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.

The year 1954 saw the first publication of Golding’s masterwork, the point of which had (independently) bifurcated my personality in that same year - in a series of ironic inner game-changing events...

Piggy and his upper-class schoolmates are marooned on a remote wild island. But left without adults, they quickly descend, like some of our leaders, into draconian martial violence - the powerful and strong versus the poor and weak (shades of Animal Farm?).

And I myself nearly became a Piggy.

January, 1954 saw the personal event that changed that transition forever.

You see, for 69 years I have lived my life in a perpetual rerun of Bill Murray’s Groundhog Day. And my moral values - though, praise God, not my Political ones - are so utterly and ironically shared with those of that McCarthyist year, 1954.

I’m a Photographic Time Warp copy, in fact.

It all started on a crisp, clear January morning in 1954...

My colicky and irascible brother had come into the world ten months earlier - like me, he would have preferred to stay Close to my Mom forever, bless him. But - I had also around the time of his birth found my parents in an embarrassingly intimate act. I had been barely three.

And the day our car crashed on the Michigan Freeway when I was two was the origin...

That event had upset my psychological Apple Cart.

My Eden had vanished. And soon I was no longer the sole beneficiary of my parent's love. With the appearance of those twin sources of trauma, I became moody and withdrawn. And fell into entropy. Corporal punishment was administered, more and more frequently.

Yes, the Absurd split my life in two with those events - through no fault of. my parents - and a lifetime split resulted. Under that fractious stress, I retreated into the safe haven of Autism.

All because of my parents tried to love their children equally.

Kids can be so weird.

But by January 1954 my parents had seen enough of my inner ethical turmoil. They wanted to shore up my confidence. They bought me a popular 45 rpm record, whose flip side contained a ‘fun’ song about a “Number One Son” who must be taught to not his “Troubles tell, for Life is to Enjoy.”

Their unsparing love had been replaced by an Ideological Life Hack, that I took for my own, just as a drowning man will hang for dear life onto a Brass Ring on a ship’s hold. A four-year-old needs a foundation for his values in the absence of primary love.

Yes, you guessed it: it was a substitute; an ideal false self. But thankfully, it made my Christian faith possible, and that endured.

But that Brass Ring, which gave me a traumatically Impossible ideal to live up to in order to be a Number One Son in their eyes, was psychologically destructive...

And its inner violent duality was at the heart of my psychological collapse in 1970 - it was the Perfect Storm: autistic, sheltered 1950's kid meets his violently postmodern climacteric - coming of age!

BUT - its mature, adult worldview was always ALL that stood against me - and the moral entropy and outright violence of a Piggy, towards whose personality I had been drifting by the age of four.

So WHAT if it turned me into a slightly funny lifetime Aspie and hence victim of all the symptoms of bipolar disorder?

My utter MORAL collapse was averted.

I maintained my values intact.

And for that, in my view, my parents and siblings deserve ALL THE CREDIT.

Golding has said that the genesis of his novel lay in the brutalities he witnessed during his service at sea in world war 2 and in his experiences teaching small boys for 13 years. His use of an obvious but effective symbolism throughout the story allows it to work as an allegory of humanity's fallen nature as well as a graphically realistic scenario.

Lord of the Flies isn't your average book. The setting is predictable for a story - boys stranded on an Island. It's a recipe for a good old fashion adventure novel, right? Except, it's not. It's different. But in a good way? yes and no.

Set in an unspecified period of war, a plane crashes, leaving a group of schoolboys stranded. Shocking, but not that unbearable. After all, the young boys dreams have come true: who wouldn't want a whole island to play on all day without any nagging from the Adults? The unlikely protagonists are Ralph, and his buddy, Piggy. Without any adults, the boys realise that a leader must be elected in order to make sure that everyone has fun and doesn't act unkindly. Ralph ends up being voted in as leader of the pack, he has skills and popularity with the rest of the boys. Ralph befriends a choirboy called Jack, who turns out to be the antagonist in this story. But as time passes a sort of cabin fever kicks in, resulting in a more sinister and unsettling set of actions.

