The Lord of the Flies

ISBN: 0141800968
ISBN 13: 9780141800967
By: William Golding Tim Pigott-Smith

Check Price Now

Genres

Classic Classics Dystopia Dystopian Favorites Novels Read For School School To Read Young Adult

About this book

Lord of the Flies , William Golding's classic tale about a group of English schoolboys who are plane-wrecked on a deserted island, is just as chilling and relevant today as when it was first published in 1954. At first, the stranded boys cooperate, attempting to gather food, make shelters, and maintain signal fires. Overseeing their efforts are Ralph, "the boy with fair hair," and Piggy, Ralph's chubby, wisdom-dispensing sidekick whose thick spectacles come in handy for lighting fires. Although Ralph tries to impose order and delegate responsibility, there are many in their number who would rather swim, play, or hunt the island's wild pig population. Soon Ralph's rules are being ignored or challenged outright. His fiercest antagonist is Jack, the redheaded leader of the pig hunters, who manages to lure away many of the boys to join his band of painted savages. The situation deteriorates as the trappings of civilization continue to fall away, until Ralph discovers that instead of being hunters, he and Piggy have become the hunted: "He forgot his words, his hunger and thirst, and became fear; hopeless fear on flying feet." Golding's gripping novel explores the boundary between human reason and animal instinct, all on the brutal playing field of adolescent competition. --Jennifer Hubert

Reader's Thoughts

Arun Divakar

You should have seen the blood.This is the one line that stood out remarkably from this book for me. I read Lord of the flies the first time as far as one and half decades ago. At that point in time, it stuck to me as a boy's adventure story and nothing beyond that. Being at quite an impressionable age, I quite dreamed up of such a wanton, bloody adventure for myself. This time when I read it, most of its symbolic references touch me quite profoundly. I am disturbed and attracted in equal measures to this insight into human nature. And no, I do not wish to think of that young boy's fantasy of being a blood soaked savage in an isolated island.Writing reviews for books that are hailed as classics is a very easy and difficult thing to do at the same time. There are countless reviews, papers and studies on such books out there that it makes it a breeze to Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V from them and yet what does one say that has not been said before ? To me this is a story of anarchy seeping into a shaky yet stable social structure. In a subtle way, it is the story of how a riot might overrun a city, an armed uprising topple a government and other such occurrences. There is a Ralph in every politician and business leader which involves a lot of meetings,parliamentary tactics, conversations and yet very little swift action. Most of these logical yet slow decisions are aimed at the larger good than the shorter goal or so they make us believe. On the other hand is Jack, who beats inside the breast of every rebel and revolutionary who ever took up arms against the establishment : swift, bloody action, the end justifying the means and a lot of pain, scars and tears and not much more to show in the end. Complacency and very little action spurs a populace into anarchy and a figurehead of a leader takes up their fight. Very little do they realize the futility of such gestures. Like lambs to slaughter they are led from one evil to another. The boys torn between the logical yet indecisive Ralph and the wild,passionate, brutal Jack represented people the world over to me. These two paths always lie open before us and every day in countless little ways, we choose one of those paths.What of Piggy then ? From the point of view of the story, he is the one bullied upon : weak,obese and a natural place to vent the ire of any smart kid. The difference was that the grey matter that hummed inside his head while being boringly pragmatic was the only voice of reason in that island. Was he thus an outcast owing to his intellect among men of physical prowess ? I think not, Piggy symbolically represents calm,composure and ultimately maddeningly slow pacifism in a world full of noise. As usually happens with such sore thumbs, the poor soul is wiped out in the end and in a quite bloody fashion. No mob would ever want a person standing against it to take breath again as history has shown as time and again. It is a little slow at times and the symbolic references tended to suffocate me at times so much so that I had to stop reading at places. I would then wonder is that what he meant or was it something else ? Most often than not, the underlying meanings are manifold. A small yet powerful book, much recommended.

