|
|
Post by mlhearing on Apr 9, 2014 20:34:13 GMT -5
No, I think Lord of the Flies was the inspiration for Red Dawn. And I hated it too--resoundingly mediocre at best.
|
|
|
|
Post by whdean on Apr 9, 2014 21:06:54 GMT -5
It's funny. Plato lamented the rise of writing because it meant the decline of memory (Why remember when you can write it down...and promptly forget it?) and the deluge of useless information that writing permitted. He was right, too. The internet added to the latter problem-like drinking from a firehose and all that. I guess it was inevitable that people would compensate for the volume of information by scanning it; and that scan-reading would in turn weaken the ability to read carefully.
I can't help but think, though, that the medium shouldn't be taking all the blame. The amount of information available isn't the only reason people scan. They scan because they've been taught to treat everything as "information" and that "acquiring information" is the primary purpose of reading. Well, it's not.
As for the link? Meh. I've seen that commonplace so many times my brain refuses to read it. Like his innumerable predecessors, the author assumes the only purpose of English in high school is to inspire a love of reading. It isn't, and it would be a waste of time if it were. Kids have to learn about their culture, their history, and their language-and they need to for their own sakes. They learn about these things by reading books written before yesterday. Second, kids have to learn to read at a high level and concentrate on what they're reading (i.e., learn self-control), and they have to be exposed to good and complex writing to do that. Third, the poor and the rich alike get exposed to a world beyond their own noses-which is especially important for teenagers, who naturally tend toward the lowest and most proximate denominator (i.e., sex and ego). Reading the Hunger Games or Harry Potter isn't going to cover any of those bases (besides, the readers are reading these books anyway). Fourth, the author ignores the rather obvious possibility that some people don't like reading because they don't like reading-not because high school spoiled it for them.
Of course, we shouldn't forget that our memories of the horrors of reading the classics in high school are tainted by the fact that we were teenagers then ourselves: the only stage of human life when we revert to an earlier stage (two-year olds), and everything that isn't exactly what we want is the evilest imposition ever to be suffered by anyone, anywhere, ever...ever! You know what it's like Katniss! You know!
By the way, I read Candide after high school, and I thought it was hilarious. I suspect that the adjective "Panglossian" has a much more vivid meaning for me than it does for those who've picked it up from a dictionary. "Excessive optimism" doesn't quite capture it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mlhearing on Apr 9, 2014 22:03:42 GMT -5
"They scan because they've been taught to treat everything as "information" and that "acquiring information" is the primary purpose of reading. Well, it's not"
Exactly so. And there ain't no cure for it now--it's too late.
"Panglossian" is a lovely word. I use it every time the opportunity presents itself. Earthquakes can shake lots of things loose, even things like Candide.
I think you can blame a lot of this worship of reading for reading's sake on the Reformers. Elevate the Book above all, and the rest follows. Them guys were wrong in more ways than were apparent at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Apr 10, 2014 3:44:54 GMT -5
I dunno if there's any redeemable characters in Lord of the Flies. It goes way past the Hunger Games on the unnerving factor. Simon, the altruistic visionary, who's murdered. Piggy, the awkward intellectual incapable of grasping unreason, also murdered. And Ralph, decent but inadequate. Ralph and Piggy are reasonably good people, but they're helpless against the reality of what human beings truly are. Simon is the only purely good one. He's also the only one who really gets it. I could go on and on about this novel. It's so beautifully crafted. It's also not a children's or young adult novel. It's ridiculous to assign it to young teens to read. |
|
|
|
Post by The Scroggins! on Apr 10, 2014 9:34:32 GMT -5
One big factor is also the evolution of language. It can be tough for young students to read even works from the 40s because of how language changes over time. I'm a Lit major, and I have witnessed lots of my fellow students either give up halfway through a literature class, or simply fail because they can't wrap their heads around the material. For example, I love literary fiction, but it's pretty hard for me to deal with the postmodern era. I honestly can't stand it and I had to practically claw my way through it when we hit that section of class. However, I'm a huge fan of Flannery O'Connor, Faulkner, Phillis Wheatley, Richard Wright, Mark Twain, Poe, and especially Philip Freneau. Those are authors people would probably consider boring reads, but I love them to the point that they inspire my own writing style.
But I digress. I'd say language differences and mass availability of information via the Internet will only continue making the classics tough for new students, but I don't think it will change the way we read novels. If anything, people are becoming more accustomed to shorter works, but heavy tomes will always have their place among readers.
|
|
|
|
Post by vrabinec on Apr 10, 2014 15:42:52 GMT -5
I dunno if there's any redeemable characters in Lord of the Flies. It goes way past the Hunger Games on the unnerving factor. Simon, the altruistic visionary, who's murdered. Piggy, the awkward intellectual incapable of grasping unreason, also murdered. And Ralph, decent but inadequate. Ralph and Piggy are reasonably good people, but they're helpless against the reality of what human beings truly are. Simon is the only purely good one. He's also the only one who really gets it. I could go on and on about this novel. It's so beautifully crafted. It's also not a children's or young adult novel. It's ridiculous to assign it to young teens to read. I think Golding's studies in natural sciences has a lot to do with the logical progression of the events that unfold (plus, he probably heard a lot of horror stories from his dad who was a proff.) He handles the subject better than any psychologist could. |
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Apr 11, 2014 0:44:08 GMT -5
Simon, the altruistic visionary, who's murdered. Piggy, the awkward intellectual incapable of grasping unreason, also murdered. And Ralph, decent but inadequate. Ralph and Piggy are reasonably good people, but they're helpless against the reality of what human beings truly are. Simon is the only purely good one. He's also the only one who really gets it. I could go on and on about this novel. It's so beautifully crafted. It's also not a children's or young adult novel. It's ridiculous to assign it to young teens to read. I think Golding's studies in natural sciences has a lot to do with the logical progression of the events that unfold (plus, he probably heard a lot of horror stories from his dad who was a proff.) He handles the subject better than any psychologist could. Hm, interesting. I didn't know that about his father. I've actually only read two of his books ( LotF and The Inheritors), but together they make me think he was one of the most thoroughgoing misanthropists to ever set pen to paper. And I can't really fault him for it. He has a knack for shining light on the wretchedness of the species.  |
|
|
|
Post by whdean on Apr 11, 2014 11:39:04 GMT -5
"They scan because they've been taught to treat everything as "information" and that "acquiring information" is the primary purpose of reading. Well, it's not" Exactly so. And there ain't no cure for it now--it's too late. "Panglossian" is a lovely word. I use it every time the opportunity presents itself. Earthquakes can shake lots of things loose, even things like Candide. I think you can blame a lot of this worship of reading for reading's sake on the Reformers. Elevate the Book above all, and the rest follows. Them guys were wrong in more ways than were apparent at the time. One of the tragedies of reform and Reform is that they didn't stick to the honourable goal of raising everyone up. They also felt the need to bring the high low at the same time, thereby inviting the question of why anyone would need elevating to begin with... |
|
|
|
Post by whdean on Apr 11, 2014 11:39:47 GMT -5
I dunno if there's any redeemable characters in Lord of the Flies. It goes way past the Hunger Games on the unnerving factor. Simon, the altruistic visionary, who's murdered. Piggy, the awkward intellectual incapable of grasping unreason, also murdered. And Ralph, decent but inadequate. Ralph and Piggy are reasonably good people, but they're helpless against the reality of what human beings truly are. Simon is the only purely good one. He's also the only one who really gets it. I could go on and on about this novel. It's so beautifully crafted. It's also not a children's or young adult novel. It's ridiculous to assign it to young teens to read. I agree that it’s well done, and I think it’s better than the press it gets. A lot of people have latched onto and spread the idea that the book is a thinly veiled anti-religious treatise, but it’s not at all that. I also agree that Simon is the good seer/prophet/philosopher figure who’s uncovered some truth that he’s come to disclose to the rest, only to be (as they always are) killed (Socrates, Jesus) because he’s mistaken for a monster by those who’ve been blinded by irrationalism. And true to the archetype, they recognize him after but rationalize their actions. Piggy is the technocratic class. He