I would presume that swathes of humanity in the West (and millions elsewhere) already know the story of a civilian plane crash around (Second World) war-time in which groups of upper class English schoolboys find themselves marooned on a deserted island, where there is a limited wish to remain civilised and a rampant descendance into savagery!

This startlingly immense debut novel by William Golding is woke-ism at its best! What, I hear you say? Yes... Golding, got the idea of the book from the 'Christian' pro-colonialism The Coral Island, when he though that the idea of marooned English schoolboys remaining civilised whilst encountering external evil as preposterous; and indeed the concept of the civilising power of colonialism; the beauty of his inversion of the original source was his idea that the evil the boys would face would be from within! A true modern classic and one of the greatest debuts of al time! All the stars, a 10 out of 12, Five STAR READ.

2024 read
PS Although read at least three times as a child, this was my first reading in over four decades as an adult!

I'm glad that this one is finally over,and done with. Luckily,I didn't have to study it in school. That would have definitely have felt like a chore.

A group of boys find themselves marooned on an island,without adult supervision. The evil side of their nature comes out.

This book is supposed to be many great things,a classic,a fable,a satire and a parody etc. For me,it was plain boring.

Children certainly have an innate capacity for evil,that is true enough. But the plot is very contrived,the writing style not too appealing,and I couldn't care about the characters.

Un roman despre o insulă pustie și o mînă de copii naufragiați. Cu siguranță o rescriere a lui Robinson Crusoe (1719) și a altor romane cu insule și eroi eșuați într-un ținut mai degrabă paradisiac (Insula de corali, Comoara din insulă, Insula misterioasă etc.).

Dar scopul lui William Golding a fost îndeosebi unul polemic. Romanul lui va dezminți sau / și va ilustra (pe o cale ocolită) postulatul lui Jean-Jacques Rousseau: „Omul este bun de la natură, dar societatea îl pervertește”. Observație: cînd ajung pe insulă, mulți dintre copiii lui Golding par deja pervertiți.

În Viața, staniile & uimitoarele aventuri ale lui Robinson Crusoe, marinar din York (1719), găsim un personaj foarte norocos (iresponsabil de norocos!), căruia totul îi iese din plin. Caprele se domesticesc singure și intră de bunăvoie în țarc, grîiul, orzul, cerealele cresc spontan din pămîntul fertil: „Mare mi-a fost mirarea cînd am văzut vreo 10 sau 12 spice de orz”. Cînd eroul e plictisit, un papagal inteligent îi ține de urît. Natura sare, așadar, în sprijinul nesăbuitului. Pentru ca fericirea să-i fie deplină era nevoie de Vineri. Și iată că bunul Vineri aleargă spre Salvatorul lui. Și i se supune.

Împăratul muștelor narează povestea pe dos. Copiii intră rapid în conflict, se fac două tabere, „cei buni” (din ce în ce mai puțini, rămîn la sfîrșit Ralph și Piggy, apoi numai Ralph) și „cei răi” (tot mai numeroși, în frunte cu Jack Merridew). Frica trezește în copii cruzimea. Încep să creadă că insula e bîntuită de o fiară malefică. Vor s-o găsească și s-o vîneze. Firește că n-o vor ucide, fiara e doar o fantasmă a minții lor delirante. Îl vor ucide, în schimb, pe Simon, un băiat epileptic, obsedat de prezența Ei. În realitate, Fiara e fiecare dintre ei și toți la un loc. Asta mi-a amintit de parabola despre Simorg, Regele păsărilor, rescrisă de Borges.

La sfîrșitul lecturii (menționez că puștanii sînt recuperați de pe insulă), mă întreb încă o dată: Omul este bun de la natură și numai societatea îl corupe? Sau: omul e rău / crud de la natură, iar societatea îl ajută (prin educație, religie, coerciție, dresaj, azil psihiatric etc.) să devină iubitor și milos? Nu îndrăznesc să propun un răspuns isteț. S-au făcut experimente (mă gîndesc la cel inițiat de Christina Maslach și Philip Zimbardo, în 1971, la Stanford University), s-au formulat ipoteze: psihologii mai au de lucru. Și totuși: am trăit cîndva o împrejurare, în care am văzut că pînă și cel mai puțin violent dintre muritori poate deveni (fără să vrea?) crud, nemilos, viclean. Răul poate fascina. Trezește plăceri...

P. S. Deși în cei 68 de ani care au trecut de la publicarea cărții, exegeții au identificat toate aluziile (și multe altele care n-au trecut niciodată prin mintea autorului), voi aminti că numele ebraic Belzebuth / Beelzebub / Baal-Zebub (zeul impostor din Ekron) se traduce prin „Împăratul muștelor”.

A brilliant book! After a plane crash, a bunch of school boys are stranded on an island. It’s a tale of how with passage of time, the kids react to their circumstances; in some cases with shocking and disturbing consequences! It’s a harrowing and haunting story.
It’s fiction; it does not imply that if caught in this scenario kids or any one would necessarily react like that. But, it’s just a glimpse into what people are capable of doing when caught in most dire of the circumstances. The whole ensemble of characters can be considered a representation of a human or society at large. Each character can be thought to represent an aspect of the social construct or a characteristic of a person.
It’s an allegorical tale. There are many interpretations of various facets of it. But basically it’s a commentary on the inherent darkness within each human which can surface when the one goal that comes engineered in our DNA since inception, survival , is threatened!