Is this a book about protagonists and/or antagonists? it's really hard to truly define who they are as a group, for you see, Lord of the Flies isn't just a book about boys becoming independent and mentally toughened up. It holds a deeper, more subtle meaning, making the reader question what it really means to be immoral, and the true meaning of evil. It is a book with more depth that it first appears, and it constantly brings up some interesting points. The biggest problem I found was reading it as an older adult, I just never felt the trills and spills, that say, an eleven year old boy would, thus found it hard to really connect with the kids in the same way as a kid reading this would. It is definitely more suited for those still in education, and would make a great read for a boy scout camping out in the wilderness. Should have read it 30 years ago, for better appreciation. Solid storytelling though.

Ένα αεροπλάνο πέφτει σε κάποιο άγνωστο νησί, και κατά ένα πολύ περίεργο και ανεξήγητο τρόπο επιβιώνουν μόνο μικρά παιδάκια και δη αγόρια. Ο συγγραφέας δεν δίνει κανένα στοιχείο για τα αίτια του δυστυχήματος, για τους επιβάτες και γενικά η ιστορία ξεκινάει κάπως απότομα έτσι ώστε να εστιάσει ο αναγνώστης στο κεντρικό θέμα του βιβλίου, που δεν είναι άλλο από την φύση του ανθρώπου…
Ο Γκολντινγκ εστιάζει πολύ εύστοχα σε 2 παραμέτρους. Την λογική και το ένστικτο. Η λογική καλλιεργείται και διαμορφώνεται ενώ το ένστικτο ακολουθεί τον γενότυπο μας εδώ και εκατοντάδες χιλιάδες χρόνια. Οπότε τι θα καθορίσει την κατεύθυνση μιας πρωτόλειας κοινωνίας, η οποία απαρτίζεται από μικρούς ανθρώπους που δεν είναι ολοκληρωμένες προσωπικότητες αλλά προέρχονται από μια κοινωνία με κανόνες;
Ο Ρίτσαρντ Ντόκινς γράφει πως το μιμίδιο είναι πιο ισχυρό από το γονίδιο. Αυτό που βλέπουμε, που γνωρίζουμε, που καταλαβαίνουμε μπορεί να υπερνικήσει την άγρια φύση μας; Ο ίδιος όμως πάντα βάζει πάνω από όλα το εγωιστικό γονίδιο, ή με πιο απλά λόγια το εγώ. Καλές οι κοινωνίες και οι ομάδες αλλά ο εγωισμός μας είναι αυτός που μας χαρακτηρίζει σαν νοήμονα όντα!

Στο βιβλίο καθένας από τους βασικούς χαρακτήρες συμβολίζει μια πλευρά της ανθρώπινης φύσης. Ο Τζακ την άγρια φύση μας, ο Ραλφ το πολιτισμένο Homo Sapiens, ο Πίγκυ την λογική και πάει λέγοντας. Έτσι όσο πλησιάζει το τέλος, μια φαινομενικά απλή ιστορία μετατρέπεται σε μια σπουδή για την ανθρώπινη φύση. Τα τελευταία κεφάλαια είναι συναρπαστικά και διαβάζονται με κομμένη την ανάσα.

Όμως το συμπέρασμα σχεδόν βγαίνει αβιάστα. Η ευφυής ζωή και η ικανότητα επεξεργασίας πληροφορίας μόλις υπάρξει, δεν μπορεί ποτέ να πεθάνει…

Εξαιρετικό βιβλίο και υπέροχη γραφή από έναν σπουδαίο Άγγλο συγγραφέα.
5/5*

LORD OF THE REREADINGS

A couple of months ago, I picked up To Kill A Mockingbird, a book I last read in high school. What fascinated me about the exercise was how much I remembered and how much I didn’t, what I appreciated as a teen and what I do now.

After that, I began wondering how I would respond to the other books I had to read and analyze as a youth. Hence my rereading of Lord Of The Flies. It’s equally powerful – shocking, even by today’s standards. And it’s all very efficiently done.

Both books are deserved classics. I don’t regret a moment spent rereading either one.

So… perhaps this will become a series. What’s next: Catcher In The Rye? A Separate Peace? Anyhow, on with the review... and keep in mind that if you weren't forced to read this back in school, THERE BE SPOILERS AHEAD (or A-HEAD - if you'll excuse the pun).