and they are largely immune to irrationalism because of their complete immersion in science and the values of the Enlightenment. That is also theirs and Piggy’s weakness: they’re wholly fed on intellectual pursuits and thus lack any understanding of the powerful blandishments of irrationalism (i.e., the Dionysian). He depends on Ralph for that. I partially disagree on Ralph, however. Ralph’s failure is the pivotal. But his failure is not his own, because what he lacks, he lacks in virtue of his age (he’s the inverse of Hamlet, who has knowledge but lacks conviction). And that’s where this story departs from the conventional story with adults. Ralph is the natural-born leader with good instincts who lacks the mature leader’s knowledge (or wisdom). In short, the mature Ralph would’ve recognized Jack for what he was, and he would’ve dealt with him from the beginning. But he couldn’t understand Jack or how he should deal with him, as Golding intimates several times (e.g., Ralph thinks to himself that he knows he must do something, but he can’t quite figure out what it is). Now we get to the nub of it. Jack (read barbarism) needs no knowledge. Instinct alone points the way to barbarism; he simply has to follow his baser instincts to succeed. But all the boys’ salvation (read civilization) depends on the triumvirate of the prophet (Simon), the technocrat (Piggy), and the wise leader (Ralph). Take away only one of those things (Ralph’s wisdom), and dissolution follows. In this sense, Ralph is like the hero of ancient tragedy: he’s doesn’t fail because he’s flawed; he fails for want of knowledge—the undoing of all of us. |
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Apr 12, 2014 4:36:27 GMT -5
I don't think I'm buying this reading, WH. I agree that the book isn't primarily a take-down of religion (though neither is it friendly to religion). But I don't think it's a neat allegory about the proper formation or function of civilization.
The book's very commonly talked about as being about the failure of human beings in the absence of functioning social order, but this misses the key point that what the boys are doing on the island is a microcosm of (and far less destructive than) what the grownups are doing off the island. The boys on the island destroy nature (the island is completely burned) and kill an unknown number of their own, but surely not more than 10. Meanwhile, off the island, nuclear war is taking place. World War III is being prosecuted by men in clean, sharp uniforms. They look completely unlike the filthy boys, but their "civilization" is just a veneer over exactly the same kind of behavior. Even worse behavior, actually, in that the destructive scope is so much greater. We hear near the beginning that London has been nuked. That's millions dead, just there. The boys are from the Home Counties. Those who make it off the island, everyone they've ever known is probably dead.
The "beast" on top of the mountain is the emblem of the grownup world -- an airman who's died parachuting out of his plane in a dogfight. He's called something like "a sign from the world of grownups." By the time Simon finds him, he's so rotted that only his flight suit is holding him together. His parachute is caught up, and when the wind fills it, it moves, making the seated corpse bow and exhale a wave of stench. (This part of the novel is really grotesque and disturbing.) This is the "help" that the civilized world can offer the boys: a rotting corpse that generates the myth of the beast and, indirectly, the death of Simon, since Simon is killed because the others think he's the beast. Ironically, he's just laid the airman to rest (compassion) and is coming to tell the others that there's actually no such thing as the beast -- it was just this poor dead guy. Except there is a beast -- Simon earlier has the insight that the beast is in all of them. Simon has all the knowledge, and that knowledge leads to his death.
Ralph is not immune to the violent frenzy. He and Piggy participate in the killing of Simon. All the boys do. Plus, Golding drops some hints in. He's chosen leader because he happens to be holding the conch -- the symbol of authority. Also because he's a bit bigger than the others and good looking. He has some natural charisma in the way that the biggest guy in a room makes an impression on everyone else, but he doesn't have the other traits necessary to be good at being a leader. He's not particularly smart and he's not particularly insightful. Perhaps, as an adult, he would grow into these traits, but I don't think that's the point. I think the point is that all goodness that might lie within people is inadequate, when push comes to shove.
