Talk:Lord of the Flies/Archive 1 (2007)

Communism?
There seems to be a fair amount of a Communism theme in LotF, to the point where it seems that Golding is making the point that there are a lot of faults in Communism. And also there's the whole 'what happens with no laws' thing being addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparapal (talk • contribs) 02:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic?
Most of this article reads like someone's GCSE English notes.
 * Good for it. If only there was some way you could fix it. Oh, wait, there is! VolatileChemical 22:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

True, but it would involve deleting 80% of the article, so why not canvas it on the discussion page first? IMNSHO, high-school level literary criticism is not encyclopedic. Is there a WP "Wikipedia is Not Cliff's Notes"?


 * I agree, not encyclopaedic at all, well done to the person making theses personal interpretations, but it reads like an English essay for GCSEs, the whole article is covered in it. Ashnard   talk  19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Psychological Aspect?
I think that most psychologists would agree that this book (while a very good one) is not an accurate representation of what happens in true stranded-on-an-island situations. People almost always band together in such situations, or create large groups. What are people's thoughts on this? I'm curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * Firstly, how in the book do the boys not band together - they do just that (albeit with fractions and disagreements - you can't say it is unlikely this would not happen). There have hardly been enough cases of real examples of such a situation anyway. The novel, I think, is supposed to be looked at more broadly. The irony at the end is that, despite the boys being saved, there is still an international war going on in the backgroud - a parallel to the conflict between the boys on the island. It's not supposed to be looked as a "this is what would happen" book, the meaning is deeper than that. michael  Curtis talk+contributions 23:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also... a separate psychological aspect of the whole story is parts of the Freudian model of the human personality that the main characters make up. Ralph and Piggy represent the ego, Jack (and the hunters) represent the id, and Simon, the only naturally "good" character, who doesn't participate in murder; represents the superego. 1337wesm 03:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Devil
"The title is a reference to Beelzebub (the source is from the Hebrew name Baalzvuv בעל זבוב), a synonym for the Devil."

could we possibly get some proof of this statement... how does anyone know this to be true>?

actually, a lot of what is said on this page is rather ridiculous. give me a few weeks and i'll have proof of a serious need to rework this whole article.Leo Collin 08:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

None of this should be accepted as fact, unless there is solid evidence for it.

um, well its sort of commonly known (i dont know how you could have read the book and NOT known this, but whatever), but Beelzebub means "Lord of the Flies". Also, he wasn't the devil himself, but the Devil's second in command. If you really want a source - Google :) --Mirag3 22:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There is an unfortunate conflation between the Hebrew and Greek scriptures here. Certainly in the NT, Beelzebul is a synonym for Satan...but the reference is in Greek.  In the Hebrew scriptures, Ba'al Zebuv appears exactly once, in 1 Kings 1:2, wherein he is descibed as the god of the Philistines of Ekron.  Indeed, the Masoretes pointed zbl to make it read zebuv, or "flies' (but the original term was likely  zebul, or "the prince," since this does not seem like a complimentary name for one's deity).  Later, the Gospel writers made this deity into Satan, likely reflecting a cultural transformation of the deity into a sort of prince of demons.  My BDB Hebrew lexicon is decidedly ambivalent about the word.  In any event, the into. doesn't really give the whole thing the nuance it requires...but I may be splitting hairs. Fishhead64 04:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

hmm, the article translates בעל as "god" which i don't think is the best translation, it can either be "master," "lord" (as in the hebrew for landlord, "בעל -בית") or "husband" but god isn't a good translation of the hebrew. someone can double check me, but any objection to changing the proported translation?

the devil is most certainly symbolic of the lord of the flies (the sows head, which simon converses with) and there are quite a bit of religios references in the names of people so this seems completly possible. plus sparknotes presents this as fact

Symbolism
I agree completely with those people who want to include references to the symbolism in the book. Since it's an allegorical novel it is very important but there may be a problem. Because there is no real way to prove the meaning of symbolism, it is really just one's interpretation, people may have conflicting interpretations and this will cause people to constantly delete each other's contribution and then there's the neutral point of view to take into account. What does everyone else think we should do on the matter? Could you leave the responces on my talk page please.

I call for the symbolism should be removed outright since they're only interpretations and not facts and because not everyone will agree with the interpretations it violates the POV and they are only points of view and do not belong in an encyclopedia. I know the symbolism is very important in Lord of the Flies but it doesn't belong here and perhaps we should leave it to other people to just read the book and decide their own interpretations independently or read about them elsewhere? Besides, most of them contradict each other and what good is it to anyone when there are so many possibilities they just know a million things something might mean. Thunder Cat 18:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Unless a reliable source can be found that details in his own words the author's intent, symbolism should be omitted or as a minimum, labelled as opinion. This is especially important in a novel like Lord of the Flies because of its vague allegorical nature. Cc08 07:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Article move
This should obviously be the main page; just look at what links here. I have moved the previous occupant to Lord of the Flies (phrase). -- Slowking Man 08:22, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

digital copy
there's no digital copy? the copyright still holds? Xah Lee 23:24, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
 * Um, yes. The book was published in 1954. That's only fifty years ago. -Branddobbe 11:54, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sadly yes. Only 50 years ago. Only half a century. Unfortunately, Golding passed away more than a decade ago and no longer benefits from the royalties, but it is kept in the corporate domain. Also unfortunately, we must put up with this. Sorry to bother anyone. --Natezomby 04:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

symbolism of objects and items
i listed only the three that i could remember off of the top of the head. i know there are many others for The Scar in the island, the whole island itself, the rock that falls on piggy, etc. if you know any please add them. -prabhuly 11:35, June 8th, 2005

'''==========SYMBOLS========== The scar is the burned area on the island where the plane crashed.The glasses that piggy wore.The pig head.The face paintings.The conch.'''