Henry Avila

A British airplane crashes on a deserted South Sea's island, in the middle of an atomic war.All the grownups are killed and only children 12 and younger survive.How are they to cope? (Basically an allegorical story of what is human nature , good or evil ?)Ralph is chosen leader,"Piggy", the intellectual sidekick.This beautiful tropical coral isle ,with a lagoon,palm trees and plenty of bananas and other fruit.Wild pigs in the forest,fish in the ocean, so no worries,right?Wrong!Ralph has a rescue fire set, which goes out of control and one of the boys is never seen again. Jack doesn't like playing second fiddle to Ralph.He takes his group of choirboys and leaves, to form a new tribe on Castle Rock.Painting their faces and becoming great hunters.Since Piggy's eye glasses are the only way the kids can start a fire.Jack raids Ralph's shelter and steals it.Complicating the situation is the mysterious "Beast" on the mountain. Is it real?Earlier Simon sees the head of a large boar on a stick ,in the middle of the forest(Lord of the Flies).He has a vision and flees towards the children scaring them all.In the dark they believe it's the beast and have to defend themselves!Later the two"tribes" struggle for supramecy on the island.Will the wicked inherit the Earth?

Nora

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.

matt

Ok, so I have a pet theory. I think that this book is added to countless high school English curricula because its part of an insidious brainwashing attempt by THE POWERS THAT BE to try and discourage progressive thought among impressionable high school kids.I mean, remember, the whole point of the book is that people can't be left to their own devices ("the defects in human society are because of the defects in human nature" quoth my squeaky voiced Sophmore English teacher) because of their natural faults and failures and if left alone without a strong leader or tradition or what-have-you to keep 'em in line they'll all turn to Satanism and Paganism and shit. Screaming for pig's blood and all that.It's Hobbesian, it's reductive and it's unnecessarily cynical about human nature. If we all agree that man is rotten to the core, and what's more, irredeemably so rotten that they'll throw the geeky kid to the sharks and tear each other limb from limb then there's really no point to try and create a Utopian space or at least a democratic pluralism, because that shit will come a'tumblin' down once the kids are let out of sight. I don't think Humanity (with a capital-H) abandons Reason (with a capital-R) as easily and as blithely as Golding seems to suggest. I'm not really much of an optimist about human nature but I don't think we're one plane crash and deserted island away from cannibalism and bad table manners. More to the point, reading a pretty well-written and engaging novel like this one is all well and good but if you have generations of earnest and/or solicitous Sophomores repeating talking points about the hopeless barbarity of human civilization and being rewarded for it with the grades they covet, you're laying the groundwork for people being less interested or involved in *actual* progression or advancement of social structures, etc. Think about it.

Shayantani Das

Rating: 3.5 A group of British boys get stranded on an island after their plane crashes. At first, the kids revel in their freedom, and lack of an authority figure. But slowly, these well educated kids turn into savages, and give way to their natural animalistic side. The political and biblical undertones of this novel are very interesting. So is symbolism of the conch shell and lord of the flies. It has a deeper meaning than what meets the eye. I think the characters, and their development through out the novel, makes the book what it is. We have a reasonable and calm Ralph, a violent and impulsive Jack, the overweight and intelligent Piggy and the spiritual Simon. No villain or heroes in this novel; we only have perfectly civilized pre-adolescents, who in the lack of an authority figure and a society, react, in different ways. Golding’s portrays Ralph as someone not completely immune to violence, has self doubt and is uncertain about the presence of the "beast". He makes mistakes, is a bit vain, and very very real.Similarly all the other characters too have a lot of depth. Their actions (though horrific) don’t seem so incredulous. They add the real charm to the book and keeps it from being unrealistic.Now coming to the things that I didn’t like. First would be the abruptness of the ending. Feels like, Golding suddenly had something very important to do, and wrapped up this incredible story, terribly hastily. I as a reader feel cheated about it. We at least deserved a final confrontation between Ralph and Jack. You can’t make so much happen in the last 4 chapters and then end a book like this. Not fair at all!Secondly, 200 something pages are not enough to have so much happening at the same time. I have come across several novels which have exasperated me with their length, unnecessary information and their detailed descriptions of the scenery. This would be the first novel which has made me crave for more pages (not in the good way, in the necessary way). Golding may not have made it LOTR long, but a minimum of 500 pages is required to do full justice to a topic like this. Finally, my recommendation would be to read this novel at your own risk. I can understand how many people wouldn’t like it a bit, so I am not taking any responsibility. As for my opinion, I thought that this book offers a very authentic, disturbing and convincing portrayal of man’s descent to savagery and his inherent lust for violence.