Keep in mind that there's a worse leader on the island than Jack. Jack is the despot -- power-hungry, violent. But behind him lurks Roger, the pure sadist. He's not interested in power. He's interested in pain for its own sake. That's the direction human government takes, in G's vision: the well intentioned but ineffectual democrat --> the despot --> the sadist. At least the despot wants things that parse -- power, adulation, wealth. The sadist wants nothing but suffering. Roger is the one who kills Piggy.
I don't think Golding sees any possibility for redemption. That's why, when the naval officer shows up at the end, he idiotically doesn't get it at all. He compares the boys' situation to the 19th c. novel Coral Island (which is also referenced near the beginning). LotF is actually an appropriation of Coral Island, in which three boys are stranded on an island and cooperate wonderfully and have a fine heroic adventure (two of them are named Jack and Ralph). Golding *hated* Coral Island, with its rosy adventure story of endlessly virtuous boys. So he wrote LotF to eviscerate it. LotF is misanthropic, through and through. It's very much a Cold War novel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rinelle Grey on Apr 12, 2014 7:44:25 GMT -5
I enjoyed assigned reading at school for two reasons: 1. I got to read, and call it schoolwork, and 2. I usually finished it so fast that I could do something I wanted with the rest of the time. Most of the books were OK, but nothing great.
I think skimming and scanning are really important ant skills for research! If I need to know how to do something, I'll search out an article rather than a video, because I can get the info I need in half the time by skimming over all the waffle. I hate the new trend of putting things only in video, drives me mad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Apr 12, 2014 9:10:10 GMT -5
I hate the new trend of putting things only in video, drives me mad. Me too! We live rural, and out Internet connection has never been anything to brag about. Video loads slowly for me and I hate the "linear" nature of it. I learn best from books and articles, so if I have a choice between a written explanation and a video demonstration, I'll take the written version every time. |
|
|
|
Post by removinglimbs on Apr 12, 2014 10:17:29 GMT -5
I skim almost everything I read. Always have. When I was a kid, my mom used to give me tests after I read a book (for pleasure!) to make sure my comprehension was there, because she thought there was no way I could have read a book as quickly as I did.
It's probably the reason I prefer hacks like Stephen King to "real" literature (with a few exceptions). It's a lot easier to digest material when I'm skimming if half the words in the book are 4-letter-words.
|
|
|
|
Post by whdean on Apr 12, 2014 12:34:47 GMT -5
Becca, 1. WW III heightens the tension for the reader and for the characters. What they do is more significant for us because they might be the last men (or boys). It heightens the tension for the characters because they can’t delude themselves into believing that they’ll be saved. No doubt the island is a microcosm of the outside world, but the problem is the same in both: the absence of good leaders (older Ralphs). This is a running theme in novels and poetry since the late nineteenth century. Recall Yeats’ famous line in “Second Coming”: “the best lack all conviction.” 2. There are TWO things (and two paths) at the top of the mountain: the dead pilot and the fire. The first is the wickedness, fearfulness, baseness in the heart of mankind. And, yes, Simon’s insight was that the beast was within them all—i.e., the Original Sin, which is exactly the sort of insight prophets have. The fire is the Promethean symbol of hope/escape/salvation from the state of nature. Notice that the fire is the one thing Ralph knows intuitively must never be allowed to die out and, at the same time, it’s the one thing Jack cares the least about. 3. Everyone participates in the killing of Simon because everyone is human. Leaders aren’t divine supermen, immune to the impulses of ordinary men. The “traits” Ralph is missing aren’t heritable: the heroic leader cannot know what to do without wisdom, which is something a boy of his age couldn’t possibly have. That’s why all fairy tales have sages: someone needs to pass on knowledge to the hero, but there aren’t even any adults to do it. Piggy and Simon can’t really play this role either, because they’re not the hero’s tutors. 4. The conch is a symbol of rule of law. The decline of its power over the boys represents their regression from rule of law to rule by the stronger. Notice that Jack dislikes the conch from the beginning. He just bows to social pressure. Piggy even alludes to tension between the rule of law and the stronger when he goes to retrieve his glasses. He says he’ll tell Jack he wants them back, not because Piggy’s stronger than Jack, but because “what’s right is right.” 5. I don’t buy the idea that the story’s about what happens to people removed from society or that it’s misanthropic. No two people are ever removed from society because two people are society. The boys all come from civilization. I don’t buy the misanthropic view because (a) it’s not very interesting and (b) it’s unrealistic. People obviously have the capacity to be good or there'd be no goodly writers and no goodly critics to complain about the rest of mankind.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2014 15:56:59 GMT -5
