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

Marka

I HATE THIS BOOK!!!

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.

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.

Joshua Nomen-Mutatio

BOYS WILL BE BOYS THERE'S A PIG'S HEAD.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tamora Pierce

I don't believe boys/men are like this; I don't believe people are like this. I never did. It was well written, but I wanted to take a hot shower afterwards.

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?

Lynne King

“You are a silly little boy,” said the Lord of the Flies, “just an ignorant, silly little boy.”Simon moved his swollen tongue but said nothing.“Don’t you agree?” said the Lord of the Flies. “Aren’t you just a silly little boy?”Simon answered him in the same silent voice (how can you have a silent voice?).“Well then,” said the Lord of the Flies, “you’d better run off and play with the others. They think you’re batty. You don’t want Ralph to think you’re batty do you? You like Ralph a lot, don’t you? And Piggy and Jack?”I confess that I did specifically look for this first mention of the Lord of the Flies before I really began to read this book. I had heard of “The Lord of the Flies” by William Golding but I had never had the inclination to read the book, so when I couldn’t find a book shop recently, I unexpectedly came across it in a charity shop. The teenager next to me saw me wavering over purchasing it (it certainly wasn’t the price at 79p!). He smiled and said he was sure I would thoroughly enjoy reading it. It was the cover that had captured my attention; the background was orange and covered with ugly little savages, a couple of snakes and other strange looking creatures. I think that one was meant to be a pig.I found the work somewhat confusing at the beginning, leaving a lot to the imagination but then perhaps that was the point? It actually took me a while to determine what exactly the “scar” was on the first page. I finally assumed that it must be the plane that had crashed according to the blurb on the back cover:“The boy with the fair hair lowered himself down the last few feet of rock and began to pick his way towards the lagoon…All round him the long scar smashed into the jungle was a bath of heat.”There was mention of the plane being attacked, the subsequent fire, and finally the crash when we meet the first two survivors on the desert island. There’s schoolboy Ralph, who’s a rather good looking twelve year old, who meets “Piggy”, a bespectacled rather fat boy who soon proves to be the most intelligent member of the finally assembled group of boys. The joy that they had when they realized that they were in a non-adult society and they could do whatever they wanted!“No grown-ups!”They both soon wondered whether there were other survivors and it wasn’t until Ralph finds a conch shell and blows into it that all the other boys on the island slowly trickle in. But what I found odd was that there were no girls around. However, knowing how men/boys love their “toys”, and the idea of young girls entering the equation, well sexual ideas could no doubt have caused problems. Perhaps the author decided to stay with boys as this book was written in 1954.When the choir group appears with Jack as the apparent leader, I found their attire was odd in that:“Each boy wore a square black cap with a silver badge in it…. They were hidden by black cloaks which bore a long silver cross on the left breast and each neck was finished off with a hambone frill.”I then wondered if there was a religious and Godly aspect to be examined here. One associates goodness and beautiful voices with choirs and this would soon change with the unexpected alteration in Jack’s personality. He wanted to be the chief but Ralph, by popular vote of the group, already held that position and anarchy soon sets in.The main characters appear to represent good and evil in a society that reverts back to its savage roots. Ralph is the survivor, lights a fire and wants the fire to be permanently maintained so that they can be saved, and he is aided by Piggy in this respect. Whereas Jack wants to start hunting, with his spear, and reverts to a savage state with his group when pigs are found in the jungle. Roger helps him. Simon appears to be on the margins. The interesting pair, the twins, “the littleuns”, Sam and Eric, become Samneric, thus showing that they have lost their unique individuality. They support Ralph but get captured by Jack, when the children split up into two groups. The twins had been the first to set the jittery idea of the “beastie”and “the snake thing” in motion.There is a particularly horrendous part when Jack et al come across a sow with her piglets. Savagery is their reason for being with the chief and his members, like Jack, are covered in war paint. There is the determination of Jack to hunt Ralph down and kill him and the incident when Simon meets the Lord of the Flies. I didn’t really understand the symbolism of this, and perhaps there isn’t any and it is purely a children’s book with no hidden agenda.I found the refrain “Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!” rather disturbing.The themes of fire, death, violence and the importance of Piggy’s glasses to make a fire, run throughout the book; showing how easily a supposedly civilized society can revert back to the times of the cave man when survival was all that mattered. The ending was somewhat trite with fire playing a large part in it.I think this book is exceptionally well written but would I like to reread it? No, I don’t think so. The confusion in the book was the main stumbling block for me and I read books purely for pleasure.

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

Scribble Orca

UPDATE: I was very saddened to read this Guardian article about Golding's manipulation of the classroom as a means to inform this work. Here is the dichotomy between contextual analysis and the reading of a book in isolation. It's of no consequence to anyone but me that my previous rating is reduced to no stars, but a writer searching for plot events or people on which to base characters has a moral obligation, particularly when dealing with children, not to indulge in the seductive siren call to experience an authenticity in life with the intent of reproducing it on the page. It's one thing to write a book on previous experiences garnered as the unconscious evolution and transition from state of naivete to worldliness, it's another, and entirely reprehensible, to create situations for the purpose of observation and recording and insertion in a novel, without the consent and knowledge of the subjects forming the experiment. Worse, Golding's work has been lauded as commentary on the nature of political and social structures, as I mentioned in my review proper. That he used school children, innocent of and incapable of denying his intent, constitutes no less of an emotional dishonesty than that to which I have ascribed other authors, indeed the one to whose work I have compared his.The original review appears at www.abookwithaview.com

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.

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.

Share your thoughts

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