David

I just don't buy it.This book is famous for unmasking what brutes we are, just under the surface, but, well, for all the hype, it just isn't convincing. People--even teenage boys--just aren't as savage as Golding seems to want us to believe, and nothing in this book persuades me otherwise.Perhaps if I'd gone to English boarding school I'd feel differently--but then that's the real irony of this book, that the brutality from which the British Empire was supposed to save so many people and cultures was in fact the Brits projecting their own savagery onto others.But the rest of us, no, we aren't monsters underneath. A little messed up, maybe, a little more raw, but nowhere near the kind of brutes that Golding wants us to believe.

Jennifer

Lord of the Flies written by William Golding is about a large group of private school boys that end up stranded on a deserted island after their plane crashes. Due to the war that is happening in reality at the time of the crash the boys wonder if this was a crash, or an attack. Either way, one thing becomes clear to them rather quickly. They are without any adult supervision which they find frightning and exciting all at once. Though there are many different characters in this story, four main boys stood out for me. Ralph, the born leader, likable and well spoken. He was the most logical of the boys. Though at first he too was thrilled to be stranded without adults, he quickly put things in perspective and knew what had to be done to acclomplish their quick rescue, and that was to keep a fire burning for any in coming ships to see their smoke. Ralph, as elected leader, did not relish in his authority, but geniunely cared about the group of boys and had their best interest at heart. Piggy had their best interests at heart as well. Another senisible boy, even more intelligent than Ralph. He was able to think quicker than Ralph. However Piggy lacked respect for his poor social skills and for his outward appearrence of a portly boy with specticles, "ass-mar", and an annoying habit of constant whinning. Though Piggy annoyed Ralph as well, Ralph was able to see the good qualities Piggy had as well and valued his opinion on just about everything, actually relied on it most of the time.Jack, not exactly a born leader, except in his own eyes. Jack felt he should have been elected the leader and when he wasn't he announced he was in charge of hunting for meat. In this new role he had given himself, he put the boys at risk for making hunting the top priority instead of getting rescued. This was one of the first events that would put the boys against each other.Simon was the most innocent of the boys. A sensitive boy who cared about their safety and unification. A boy with alot to say, but unfortionatly had an awful time speaking to the group because of his shyness. An event that takes place between the other boys and Simon signifies the true loss of innocense and humanity amoung most of the boys.I thought this was a great book, though very sad and terrifing at times. Being a mother I couldn't help thinking about how these boys parents felt about their missing sons. Ironically Golding did not have these boys pinning for their parents, but had most of them(with the exception of Ralph and Piggy)adjusting to the island as though they were never to be rescued and converting back to uncivilized savages in a matter of weeks. I wonder if the characters were girls, how different the story would have been. I personally would like to think we would have remained more civilized. On second thought, as viscous as young girls can be, the number of casualities would probably have been doubled.

Emily May

Kids are evil. Don't you know?I've just finished rereading this book for my book club but, to be honest, I've liked it ever since my class were made to read it in high school. Overall, Lord of the Flies doesn't seem to be very popular, but I've always liked the almost Hobbesian look at the state of nature and how humanity behaves when left alone without societal rules and structures. Make the characters all angel-faced kids with sadistic sides to their personality and what do you have? Just your average high school drama, but set on a desert island. With a bit more bloody murder. But not that much more.In 1954, when this book was published, Britain was in the process of being forced to face some harsh realities that it had blissfully chosen to ignore beforehand - that it is not, in fact, the centre of the universe, and the British Empire was not a thing of national pride, but an embarrassing infringement on the freedom and rights of other human beings. Much of British colonialism had been justified as a self-righteous mission to educate and modernise foreign "savages". So when put into its historical context, alongside the decolonisation movements, this book could be said to be an interesting deconstruction of white, Western supremacy. This is not a tale of "savages" who were raised in poor, rural villages... but a story about upper middle class, privately-educated, silver-spoon boys.I can understand why some people interpret this book as racist. The racial aspect is a big factor, Golding establishes from the very first page that Ralph is not only white, but WHITE. And Piggy even asks "Which is better - to be a pack of painted niggers like you are or to be sensible like Ralph is?" I'm not going to argue with anyone's interpretation, it would be difficult to say exactly what Golding intended, but I think there is room to see this as the opposite of racism. For me, I always saw it as Golding challenging the notion of savages being dark-skinned, uneducated people from rural areas. With this book, he says screw that, I'll show you savages! and proceeds to show us how these little jewels of the empire are no better for their fancy education and gold-plated upbringing.I think that seemed especially clear from the ending when the officer says "I should have thought that a pack of British boys - you're all British, aren't you? - would have been able to put up a better show than that." Golding's way of saying that human nature is universal and no one can escape it.Some readers say that you have to have quite a negative view of human nature already to appreciate this book, but I don't think that's true. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with all the implications running around in the novel - namely, the failure of democracy and the pro-authority stance - but it serves as an interesting look at the dark side of human nature and how no one is beyond its reach. Plus, anyone who had a bit of a rough time in high school will probably not find the events in this book a huge leap of the imagination. The fascinating thing about Lord of the Flies is the way many historical parallels can be drawn from the messages it carries. You could choose to view the charismatic and manipulative Jack Merridew as a kind of Hitler (or other dictator) who takes advantage of a group of people at their weakest. Dictators and radicals often find it easy to slip in when a society is in chaos... we do not have to assume that Golding believed that everyone everywhere is evil, only that we all have the capacity for it when we find ourselves in unstable situations.Still a fascinating book after all these years.

