The entire book is intended to be an allegory of the world and human society. Do you think that Golding succeeds in writing a book that describes the way things really are? Do you believe that the way things turn out on the island and the way the boys behave are good symbols for the real world and the way human beings really are?
41 comments:
Yeah so i think that Golding had a good thought about how our world really is. I think that the boys acted like anyone would on a island with no sugar on top.
-Cobra Commander
I think that the way Golding wrote the book isn't necessarily the way things really are. In the real world people may be selfish and crazy but I don't think that the boys would be that out of control, not enough to kill their friends and go absolutely insane.
-PrincessCinderella<3
I think Golding does do a really good job at describing the way things would be on the island. I think that people are naturally power-hungry and that any type of power over others will drive people to become "savages" like the boys do in the book.
Enmadre
I don't think that this would really happen on an island with no adults. It is close to some extent, they would fight but they wouldn't go as far as hunting each other.
Pistolepete
I do think that Golding does a good job on explaining how people really are. There will always be people who butt heads on different subjects and even those who will resort to violence. Either way, Golding did a great job.
-ForgetRegret
I believe that the book shows not necessarily how we are naturally but how we naturaly become, perhapse. I tink it shows the destruction and decomposing of a society when it isn't exercized to it's fullest extent or best level. Maybe we have natural instinct to want meat or want to follow the more outspoken and appealing natural leaders rather than the ones with a better plan?
~Cozyfresh~
I think Golding is almost as close as any one could get with a general group of people. It's hard to know what would really happen because it's almost impossible to put people in those types of situations. But, i do believe that is what would happen.
-sleepingbeauty<3
I think he does do a really good job in telling the readers what society is like. I think this is how society is and people should start realizing this.
smileyface16
In regards to PrincessCinderella<3 and Pistolepete I think that Golding does a good job depicting the real world. I think this IS potentially how extreme it could get. Golding makes it obvious how you only need one strong rotten egg to mess everything up. If you disagree, just look at the haulacaust which was even more extreme.
-YourMom
-PrincessCinderella<3
I agree to an extent but do you think that maybe they would go insane and kill their "friends"? We hear stories of people killing and sometimes even eating each other... does this show how humans generally react in times of complete devestation, starvation, or isolation?
~CozyFresh~
I think that Golding does a good job of showing how people really are. Some people in this world are pretty messed up. I disagree with Princess Cinderealla <3. Why do people do drugs? It's just as dangerous and bad as the boys killing eachother, so why do you think they wouldn't do it?
-Smiles :)
Golding tended to exaggerate some of the consequences of the boys' actions. Of course an island full of 10 year old boys wouldn't exactly be an ideal place to live but I don't believe that the total anarchy and disaster that took place would happen in a real situation. The symbolism is great when we look at its relation to the world but it is also exaggerated and biased towards Golding's view.
-Serendipitous
I agree that this shows how people are to the extreme. Golding had a very jaded view of peole because of his experiences in WWII.
-princessbelle
I believe that this is something that could happen in a society. But it is unlikely because adults make decisions that are differnt than a 12 year decisions.
-Princess Snow White
In the Lord of the Flies I do believe that Golding succeeded in getting his point across with how the world really is. You have two groups natural leaders and followers. Golding really showed what can happen when you are a bad leader and have blind followers. Especially when your bad leader is power hungry.
*Raster*
Princess Snow White,
I agree. 12 year old boys seems to make irrational decisions and just 'go with the flow' so to speak. I think that if they were adults, things would have gone down a lot differently.
-ForgetRegret
To YourMom:
The genecide you were talking about is an entirely different situation. One rotten egg can't go anywhere unless they have followers. It takes more than a person being corrupt, they would need an immense amount of support to do things on the scale of the Holocaust. Golding wasn't stressing the importance of one strong person but the fact that one person can get a huge amount of support even if the cause isn't necessarily one worth supporting.
-Serendipitous
snowwhite-
not all of the boys acted like savages..not all adults would act civilized.
-princessbelle
Princess Snow White,
I see your point. Adults have the stereotype of being more mature (and, probably, they can be!), but, don't you see the same patterns in LOTF that happen in the real world? Golding wrote the book as a symbol for our society! So, doesn't that mean that he sees immaturity in our world? That adults do the same dumb things as a group of 12 year old boys, just on a larger scale?
-gardenstate
I think that Golding has a very accurate idea of how the situation might play out. I do not how ever think that people would lose control so much that they started killing people. This story has an extremely morbid view on how people would react to being stuck on an island thinking that they might not be saved; in reality i don't think that people would resort to violence to not to the extent that Golding talks about.
Belle
I think that anytime you leave a group of boys or a group of children to take care of themselves for an extended period of time it would get out of hand so in a way i think that Golding showed the way things really are but also there really arent times like this where a group of kids are left to take care of themselves so really it doesnt show how things are in real life but maybe how they would end up if the kids were stranded on an island.
~barebie~
There's so much to this question!
Golding is a pessimist, therefore to me, everything is to an extreme. I don't think this is how the world always, and i don't think his symbols are always correct in how they make people look bad, almost. I think Golding might generally think people are awful, and i think there are poeple out there who don't deserve that judgement. So maybe he didn't depict everything in his book as correct or true, but most of his book seemed to be correct to a degree.
Pochahontas
I think that Golding has a very accurate idea of how the situation might play out. I do not how ever think that people would lose control so much that they started killing people. This story has an extremely morbid view on how people would react to being stuck on an island thinking that they might not be saved; in reality i don't think that people would resort to violence to not to the extent that Golding talks about.
Belle--
It may be morbid but I do believe it is realistic. Think about what they have gone through, post-traumatic stress disorder has a weird affect on people.
Belle--
It may be morbid but I do believe it is realistic. Think about what they have gone through, post-traumatic stress disorder has a weird affect on people.
Enmadre
Hey!
-smiles:)-
I agree it is pretty stupid what people do in today's world and when you are put in a certain situation then i think it will be really easy to choose the wrong especially when you have influences like that.
~Lil' Dork
I agree with Barbie. This book was very far fetched, but his point wasn't. What are the chances of a group of twelve year old boys getting starnded on an island and having to take care of themselves? This would probably never happen, but if it did I'm sure that it would turn out something like Lord of the Flies.
-Smiles:)
Great point Pochahontas!
He did indeed over exaggerate what would happen, but I think if he didn't, the book wouldn't have gotten it's point through.
He is definitely pessimistic and has a bad outlook on human nature. But I still think he conveyed his point very well.
-ForgetRegret
Pocahontas and Forgetregret
Maybe Golding isn't such a pessimist. He could definately be veiwed more as a realist. I naturally am positive but maybe we could look at Golding and relize that although he poses the boys as being horrible and morbid, also this is during WWII. How much does this reflect his veiw of the world? Had this been in a more peaceful time and if Golding had not enlisted and seen what he had would the story be less brutal, or would the book ever have been written?
~CozyFresh~
-Serendipitus,
The genecide is definately NOT a different situation. Golding wrote this book in direct response to it. However, in regards to the rotten egg... anyone can be corrupt including Ralph (take Simon's death for an example). But think about it, do you think there would have been so much violence if there wasn't Jack to head it off? Jack did get support, but none of this would have happened if the rotten egg wasn't there in the first place.
-YourMom
I don't think Golding meant for the story to be believable. I think he just wanted to get a point across and the more unrealistic he made the storyline, the more people would look at the symbols... For something completely different, I think that Golding's view is a little pessimistic. I can understand how he would think this way after WWII, but I would give people more credit than this story does.
-coolblogname
Pochahontas,
I agree with you on how Golding seems to have a very negative view of human nature. It doesn't seem like anything in the book shows something positive about today's society. I personally don't agree with all the pessimist views and outlooks that Golding uses.
-tickletight
CozyFresh:
well yes maybe if it had been a more peaceful time, but maybe the time period wasn't as important as the boys' home lives and what was going on and how they were being raised. During this time growing up fast was important and all of these boys seemed beyond their years to me, and maybe the war did have an affect on how they reacted to rules and each other but still growing up and how they did that might have had a bigger impact on their brains.
-Pocahantas
*Raster*,
I agree with the fact that when there's a bad leader and blind followers, that the society isn't going to be that great. There needs to be a leader that can decide things without having to turn against someone else.
smileyface16
YourMom:
Golding wrote this book as a response to his time in the military and his experiences with military life, not solely as a response to the Holocaust. Yes, there is some symbolism that can be interpreted as relating to the Holocaust but the book is not a simple response to that.
Yes it does take the presence of a 'rotten egg' to have the consequences you're talking about, but if humans weren't so susceptible to people with power and feeling accepted, than those rotten eggs wouldn't have any support and wouldn't exist.
-Serendipitous
I think that Golding is totally off. Generally i believe that people are not evil and at least try to do good things. But i think that one of the possible reasons that they acted so bad is because of Jacks influence.
PastaFlav
Pocahontas
Are you saying that this is a nature controversy? If you are then how they are raised and what time period they are raised really intercorrelates. If not then do you believe that we are naturally this way? Or maybe both?
~CozyFresh~
Pasta Flav~
So do think this because of their age? Do you think that we are more prone to follow the prominent ones at a young and developing age?
~CozyFresh~
PastaFlav-
I dont know how you can say that! I know that I try to do good things but there are real world examples! During the writing of this book HITLER was in control of germany killing thousands of Jewish people. There are hundreds of more examples of people out there who have done the same things.
sleepingbeauty<3
Sleepingbeauty<3
I agree to an extent. I think it depends on who you are, maybe age a little bit, but more who you are, that decides whether you follow a leader or refuse. Such as a stubborn character or a laid back follower. Truely there will be a difference in reactions.
~CozyFresh~
SleepingBeauty, that is exactly why i said in general people try to do good things. there will always be a few exceptions with any generality, and in this one the exception is crazy people like Hitler.
PastaFlav
the way that golding wrote the book isnt nessicarly the way thing are he is simply implying what he thinks yet he leaves it open for debate and therefore it is what u want it to be
Post a Comment