What do I remember from my first reading?
• The set-up, of course. After a plane crashes, a group of English boys finds themselves stranded on an island and, with no adults to guide them, form a kind of society that quickly breaks down, resulting in madness and murder.
• The symbols, among them: the conch (for order and civilization, I suppose, since if one holds it one can speak in front of a group); the glasses (or “specs”), which help create fire and, since they belong to the nearsighted, brainy yet mercilessly bullied Piggy, might also represent intelligence.
• The idea of monsters, both real and imagined.
• I remember being entertained by the nickname Piggy – what a childish thing, but it is memorable and symbolic in its own way. What a smart move on author William Golding’s part to call him that.
• The ending. I knew a couple of children died, and that eventually the rest were rescued.

What don’t I remember from that reading?
• I’d forgotten that many of the book’s “hunters” were (back in civilian life) members of a choir!
• I’d totally forgotten about the young twins, Sam and Eric, whose names are blended by Golding into the very contemporary-sounding name Samneric.
• I should have, but didn’t, realize the book took place during some unspecified war.

What do I appreciate now?
• The economy and compactness of the book. There’s very little fat in it (besides the fat dripping from the roasted boar). And though there are lots of vivid descriptions of clouds, forests and sun glinting on sand, nothing feels gratuitous.
• How beautifully Golding captures children’s behaviour, especially in groups. This was Golding’s first novel, and he knew boys so well. (Perhaps he was raising sons at the time.)
• There are lots of characters with Anglo names that sound a lot alike (Ralph, Jack, Roger, Robert, Simon, Henry – something that instantly “dates” it, I suppose), but Golding gradually fills you in on them. It took a while for me to understand Roger’s sadistic nature, for instance.
• The theme of bullying, which is as relevant as ever. Is this a fact of nature? Does every species find someone/thing among them to tease and ridicule? Piggy is overweight, unathletic, myopic and has asthma (and another thing I didn’t notice: his speech places him in a slightly lower class than everyone else), but he’s also incredibly smart. He can see things that the charismatic, initial leader Ralph doesn’t, which is why they make a good pair. But the fact that everyone, from the oldest to the youngest, teases him, is very disturbing.
• The hallucinatory scenes with Simon (often thought of as the book’s most intuitive character) and the “beast,” which gives the novel its title. I wasn’t prepared for the sheer nightmarish horror of these episodes. No wonder Stephen King was so influenced by this book (he borrowed the novel's “Castle Rock” and uses it regularly as a setting).
• The political/social allegory at its centre. How do we make a society work? Is hunting (to feed us) more important than providing shelter or coming up with a way to be rescued? What happens when people don’t pull their weight?
• All of this is done so very subtly. There’s a moment when “chief” Ralph is gradually losing his power, and Piggy suggests he blow the conch to form an assembly. And Ralph knows that if he blows the conch and no one comes, it will be irrevocable. Brilliant observation.
• The idea of the “beast.” Is the idea of the “other” something intrinsic and primitive? Or do we create monsters as a mere projection of our own fears?
• The little visual details, like Ralph pushing the hair out of his face. It’s both a naturalistic detail and one that points out how all the boys are becoming savage (funnily enough, Piggy’s hair doesn’t grow)
• I had no idea how exciting the plot got in the last couple of chapters. Golding cranked up the tension to 11. Even though I knew how the book ended, I was still turning every page, heart thumping, hoping Ralph survived being pursued by Jack and his gang.

The few things that didn’t work this time around:
• The line “Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man’s heart…” in the penultimate paragraph of the book seems way too on the nose. I can imagine a million students underlining that with a big "Aha!"
• I forgot Piggy used the N-word. Really. It’s there.

***

I recalled a lot more of this book than Mockingbird. Once read, it has the power and heft of something that is so true and essential that it must have always been around. (I’ve felt this way about other literary works, like Shirley Jackson’s short story “The Lottery,” for instance.)

But, and here’s the weird thing, I think this book is better appreciated as an adult. Younger people are so caught up in the immediacy of every complication. I remember studiously talking about themes before I fully understood them from life. Adults, because we’ve lived through decades, can recognize the patterns of behaviour, the archetypal figures looming behind bullies and visionaries, both in private and public life, that emerge so strikingly in this book.