Mister Jones

A disclaimer: it wasn't my idea to read this book; a colleague selected this book as part of our students' summer reading program.If there was a time in my life that I liked this book, it must have been in the wee hormonal epoch of my early youth. Frankly, I didn't like it. I found myself not having any empathy for the characters; I found the prose rather tedious, and the plot obviously contrived, and it seemed that Golding made a particular, but obvious effort to attempt to tie everything in with symbolic value. It was a book that I begged for immediate merciful closure.A good point: I will not teach this novel during our normal school sessions, and in that aspect, I thought it was a illuminating read.

Andrew

I was tempted to give this five stars, since in so many ways it strikes me as the kind of masterpiece, like Heart of Darkness, that I imagine will retain its horror and readability for centuries. The prose veers (or as Golding would say it, "tends") from plain to painterly. The story is well known: a sort of allegorical morality play set in modern times -- fancy English boys left to their own devices don't so much as revert to darkness as discover primitive outlets for the darkness reflected in their greater society. This is what I love about Heart of Darkness: try as one might, Kurtz cannot be pigeonholed into good or evil. He is excellent at what he does, and what he does is evil. Kurtz is a true reflection of what excellence was to Colonial Europe, and in so far as Colonial Europe was good, cultivated, honorable, and esteemed, so is Kurtz. Kurtz isn't good or evil; he is true. Golding's version is darker. It centers mostly around the corrupting power of urges to overwhelm social order. Freudian criticism abounds, but the parallel I kept coming back to was Rome. I found that Piggy, no matter how truly annoying he is (another brilliant stroke by Golding is to make Piggy strangely unsympathetic), recalled those numerous Republicans of the Early Empire who advocated in a shrill but useless manner for a return to Senate rule but were shunted aside and usually killed by deranged sociopaths who behaved quite like like Jack. But be it Freudian or historic, any framing of this book feels cheap and hollow because the story has such a complexity of primal urges that it feels almost biological. Golding said he came up with the idea of book after reading his children "Treasure Island or Coral Island or some such Island" in the years of the hydrogen bomb and Stalin and asked his wife, "why don't I write a children's story about how people really are, about how people actually behave?" To me that's a chilling question and it reveals an architecture not based on rigid Freudian or historical or symbolic parallels. Its portrait of sadism could have been lifted out of the newspapers; its struggle for dominion over the weak is an almost sexual frenzy recalls everything I know about torture in the dungeons of Argentine or US military prisons. In this respect, I think the book, like Heart of Darkness, is timeless. But I chose not to give it five stars because at the center of Golding's book is a kind of rigid Christian iconography, like that you find in the Poisonwood Bible, that offends me, perhaps because it reminds me of the way I wrote my Freshman year of college, or perhaps because that rigidity, that allegiance to a=b symbolic logic insults my intelligence. The martyrdom of Simon, I felt, demeaned the human quality of Simon. I liked him best because he struck me as the most shrewd and practical. Reducing him to an icon transforms him into a variable: Simon = Paul or Peter or whomever, but ergo facto Simon ≠ Simon. When he comes down to the beach mutting "something about a body on a hill" Simon ceases to be a reflection of human complexity, or biological completeness, and instead becomes a rehashed precedent from Sunday school. I've often felt that Heart of Darkness' genius was that it somehow reflected the effect of Darwin and modern thinking on the antiquated ideas of Colonial Europe, ie Kurtz isn't good or evil because good and evil are artifices that wilt beneath analysis. When Golding adheres to this materialist perspective, the book is masterly. When he swears allegiance to worn out Christian parables, that complexity is reduced to slips of paper.