My second reading and still just 4 stars. Some people give it five stars for the classic that it is, but for me it is a good book, but does not blow me away.

I did the audio this time and I highly recommend it. It is read by the author and his forward and afterward are pretty funny.

As mentioned a couple of paragraphs above - it is a classic and should be read by all. It may not be some people's cup of tea, but for the time it came out it is unique and has led to almost any survival story that looks at how a group of people react to be referred to as Lord-of-the-Flies-esque.

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.

[5.0⭐]

What a intense read, school boys on a desert island with no adults, first chapter pulls you right in to the drama of what is about to happen. I couldn't hardly put the book down, read it in two days trying to make the story longer. I recommend this book for young adults or older adults.

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.

‎دوستانِ گرانقدر، این کتاب از 368 صفحه و 12 فصل تشکیل شده است... از آن دسته از داستانهایست که تا ساعت ها شما را به فکر فرو میبرد و در رویدادهای بیان شده در داستان اندیشه خواهید نمود.... عده ای دانش آموز و کودکان پنج الی شش ساله و بزرگترهای آنها ده تا سیزده ساله.. در جزیره ای بی نام و نشان سقوط میکنند... هیچ بزرگتری در میان آنها نیست... یکی از این بچه ها که به نوعی شخصیتِ اصلی داستان است، رالف نام دارد، او پسری تا حدودی بی باک و همیشه امیدوار است.. به همراه پسر بچه ای چاق، امّا باهوش به نامِ خوکه.. صدفی پیدا میکنند و با دمیدن در آن و جمع کردن بچه های دیگر، اولین اجتماع بچه ها را تشکیل میدهند و در رأی گیری نخستین، رالف به ریاست بچه ها در جزیره انتخاب میشود
‎در میان بچه ها شخصیتی چندش آور و وحشی خوی به نام جک وجود دارد که رقیب رالف است و حسادت و وحشی گری در او موج میزند.... همه چیز در آرامش پیش میرود و بچه ها در جزیره میوه میخورند و بازی میکنند و کم کم به جزیره عادت میکنند... رالف با استفاده از عینک خوکه که همچون ذره بین عمل میکند، آتش روشن میکند و قانونی میگذارند تا همه کمک کنند و آتش همیشه روشن باشد و دود کند.. چراکه دود و آتش تنها راه نجات آنها از جزیره است.... در این میان در بین بچه ها ترس از هیولایی ناشناخته در جزیره شکل میگیرد و این موضوع آغازی است برای برهم خوردن آرامش و اجتماع انسانی و دور از توحشِ این کودکان
‎دوستانِ گرامی، چنانچه بخواهم داستان را توضیح دهم از جذابیتِ آن کاسته میشود.. عزیزانم تا همین اندازه بگویم که نویسنده نشان میدهد چگونه خوی وحشیگری انسانها و غریزهٔ آنها بر همه چیز پیروز میشود و چگونه میلِ به خونریزی و شکار در انسانها شعله هایش روشن و روشنتر میشود و چه آسان انسانها کمر به کشتن یکدیگر میبندند
*************
‎لازم است بگویم که مقدمهٔ مترجم را نخوانید، نخست آنکه داستان را به نوعی لو داده است و دوم آنکه سرشار از چرت و پرت است و نوشته هایی دور از خرد، که پشت آنها هیچگونه دلیل خردمندانه و پژوهشی، وجود ندارد.... نویسنده در پایان نشان میدهد که بچه ها انگلیسی هستند.. امّا مترجم میگوید، وحشی گری بچه ها نماد آلمان در جنگ جهانی دوم است و جک که رئیس وحشی هاست نماد هیتلر میباشد!!... مشخص است که مترجم بیسوادی است که هیچ از تاریخ نمیداند و فقط یک چیزی شنیده و ابلهانه تکرار میکند و آلمان ستیز است
‎کسانی که هیچ از تاریخ جنگ جهانی نمیدانند، فریب نویسندگانِ انگلیسی و آمریکایی و حتی یهود را خورده و هیتلر و آلمان را وحشی قلمداد میکنند
‎پس بهتر است مقدمه را نخوانید... چون داستان هیچ ارتباطی به سیاست و جنگ و فاشیست و کمونیست و اینگونه مسائلی که مترجم بیان نموده است، ندارد و تنها مسائلِ روانشناسی و روانشناختی انسانهاست که ریشه های آن را زنده یاد فرویدِ بزرگ، کشف کرده بود و نویسنده با ذوقِ بالایِ خویش برایِ نوشتنِ این داستان از آنها بهره برده است.... یادِ زنده یاد فروید همیشه گرامی باد
-----------------------------------------
‎امیدوارم از خواندنِ این داستان لذت ببرید
‎<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>

⭐️⭐️⭐️/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?

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).