Finally: why haven’t I read more William Golding?

A group of boys are stranded on a remote and deserted island. How will these boys fare away from grownups, away from society, away from rules?

Written in 1954, The Lord of the Flies, written by William Golding is considered a classic. The symbolism in this book is unreal especially if you consider the colors mentioned in the book (pink was mentioned 40 times). Like most people, I read this in high school, and I got a lot more out of it as an adult. At the very end, I now ponder if that actually happened or if Ralph was just imagining it (trying to avoid any spoilers here). The author who is deceased now has stated that the book can mean whatever you want it to mean so clearly everything in this review is absolutely true. If you want to check out more of my thoughts and questions raised for this book, please check out the Readalong. Thank you to everyone who participated and made this reading so much better than my first!

Although this book goes down as a classic, it is rather bleak—there is very little hope or anything that can be considered uplifting. There were too many boring descriptions of the scar (more than 20+ times) and sand (more than 70+ times). As for the audiobook through Audible, William Golding, the author, is reading the book. He sounds extremely bored. I do not recommend the Audible version.

Overall, I wish that I hadn’t read this as a child. It traumatized me, and I wasn’t ready for it. There is too much violence and ill will in this. Every time I would pick up a book, I would think about Piggy and feel darkness. However, as an adult, perhaps I was more prepared knowing the ending, but I also developed the sophistication to appreciation the subtleties of this book.

This book is listed as one of the 100 Books to Read According to the BBC:
https://www.listchallenges.com/bbcs-t...

2025 Reading Schedule
JantA Town Like Alice
FebtBirdsong
MartCaptain Corelli's Mandolin - Louis De Berniere
AprtWar and Peace
MaytThe Woman in White
JuntAtonement
JultThe Shadow of the Wind
AugtJude the Obscure
SeptUlysses
OcttVanity Fair
NovtA Fine Balance
DectGerminal

Connect With Me!
Blog Twitter BookTube Insta My Bookstore at Pango

Com certeza o mundo atual está cheio de violência principalmente entre adultos que não se entendem , que não conseguem conviver uns com os outros, não se entendem , não se suportam. Agora imagino contudo que isso é um pouco melhor do que se imaginar uma população de crianças se tornando selvagens e violentas! É isso que basicamente "O senhor das moscas" nos retrata : a possibilidade do mal nas crianças como uma coisa que já vem no sangue , independente de sua convivência com os adultos..

Edit: A friend send me this article of a real situation where a group of kids were left stranded on an island for 15 months. Spoiler alert, the Lord of The Flies scenario never happened, the boys behaved and organized themselves wonderfully
https://www.theguardian.com/books/202...

.Maybe,” he said hesitantly, “maybe there is a beast.” “What I mean is . . . maybe it’s only us.”.

That quote sums up very well the idea of this modern classic. I ran away from this novel for years but it finally caught up with me or I tripped, who knows? It was a lot more interesting than I expected and it was worth my time but I would not say I loved it.

During some sort of war, a plane crashes on an island and the only survivors are a bunch of kids. Forced to stay alive without the guidance and surveillance of adults some start to behave crazy and cruel. I guess the morale is that people are civilized because there are rules that are reinforced and if the society gets rid of them some of use will return to our animal state or worse.

While I admit that the story is thought-provoking and a classic, a pioneer of the subject, I cannot say I enjoyed reading it too much. Not much happens for most of the book and when it does it feels rushed. Also, the author spent a lot more time describing the nature than the characters or their experience. I had problems distinguishing between the children and I did not manage to form a strong opinion either about the positive characters or the negative ones. Finally, I think it did not age well, it is hard to explain why I have this impression.

I both listened to and read Lord of The Flies. While listening I got lost in the descriptions (read bored) so I thought the written version was more suitable for this story.

Lord of the Flies is one of the most disturbing books I've ever read. It was required high school reading and since then, I've read it four more times. It is as disturbing now as it was then. Using a group of innocent schoolboys stranded on an island, the author very realistically portrays human behavior in an environment where civilization no longer has meaning.

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.