Zaki

What happens when a group of school boys get marooned on a desert island following a plane crash?They've got no adult authority.They all descend into savagery. Golding highlights our edgy similarity to the spirit of wild beasts. This is replete with biblical motifs.

Verónica

Simply, it is such an excellent and influential novel of adventure with a story that is incredibly interesting and entertaining, which is also dramatic and emotional. It takes place in a very unusual setting and explains and shows what we can become if we do not have respect, rules and order which could cause deadly and irreversible chaos. The author, William Golding, describes the novel in a deep and detailed manner not wanting to leave out any insignificant detail; so it makes the story more real and authentic. His writing style is simple but the thematic matter is deep. Golding does a good job showing the emotional states and fully developed personalities of each character throughout the story and he makes the story come alive with significant use of symbolism in the characters and in simple objects. Also he describes each of the points of the island as well as the cruelest moments. For this reason the way he describes things are amazing, genuine and powerful.During the middle of World War II, a plane crashes on an unknown island, abandoning a group of British schoolboys. The boys are all young, the oldest ones are not more than twelve years, and the island is apparently peaceful and beautiful. At first, there are no adults there; so their freedom and independence is something they celebrate and enjoy. This far from civilization they can do anything they want without being scolded and punished. But as order collapses and terror begins its reign, the hope of adventure seems as far removed from reality as the hope of being rescued. It is a story that definitely makes you think about society, the integrity of people and reveals the evil and cruel component of humanity. It reveals how we can become at times if we do not control ourselves or our impulses, whether or not we are the person who imposes order and how it can change or transform us into something dangerous, frightening and unknown, which makes us do things we never dared or imagined.It is a great book, entertaining, exciting and easy to read. I greatly enjoyed this book and I liked the story because it is thrilling and fast-moving; how it shows the kids on an unknown island and the things they do and dared to do in order to survive and be rescued. Each chapter has something exciting and interesting; and the more I read it, the more I got into it. For this reason, I would definitely recommend it.

Inês

Já tinha ouvido falar deste livro muitas vezes, já tinha pegado nele outras tantas, mas guardava uma relutância irracional acabando sempre por dar prioridade a outros. Talvez fosse o nome, talvez fosse a ideia de uma leitura pesada e pouco cativante. Mas "O Deus das moscas" não é nada disso. A leitura é confortável e encorajadora. Não é propriamente um livro ligeiro e tem até alguns parágrafos difíceis de decifrar, quando os acontecimentos são descritos em simultâneo por diferentes pontos de vista, mas, no geral, lê-se bem.Igualmente não esperava que a história fosse sobre miúdos numa ilha deserta. Não é com certeza o argumento mais original de sempre, mas é preciso dar o crédito a um livro que foi escrito nos anos 50 e à forma como assistimos ao desenrolar de uma história que deixa de ser o mais importante. O que interessa mesmo é que cada um de nós olhe para aquelas personagens e imagine, não só como se comportaria nas mesmas situações, mas como o fariam as pessoas com quem convivemos diariamente e com as quais definimos uma posição na sociedade. Gosto do pormenor dos miúdos civilizados serem sempre tratados pelos nomes e dos outros começarem gradualmente a ser, um por um, apenas definidos como selvagens. Nenhum deles é agora um indivíduo, fazem apenas parte de um grupo e agem todos da mesma maneira, como um grupo de animais. Gosto também da preocupação que Rafael demonstra em manter-se limpo, com o cabelo alinhado e a forma como repara na apresentação dos restantes. Poucos se preocupam com isso. Lembrei-me imediatamente de uma passagem no "Se isto é um homem", em que um dos presos diz a Levi que o facto de todos os dias se lavar de manhã é precisamente o que o separa dos animais, é a dignidade que nenhum homem lhe pode tirar. Gostei deste livro. Ainda assim são 4 estrelas a descair para as 3.

