It seems like there's a really wide range of opinions that people have on this book. Personally, I really liked it, but I've also heard a lot of people say they couldn't even finish it.
I liked it because I think it showed how easily what most of society would think of as totally abnormal things (like killing your classmates) can start to seem normal and acceptable to people under extreme conditions.
I didn't find the writing confusing or jumpy, but it's been a long time since I read it, so I don't think I can comment on why I didn't find it so-- just that it never seemed that way to me. :/
It's been a quarter-century since I read this book. It's one of those books that I didn't really enjoy, but that I'm glad I read because of all the cultural references to it. I don't think it was a bad book, per se, but simply one that I didn't like.
My problem with the book is that I read it as a straightforward story of some kids on an island who basically went to war with each other, while my English teacher told us that every single little detail in the book was a symbol of something else. The dead airman was a symbol. Piggy's glasses were a symbol. The conch was a symbol. This was a symbol. That was a symbol. This other thing was a symbol. I couldn't read the book without trying to decipher all the symbolism, which took away from any enjoyment I had in reading it.
Many years later someone told me that actually, Golding didn't intend for all those items to be symbols at all and he got tired of all these people claiming that they were.
Yeah I know most people that have said they like it for all the symbols but I didn't read it for that. I just read it as a regular story. Maybe that's why I didn't like it.
And for me, I probably would have liked it better as a regular story rather than something full of symbolism. I'm a very concrete person. I want a cigar to be a cigar.
I read it on my own when I was about twelve, and it was the first book I ever read that acknowledged that ordinary kids could choose to be violent and evil. I spent most of my elementary school years being bullied by ten to twenty boys at once, all armed with baseball bats and hockey sticks, and my teachers all steadfastly ignored this--or passed it off as playing. So when I read Goldman, it amazed me. Finally, a grown-up that got it!
I didn't like the way things ended up, though. The savage kids become more savage, while the intelligent kids who don't want to fight got killed or were chased as prey. It seemed to say that there was no hope anywhere, which was a fairly depressing thought.
I liked it on the level of its portrayal of children as vicious little savages the second the adults are out of the picture. It wasn't pretty to watch, but I thought it was an important message for my evil classmates to hear.
It was later reviewed in my psych seminar class as an example of how "the nurture assumption" (the assumption that "nurture" means, "how parents raise the kid") is deeply flawed. That definitely added to my appreciation of the book.
I don't remember much about the actual writing, though. All I remember is the allegory, symbolism and the message. I recall being dissatisfied with the ending, until I realized I was supposed to feel embittered about it.
I love this book. It's been years since I read it, but I think it's brilliant. It's meant to be jumpy, given all that's going on, and it definitely has some symbolism that adds a lot of meaning to the book.
Comments 31
I liked it because I think it showed how easily what most of society would think of as totally abnormal things (like killing your classmates) can start to seem normal and acceptable to people under extreme conditions.
I didn't find the writing confusing or jumpy, but it's been a long time since I read it, so I don't think I can comment on why I didn't find it so-- just that it never seemed that way to me. :/
Reply
My problem with the book is that I read it as a straightforward story of some kids on an island who basically went to war with each other, while my English teacher told us that every single little detail in the book was a symbol of something else. The dead airman was a symbol. Piggy's glasses were a symbol. The conch was a symbol. This was a symbol. That was a symbol. This other thing was a symbol. I couldn't read the book without trying to decipher all the symbolism, which took away from any enjoyment I had in reading it.
Many years later someone told me that actually, Golding didn't intend for all those items to be symbols at all and he got tired of all these people claiming that they were.
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I didn't like the way things ended up, though. The savage kids become more savage, while the intelligent kids who don't want to fight got killed or were chased as prey. It seemed to say that there was no hope anywhere, which was a fairly depressing thought.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
It was later reviewed in my psych seminar class as an example of how "the nurture assumption" (the assumption that "nurture" means, "how parents raise the kid") is deeply flawed. That definitely added to my appreciation of the book.
I don't remember much about the actual writing, though. All I remember is the allegory, symbolism and the message. I recall being dissatisfied with the ending, until I realized I was supposed to feel embittered about it.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment