Scan barcode
A review by writerbeverly
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
3.0
A group of boys ends up ?shipwrecked? plane-crashed? on an empty tropical island. There are basically two groups: older boys of about 11-12, and young ones of about six. No adults. One older boy (Ralph) wants to establish rules and responsibilities; another (Piggy) is weak (fat, asthmatic, spectacled) but smart, while Jack wants to paint his face, have fun and kill things.
Does this still hold up as classic? I suppose; certainly it's become an oft-referenced cultural meme. But there are HUGE hole in this story - how did they get to this island, WHY are they on the island, and if they were plane- or shipwrecked, why isn't anyone seriously injured on landing on the island? How is it that they are so widely separated on the island and have no idea how many of them there should be, or where they are?
Why doesn't anyone GET injured (fall and break an arm, for instance) or get sick and die from an infected cut or gash? There's an almost total lack of the older boys looking after each other or the younger ones; would that truly be the case? Not that pre-teens can't be self-centered, cruel and brutal; of course they can, but they can also be surprisingly sensitive and kind.
The main characters are one-dimensional stereotypes; the littluns are props. I got the impression that this author doesn't know young boys very well, and dislikes what he does know of them, as well as having a very dim view of humanity in general. Is this truly a book that reveals the dark and flawed side of human nature? Or just a dark and flawed book that people found shocking for its time?
Does this still hold up as classic? I suppose; certainly it's become an oft-referenced cultural meme. But there are HUGE hole in this story - how did they get to this island, WHY are they on the island, and if they were plane- or shipwrecked, why isn't anyone seriously injured on landing on the island? How is it that they are so widely separated on the island and have no idea how many of them there should be, or where they are?
Why doesn't anyone GET injured (fall and break an arm, for instance) or get sick and die from an infected cut or gash? There's an almost total lack of the older boys looking after each other or the younger ones; would that truly be the case? Not that pre-teens can't be self-centered, cruel and brutal; of course they can, but they can also be surprisingly sensitive and kind.
The main characters are one-dimensional stereotypes; the littluns are props. I got the impression that this author doesn't know young boys very well, and dislikes what he does know of them, as well as having a very dim view of humanity in general. Is this truly a book that reveals the dark and flawed side of human nature? Or just a dark and flawed book that people found shocking for its time?