We tend to forget that in these days, by the time young people are sixteen, they've been bombarded with more information and have experienced more change than e.g. an ancient Roman during his whole lifetime. Maybe they just don't see any alternative to skimming. What's deplorable is that this mentality is seeping through to reading books. I've read in reviews, of my books and others, that there were too many characters and that there were too many things happening at the same time. With a grandiose sense of entitlement some of those readers demand few(er) characters, just those who drive the plot on and maybe a few sidekicks. Books should be fast paced and contain just a singular plot line. in a way it's understandable. Some readers try to escape from a life that has become too complicated. They want a story that's easy to follow with a simple premiss that leads in a direct line to a logical and satisfying conclusion. Everything needs to be explained. Everything needs to make sense, immediately and at first sight. The good guys win. It's escapism in it's most rudimentary form. So, it's a challenge if you write something more complicated with dividing lines that aren't all that clear and confusing motivations. (The challenge, of course, is finding readers.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by vrabinec on Apr 12, 2014 19:57:05 GMT -5
We tend to forget that in these days, by the time young people are sixteen, they've been bombarded with more information and have experienced more change than e.g. an ancient Roman during his whole lifetime. Maybe they just don't see any alternative to skimming. What's deplorable is that this mentality is seeping through to reading books. I've read in reviews, of my books and others, that there were too many characters and that there were too many things happening at the same time. With a grandiose sense of entitlement some of those readers demand few(er) characters, just those who drive the plot on and maybe a few sidekicks. Books should be fast paced and contain just a singular plot line. in a way it's understandable. Some readers try to escape from a life that has become too complicated. They want a story that's easy to follow with a simple premiss that leads in a direct line to a logical and satisfying conclusion. Everything needs to be explained. Everything needs to make sense, immediately and at first sight. The good guys win. It's escapism in it's most rudimentary form. So, it's a challenge if you write something more complicated with dividing lines that aren't all that clear and confusing motivations. (The challenge, of course, is finding readers. ) Interesting observation. I'd love to see some data on the successful "simple" plot lines versus "complex". Not that it's possible, but it would be a hell of a study. |
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Apr 13, 2014 0:13:22 GMT -5
Becca, 1. WW III heightens the tension for the reader and for the characters. What they do is more significant for us because they might be the last men (or boys). It heightens the tension for the characters because they can’t delude themselves into believing that they’ll be saved. No doubt the island is a microcosm of the outside world, but the problem is the same in both: the absence of good leaders (older Ralphs). This is a running theme in novels and poetry since the late nineteenth century. Recall Yeats’ famous line in “Second Coming”: “the best lack all conviction.” 2. There are TWO things (and two paths) at the top of the mountain: the dead pilot and the fire. The first is the wickedness, fearfulness, baseness in the heart of mankind. And, yes, Simon’s insight was that the beast was within them all—i.e., the Original Sin, which is exactly the sort of insight prophets have. The fire is the Promethean symbol of hope/escape/salvation from the state of nature. Notice that the fire is the one thing Ralph knows intuitively must never be allowed to die out and, at the same time, it’s the one thing Jack cares the least about. 