Callum

Any piece that can concurrently delve into the nature, psychology, callowness, volatility and savagery of children exposed to an isolated dystopia should provide for a rich, somewhat intriguing piece of literature, right? Unfortunately, I found this awkward, thinly constructed parable on humanity's ultimate inevitability toward entropy a weak exercise. The author's moral viewpoints are represented through his characters, making the conflict far more simplistic and condensed, never really enters the behaviourism of his characters, not successfully at least. It's made clear that the students who centre the story are brought up on strict formalities, and an almost cartoonish sense of etiquette. This makes for an intriguing premise, especially when conflict is eminent. Basically, these are young men of a higher caste, educated in a militaristic fashion being exposed to both freedom and isolation. Even the smallest form of conflict is made apparent, with the introduction of a conch. This was a strong opening to the novel, because at the same time he was able to provide both civility and discordance among the students.However, two characters stick out like a sore thumb. Jack and Ralph. Obviously, there's going to be a conflict between children, it's human nature. However, it is made too obvious what moral viewpoint the character represents. A great author wouldn't make it so obvious which side he sees as 'good' or 'bad' but rather develop a sense of ambiguity among his characters, but there isn't a semblance of that here. And it isn't only with the characters Jack and Ralph either.There are characters like Piggy and Simon who are probably the only levelheaded characters in the story. And of course, they are the subject of Golding's torment. I don't hate symbolism, I don't hate it when symbolism is presented through a character, but instead of coming off as thought-provoking or compelling, it's instructive. He lays thick all of his beliefs, not allowing any ambivalence creep into his story.All the wrongdoings toward the 'good' characters are fine, but the aim is far too precise. It seems that the only reason to abuse and batter his protagonists are purely to make martyrs out of them. And it's always been confusing as to why only three kids can find some sense out of the situation. All the kids are from the same school, they are cut from the same cloth and are educated in the same environment, yet it's the outcasts, or the good guys who are the only characters in the story who seem to be liberal, and show some sense of conservatism. But of course, he wants to show the deterioration of a civilized system. This is a subject worth exploring, but as I said before, the character Jack sticks out like a sore thumb. Before any order within the island is eradicated, Jack is all ready established as the story's villain. It's okay to display characters clashing over power, but Jack isn't simply looking for power fix. Golding makes him anti-conservative, sadomasochistic, anarchic, autocratic and ruthless — without being psychotic — before anything really happens in the story.Ralph, Simon and Piggy are simply William Golding's physical manifestations of everything good and sensible. They are a minority within the story not because that's an accurate depiction of children but because he has no other way to make them significant. His beliefs aren't very flashy, and quite frankly, Golding isn't a very strong storyteller. The undertones he permeates are fine, but his execution is flawed and condescension toward them is distracting. Golding can't even retain a bit of subtlety with his symbolism by the end of his novel. He presents his didactic viewpoints through his characters just as sleazily as he does with his themes and morality. Sure, these are strong virtues he's presenting, but he surrenders truth and complexity by making his characters symbolic and thematic stand-ins rather than actual characters. The novel wasn't all bad, I liked the juxtaposition between the children's conflict to that of their adult counterparts. And I loved the concept. But he reduces them with achingly instructive, allegorical and preachy methodology.

ياسمين ثابت

أمير الذباب....اسم غريب لرواية اغربرواية حصلت على جايزة نوبل!...ويالها من روايةمجموعة من الاطفال مسافرين على طيارة الطيارة وقعت بيهم فالبحر فراحوا لجزيرة وبقيوا فيها لحد ما حد يسال عنهم او يدور عليهم....البطل هو رالف الولد اللي يحمل الشخصية القائدة المتحملة للمسؤلية والمحبوب من الكل واللي يعتبر ناضج وعاقل جدا بالنسبة لسنه....معاه تلات اولاد شخصيات رئيسية....جاك الولد اللي لا يؤمن الا بالقوة وهو اكبرهم سنا وواكثرهم شراسة....وبيجي الولد السمين اللي دايما بيقول الصح بس ماحدش بيسمعه وبيستخفو بيه....واخيرا سايمون اللي حتدور حوله حبكة الرواية....الرواية خيال محض اعتقد انها كانت في وقت الحرب العالمية التانية....مجموعة من الاطفال في جزيرة.....بيحاولو يتصرفو بتحضر ويحمو نفسيهم ويقسموا نفسهم لاعمال تحافظ على المجموعة....مجموعة تجيب اكل ومجموعة تبني بيوت ومجموعة تشعل النار على قمة الجبل كنوع من الاشارة لاي حد عشان يشوفهم...الغريبة في الرواية دي على الرغم من بساطتها الشديدة....انها بتحكي عن طبيعة البشر...وطبيعة الدول وطبيعة السياسة وطبيعة الغرائز...وطبيعة الغباء البشري....والصراع...كل ده بشوية اطفال!...رالف القائد المناسب يحاول يوجه مجهود المجموعة لهدف اسمى وهو انهم ينقذوا....وفي نفس الوقت متفاءل جدا وعارف انهم حينقذوا وحد حيلاقيهم في يوم من الايام ومهما تمر الأيام مش بييأس (شوفت فيه التيار الديني المتفاءل المؤمن بالعدل وبالخير في النهاية)....المحارة اللي بتدي الحق لحمالها انه يتكلم والباقي يسكت...حسيت ان ليها مدلول في ارض الواقع ممكن نقول انه البرلمان مثلاالشخصية اللي قصاده جاك....واحد بيسمى نفسه عقلاني ومنطقي...مؤمن انهم حيعيشوا طول حياتهم في الجزيرة دي ومحدش حيلاقيهم....وكل همه اللحمة...انه يصطاد ويجيبلهم لحمة...ولا يؤمن الا بالقوة....وشايف ان رالف اخد منه القيادة وهو اللي يستحقها (شوفت فيه العسكر بشدة والتيار المادي الغير مؤمن بالروحانيات)....يعمل ايه بقى....يبدأ يشكك في قدرات رالف على القيادة ويتصيدله الاخطاء....يجيب مجموعة من الولاد يساعدوه ويكونو عون وقوة ليه....يجبرهم على الطاعة العمياء في مقابل انه يمنحهم اكل باستمرار....ويوهم الاولاد كلهم انه في وحش في الغابة حياكلهم وانه الوحيد اللي يقدر يقف قصاده!يحصل انقسام في المجموعة وتبقى الفئة دي ضد الفئة دي....واعوان رالف يقلوا من حواليه واحد ورا التاني وينضموا لجاك...عشان اللحمة!...وعشان القوة اللي بتحسسهم بالامان....لانهم خايفين من الوحش الوهمي....بعد ما جاك يحس بالقوة وبان معظم الاولاد معاه...يبدأ يهاجم رالف وسايمون وبيجي....ياخد منهم اللي يفيده ويضيق الخناق عليهم....في لحظة هيستيرية حيخلي الاولاد يقتلوا سايمون في الظلام معتقدين انه الوحش!....(رالف على اليسار وجاك على اليمين)وبعدها يتشجع رالف هو وبيجي ويحاولو يتكلمو مع جاك والاولاد ويقنعوهم انهم لازم يكونوا واحد عشان يقدرو يعيشو في الجزيرة دي....يقوموا يقتلو بيجي قدام عيون رالف!...وتيجي اشهر جملة في الحكاية....لما رالف يقول لجاك انه مش حينجو باللي عمله ده.....يقوم جاك يرد عليه ويقوله يعني انت تقدر تعملي ايه؟!صحيح حيقدر يعمله ايه؟....ايه اللي يقدر اي مواطن يعمله للعسكر وهما معاهم القوة والسلطة...يقدر يظلمك ويدوس عليك وماتقدرش تعمل حاجة....ولو قولتله ان اللي بتعمله ده ظلم حيقولك حتقدر ترد؟النهاية كانت سيريالية وجميلة ان في حد لقاءهم فعلا....وسط بكاء رالف اللي كان خلاص حيتقتل....بعيدا عن فكرة الرواية .....اللغة اللي ببيصف بيها الكاتب كل ما في الجزيرة كانت لغة مرئية حسستني اني باشوف كل حاجة فعلا قدامي....لدرجة اني لما اتفرجت على الفيلم لقيت كل حد في الاولاد زي ماتخيلته....ولقيت كل تفصيلية في الرواية زي ماتخيلتها....وعلى فكرة دي مهمة صعبة جدا ان كاتب يصف كل حاجة بدقة البيوت الزرع الوحوش الخنازير الاولاد الحوارات.....مشهد النهاية المفاجئ....تصوير الشخصيات الدقيق والرمزي جدا.....الحقيقة الرواية فعلا مقارنة بالزمن اللي اتكتبت فيه تعتبر جميلة وغريبة ومؤلمة....بتعرينا قدام انفسنا...بتوصف المجتمعات بشكل نادر كدة ومش مباشر....رواية جميلة

Share your thoughts

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *