Response to Lord of the Flies and to Kelli's comments

I can relate to the later re-readings changing one's perspective. I loved Franny and Zooey the first time I read it, but on re-reading it last year I was severely disappointed. Conversely when I recently re-read The Screwtape Letters, I was both more critical of the style and more moved by the content.

I had read LOTF back in high school and then again a couple years ago. Now, as with the second time, I think the main focus is on what you remembered; the dread and the claustrophobia of the island. Which brings me to what I like most about the book. Golding uses the mood and symbolism to serve the story as opposed to many contemporary writers who use their symbolism to signify that they know how to use symbolism (The Corrections comes to mind in this regard, as does White Noise, though both compensate in some ways for this drawback). I like that on the superficial level that this novel works as an adventure/horror story. The conch symbolizes civilization, but it also serves a function in the story. The pigs symbolize Piggy, who also symbolizes civilization, but Piggy is more a character than a mere symbol, and the pigs function as a source of food as well as a source of contention between Jack and Ralph. Golding realized (and this realization would do some contemporary authors some good) that if the story is terrible, it doesn't matter how good the symbolism is.

That being said, I tend toward a pseudo-theological interpretation of the novel. To an extent I can buy the Freudian interpretation, moreso in regards to the spears and the hunting of the sow than in relation to the conch (which I tend to think of primarily, almost exclusively as a symbol of civilization and the power that civilization holds over the boys, so its destruction seems to me more like a complete surrender to the beast rather than an emasculation). The Freudian point is well taken given the language you pointed out in the hunting scenes. Still this is subsumed into Golding's general sense of the beastial nature of man.

So, given the Golding quote you cited (ethical nature of the individual) I think its primarily an attempt to force the reader to stare into the face of his own depravity. He does not neccesarily frame this in spiritual terms. Beelzebub, the lord of the flies is indeed a religious symbol, but when Simon encounters him in his vision, he talks as if he's the dark side of Man's collective unconscious rather than a spiritual entity demanding worship. Again there is the Promethean element (quote: Only Piggy was [something] enough to suggest bringing the fire down from the mountain (also he's the source of fire for them), but he's killed, not sentenced to eternal punishment by any gods). Religion seems to be associated with the society that's destroyed. So there is a Beast in humankind that renders all our attempts to hide or ignore it futile.

I like the idea of the island as prison, but foucaultian analysis is not quite as valid, given that Foucault was not yet established, whereas the Freudian stuff could have been intentional. It could, however be applied to some extent.

However, I tend to think that authorial intent is important. That being said, the book primarily functions as a statement about the evil within Man.

I say pseudo-theological because Golding doesn't frame the beast theologically. It seems more psychological. However, it still functions as a powerful example of Original Sin or Total Depravity, depending on how you want to phrase it.

Chesterton said sin was the only part of Christianity you could prove or demonstrate without faith, and this is a good example.

It makes me think of Miss Watson trying to "sivilise" Huck Finn. She couldn't. Golding is getting at the fact that attempts to civilize the beast are futile.


What do you think?