3. Everyone participates in the killing of Simon because everyone is human. Leaders aren’t divine supermen, immune to the impulses of ordinary men. The “traits” Ralph is missing aren’t heritable: the heroic leader cannot know what to do without wisdom, which is something a boy of his age couldn’t possibly have. That’s why all fairy tales have sages: someone needs to pass on knowledge to the hero, but there aren’t even any adults to do it. Piggy and Simon can’t really play this role either, because they’re not the hero’s tutors. 4. The conch is a symbol of rule of law. The decline of its power over the boys represents their regression from rule of law to rule by the stronger. Notice that Jack dislikes the conch from the beginning. He just bows to social pressure. Piggy even alludes to tension between the rule of law and the stronger when he goes to retrieve his glasses. He says he’ll tell Jack he wants them back, not because Piggy’s stronger than Jack, but because “what’s right is right.” 5. I don’t buy the idea that the story’s about what happens to people removed from society or that it’s misanthropic. No two people are ever removed from society because two people are society. The boys all come from civilization. I don’t buy the misanthropic view because (a) it’s not very interesting and (b) it’s unrealistic. People obviously have the capacity to be good or there'd be no goodly writers and no goodly critics to complain about the rest of mankind. Heh. Just because you don't think misanthropy is interesting or realistic doesn't mean Golding holds the same views. To me, the novel's misanthropy is hugely apparent. It pervades. #4 I agree with, and portions of all your other points as well. But I don't see Golding as interested in any religious angle (original sin), except for its symbolic possibilities. I also don't seem him as interested in the possibilities of good leadership. I think he's interested in the futility/inadequacy of good leadership. Obviously he recognizes that some leaders are much better than others, but I think the overall thrust of the novel is not to define good leadership or illustrate its importance but to show that the species is essentially monstrous, and that its better examples do not provide a workable bulwark against that monstrosity. I've only read one other Golding novel, but it jives with this outlook -- The Inheritors is about the extermination of the Neanderthals by Cro Magnon. (I wonder what Golding would've made of the new evidence that we actually seem to have absorbed the Neanderthals.) |
|
|
|
Post by whdean on Apr 13, 2014 11:00:19 GMT -5
Becca:
In calling the misanthropic interpretation “uninteresting,” I wasn’t stating a preference for types of interpretation, but logging a criticism of the misanthropic interpretation. Misanthropy is an –ism interpretation, so it can true of just about any book. That makes it weak: what’s true of everything doesn’t say much about anything.
Second, I don’t feel bound by “authorial intention.” It could be that Golding meant the book to be a misanthropist rant. But what we intend and what we do are different things when we write a story.
Original sin is a Christian doctrine, yes, but the doctrine is also an understanding of human nature. Golding’s being an atheist doesn’t entail that he didn’t believe in the underlying idea of original sin. Come to that, one could argue that misanthropy is an acceptance of the doctrine of original sin and a denial of the doctrine of salvation.
The Inheritors sounds interesting. I might have to read it…someday.
|
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Apr 13, 2014 18:02:52 GMT -5
The Inheritors is very good. Sad.
I don't feel bound by authorial intention, either, but allegory is a deeply intentional device. It's hard to be making an allegorical interpretation -- with the Simon, Piggy, and Ralph standing for the prophet, technocrat, and wise leader necessary for good governance -- and not be going in that direction.
I actually think Golding's misanthropy is quite interesting. One things that's interesting about it is that it's never noticed by the vast majority of people who read the book -- students ages 11-15. Invariably, it's taught in schools as a World War II book (this is simply a reading failure) and as a book about the dangers of the breakdown of civil society. Kids' take-away is, "We need civil order in order to keep our violent impulses in check." But the (I think) true driving idea is more destabilizing: civil society, along with ALL its institutions, is a feel-good construct that places the veneers of law and propriety over our violence. Those veneers allow us to pursue violence to the Nth degree. You see the violence in the boys and then move outwards from them to the world of grown-ups that surrounds the island. And as those small WWIII references push you to consider the world of grown-up, the things you've seen on the island unlock the reality of what's happening off it.
So yeah, as with many interpretations, just stopping with "it's misanthropic" would be boring. The how and why are what make it interesting.
I see what you mean about original sin. That sounds right to me. He's definitely working through the Judeo-Christian paradigm. The Lord of the Flies = Beelzebub, originally the name of another fertile crescent deity (?), but later taken up as another name for Satan within Christianity. The religious stuff is entwined with gender stuff. The island is almost 100% male. The only female who figures in the story, besides a few comments Piggy makes about his aunt, is the sow. The scene where they kill her and her piglets is filled with rape imagery. Then the head of this "bliss[ful]" maternal creature becomes the Lord of the Flies, feeding insects with gore instead of babies with milk. The Lord of the Flies is a newborn god. It speaks to Simon in visions. It's all pretty awful, complicated, and disturbing .. and way, way, WAY over the heads of the readers it's being assigned to. Why school systems think this book is appropriate for kids beats me.
It's funny, but when I reread it as an adult, I had no memory of the whole rotting-airman element. I think, when I read it at age 14, it was just too disturbing, and I promptly forgot it. A number of my students -- they'd ALL read it in junior high or high school -- reported similar memory gaps. Most remembered the death of Piggy, for instance, but few remembered the death of Simon.
|
|
|
|
Post by whdean on Apr 14, 2014 11:45:35 GMT -5
I wouldn’t call it allegorical; political is more applicable. The question is what causes the dissolution of the social order that the boys brought with them? I say the answer to that question—the linchpin—is Ralph’s lack of knowledge about how to handle Jack who represents power and the irrational.
As for the type-identifications of characters, I think it’s there in black and white. Piggy’s the only one with technical knowledge—at least, he’s the one who articulates their situation best and comes up with all the rational options. Simon is the wanderer in a wilderness that “speaks” to him. Everyone recognizes Ralph as the natural leader from the beginning. Jack resents Ralph’s leadership, and he’s the one most at home with the untamed island, and he’s the one who develops the bloodlust, prioritizing not just hunting, but the hunt and its trappings, over all else. He’s also the one who encourages the mythologization of the beast and uses it to his advantage.
I accept the island-outside world parallel, but I disagree with those take-away messages for the kiddies. I’d argue that the first is tautological because it posits as necessary a thing whose existence would vitiate its need. In other words, “civil order” and “civil society” are the same things; so the message says people need to be civilized to prevent being uncivilized, which is too obvious to mention.
I don’t buy your take-away for two reasons. First, WWIII hadn’t happened when the book was written, so the story couldn’t have been a critique of the human nature that caused it. This fact invites looking at the story as a prediction or precautionary tale instead: What caused the dissolution of order on the island will cause WWIII. What caused the dissolution on the island? I say Ralph’s ignorance allowed the bad side of human nature to triumph over the good. So my take-away for the kiddies is (1) the pull of irrationalism is perennial; (2) order requires a triumvirate: the wise leader, the seer, and the technocrat; and because 2 is hard to achieve and 1 is the default condition of human beings, (3) order is a never-ending struggle that’s easily lost.
The second reason I don’t buy (what I’d characterize as) your Freudian-Marxist interpretation is that it’s simply not true that civilization is a veneer for pursuing greater violence. Primitive societies are far more violent and deadly places to live—that’s an anthropological fact. It’s not a very widely known one—probably because people still prefer the noble savage living in harmony with nature myth to reality—but it’s true. I believe your good friend Pinker tried to popularized some of this research.
I think you’re more or less right about the sow, though I don’t know about the rape imagery. I see the killing of the sow as a symbol of the destruction of the future—i.e., killing the “mother and children” is killing the future in two ways: no more human offspring and no more food. As for Simon and the sow’s head, I’d say the pig’s head is Nietzsche’s abyss (into which the prophet must always look), which is the atheist’s equivalent of Satan. This distinction is only important in the sense that his revelation didn’t come from the dark lord, but from “staring into the abyss.” Note that the imagery here is too tightly in line with conventions surrounding the seer to be mere chance, which supports my political interpretation.
And, yes, all this will fly over the heads of younger kids. I’d only say it’s over the head of teenagers insofar as it’s probably over the heads of their teachers.
That’s interesting. I can’t remember it accurately from my teenage years because I also watched the film. And since I’m visually minded, I can never tell which memories come from which version. I did re-read the book about six months ago, however. It was much better than I remember it.
|
|
)