, αμφισβητείται υπό το πρίσμα της 'παγκοσμιοποίησης'.

Στις τελευταίες σελίδες, η αγωνία κορυφώνεται, ενώ η κάθαρση έρχεται την κατάλληλη στιγμή για να επιλύσει νομοτελειακά και να φέρει την ισορροπία στο αδιέξοδο της ζωής των παιδιών.

Είναι ένα μυθιστόρημα, το οποίο καλό είναι να διαβαστεί από εφήβους μέχρι ηλικιωμένους. Έχει να δώσει πολλή 'τροφή' στη σκέψη.

Συνολική βαθμολογία: 3,7/5 ή 7,4/10.

Βαθμολογία λόγω πρωτότυπου και πρωτοποριακού θέματος: 4,5/5 ή 9/10.

4.5 rounded up

This is my first time reading 'Lord of the Flies'. Which seems amazing to me when it's a book that's so popular, so famous and so celebrated

I knew quite a lot about the book (it's difficult not to when it's so popular) so I went in believing that I'd be disappointed or maybe the book would be 'of it's time'.

I read the book in the space of 3 hours and loved every page. It's definitely a book I will re-read often. Stunning

Written in the afterword:

The theme for LORD OF THE FLIES is described by Golding as follows (in the same publicity questionnaire): "The theme is an attempt to trace the defects of society back to the defects of human nature. The moral is that the shape of a society must depend on the ethical nature of the individual and not on any political system however apparently logical or respectable. The whole book is symbolic in nature except...." - and here I end the quote because it provides spoilers for the ending of the novel. (spoilers after review in spoiler tags if curious for the rest)

After I was 80% or so through with this, I started wondering about why it was such a commonly chosen book required for school reading. Did the teachers and administration mistakeningly assume it would somehow drive home the point that children need adults to remind them of right and wrong, right and fair, honest and true? I would hope that no adult would assume children would get that moral lesson from this text, when we know the truth ourselves, and it is this: that perhaps a group of adults in mixed company, who suddenly faced no law or consequence of action, would be much more terrifying on an island than a group of children.

Maybe they choose the book to show how important society and law can be to keep things in order and not let the wildness take over, although the author seems to disagree with this ideology. He says that despite a logical, respectable system, it can depend on the nature of the individual.

I suppose this book would have been downright boring had the group been comprised of likeminded pacifist individuals who wanted to do coconut shell tea parties over a fire while staying content munching on the island berries.

Instead of that pretty picture, we get a mix of boys who are savages at heart, intent on killing pigs on the island for meat....but really just because they want to kill something. At the heart of it is how one bad seed leads others to corrupt growth, tainting the entire group and turning everyone against each other.

The one lone person with sense was the most bullied, nicknamed "piggy" for his weight issue, scoffed at when his asthma acted up, and was so poorly respected they even took his glasses to make fires. It's possible the author in that day was already speaking against bullying, but it's more likely that it has always been a common issue and often the most rebelled against is the brightest of the bunch in the first place, just that groups are too dim-witted and prejudiced to listen.

It works as a dystopia - it's not in the future, but it's a twisted 'society gone wrong in unusual setting' scenario. The island certainly wasn't utopia - despite how pretty it seemed. And how small was this thing? They made it seem incredibly tiny.

As much as I enjoyed the book - and I did, it was riveting, well-written, with rounded characterization that rang true - I think it would have been interesting to add some more nature elements other than fire and poor pigs. Island snakes are creepy, they did say there were sharks in the water beyond the safe lake-thing area but never mentioned it again - as twisted as it sounds, I kind of wanted a wild bore to show at least one of the savages who was boss since they were so relentlessly after the pigs. Even if the author wrote it to focus on the nature of man overriding civilization's best intentions, it would have been even more tense to add some of that in the mix before their little group started falling apart. Even if no one was hurt, the suspense of it would have made the story more gripping than it already was.

I enjoyed how - instead of just having the sides of leadership struggling for dominance, followers unsure who to follow, and a breakdown of civilization - they also had a fear of an unknown element they called 'the beast.' It wouldn't have been realistic for them, especially as children, not to have a least one overriding fear to help shape them. I think most civilizations were originally shaped from fear as they formed themselves anyway.

Overall, whether schools want you to read it or not, it's a worthy classic. I'm curious on reading more from the author since I dug his writing style and appreciate his honest look at the subject.

Rest of quote from author on theme that reveals the ending n   The whole book is symbolic in nature except....the rescue in the end where adult life appears, dignified and capable, but in reality enmeshed in the same evil as the symbolic life of the children on the island. The officer, having interrupted a man-hunt, prepares to take the children off the island in a cruiser which will presently be hunting its enemy in the same implacable way. And who will rescue the adult and his cruiser?"n

And this was beyond creepy -

Δεν μπόρεσε να με πείσει ότι αξίζει το θόρυβο που έχει προκαλέσει.
Ίσως αν το διάβαζα στα εφηβικά - φοιτητικά μου χρόνια. Ή ίσως αν το διάβαζα πιο κοντά στην εποχή στην οποία εκδόθηκε. Να έφταιγε και η μετάφραση?
Μην με παρεξηγήσετε, πρόκειται για ένα δυνατό βιβλίο, που θα το πρότεινα ως ένα γρήγορο αλλά σημαντικό ανάγνωσμα. Κυρίως γιατί καταρρίπτει τους μύθους του στυλ: "Αν τα παιδιά κυβερνούσαν τον κόσμο αυτός θα ήταν καλύτερος" και τα ηλίθια τραγουδάκια του τύπου: "Αν όλα τα παιδιά της γης πιάναν γερά τα χέρια...".
Τα παιδιά είναι σκληρά και το χάος υπάρχει μέσα τους.
Δεν μπορώ να πω κάτι περισσότερο, όμως, κυρίως γιατί όλος αυτός ο ντόρος γύρω από το βιβλίο, δημιουργεί τέτοιες προσδοκίες, που εκ των πραγμάτων είναι δύσκολο να επαληθευτούν.

I've got the conch now, so listen up!

In Lord of the Flies Golding deconstructed civilization, wiping it out and showing us our world in chaos. It's not pretty. Man without governance is apt to slide into savagery. At first the castaway children on this deserted isle set up rules and leadership, but law and order is overwhelmed when the majority discover there is no immediate consequence if they give in to their wants and desires. In the place of civility, a brutal world is born in which might is right, the weak are stamped out, and the female voice all but silenced (Piggy's frequent references to his auntie).

Golding pounded away at that theme, so much so as to rankle some readers who criticize the book's heavy-handed use of cardboard cut-out stereotypes to force the author's point across. I don't deny it, but in this instance I'm okay with it because I found the outcome, depressing and disheartening as it is, satisfying as a statement and, the whole, enjoyable as a fully contained tale. Surely the characters could've been invested with deeper background, which would have added greatly to the story in detail as well as pages. Both are unessential, for the intended purpose is served...Golding held the conch and Lord of the Flies is what he had to say.