What the Scar represents...
it represents the distruction of man and their distructive forces. hope this helps someone out there. Jo

Analysis
Is there a problem with the analysis section?

Duplicate text
For some reason, the page contained two consecutive versions of the plot. I removed the second (which was poorly formatted), but it has some good elements that should be integrated with the first. I'll do it myself later, but until then I'm moving the text to the box below. At first, the boys enjoy their life without grown-ups and spend much of their time splashing in the water and playing games. Ralph, however, complains that they should be maintaining the signal fire and building huts for shelter. The hunters fail in their attempt to catch a wild pig, but their leader, Jack, becomes increasingly preoccupied with the act of hunting. When a ship passes by on the horizon one day, Ralph and Piggy notice, to their horror, that the signal fire—which had been the hunters’ responsibility to maintain—has burned out. Furious, Ralph accosts Jack, but the hunter has just returned with his first kill, and all the hunters seem gripped with a strange frenzy, reenacting the chase in a kind of wild dance. Piggy criticizes Jack, who hits Piggy across the face. Ralph blows the conch shell and reprimands the boys in a speech intended to restore order. At the meeting, it quickly becomes clear that some of the boys have started to become afraid. The littlest boys, known as “littluns,” have been troubled by nightmares from the beginning, and more and more boys now believe that there is some sort of beast or monster lurking on the island. The older boys try to convince the others at the meeting to think rationally, asking where such a monster could possibly hide during the daytime. One of the littluns suggests that it hides in the sea—a proposition that terrifies the entire group. Not long after the meeting, some military planes engage in a battle high above the island. The boys, asleep below, do not notice the flashing lights and explosions in the clouds. A parachutist drifts to earth on the signal fire mountain, dead. Sam and Eric, the twins responsible for watching the fire at night, are asleep and do not see the parachutist land. When the twins wake up, they see the enormous silhouette of his parachute and hear the strange flapping noises it makes. Thinking the island beast is at hand, they rush back to the camp in terror and report that the beast has attacked them. The boys organize a hunting expedition to search for the monster. Jack and Ralph, who are increasingly at odds, travel up the mountain. They see the silhouette of the parachute from a distance and think that it looks like a huge, deformed ape. The group holds a meeting at which Jack and Ralph tell the others of the sighting. Jack says that Ralph is a coward and that he should be removed from office, but the other boys refuse to vote Ralph out of power. Jack angrily runs away down the beach, calling all the hunters to join him. Ralph rallies the remaining boys to build a new signal fire, this time on the beach rather than on the mountain. They obey, but before they have finished the task, most of them have slipped away to join Jack. Jack declares himself the leader of the new tribe of hunters and organizes a hunt and a violent, ritual slaughter of a sow to solemnize the occasion. The hunters then decapitate the sow and place its head on a sharpened stake in the jungle as an offering to the beast. Later, encountering the bloody, fly-covered head, Simon has a terrible vision, during which it seems to him that the head is speaking. The voice, which he imagines as belonging to the Lord of the Flies, says that Simon will never escape him, for he exists within all men. Simon faints. When he wakes up, he goes to the mountain, where he sees the dead parachutist. Understanding then that the beast does not exist externally but rather within each individual boy, Simon travels to the beach to tell the others what he has seen. But the others are in the midst of a chaotic revelry—even Ralph and Piggy have joined Jack’s feast—and when they see Simon’s shadowy figure emerge from the jungle, they fall upon him and kill him with their bare hands and teeth. The following morning, Ralph and Piggy discuss what they have done. Jack’s hunters attack them and their few followers and steal Piggy’s glasses in the process. Ralph’s group travels to Jack’s stronghold in an attempt to make Jack see reason, but Jack orders Sam and Eric tied up and fights with Ralph. In the ensuing battle, one boy, Roger, rolls a boulder down the mountain, killing Piggy and shattering the conch shell. Ralph barely manages to escape a torrent of spears. Ralph hides for the rest of the night and the following day, while the others hunt him like an animal. Jack has the other boys ignite the forest in order to smoke Ralph out of his hiding place. Ralph stays in the forest, where he discovers and destroys the sow’s head, but eventually, he is forced out onto the beach, where he knows the other boys will soon arrive to kill him. Ralph collapses in exhaustion, but when he looks up, he sees a British naval officer standing over him. The officer’s ship noticed the fire raging in the jungle. The other boys reach the beach and stop in their tracks at the sight of the officer. Amazed at the spectacle of this group of bloodthirsty, savage children, the officer asks Ralph to explain. Ralph is overwhelmed by the knowledge that he is safe but, thinking about what has happened on the island, he begins to weep. The other boys begin to sob as well. The officer turns his back so that the boys may regain their composure. // Pathoschild 21:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Symbols
I think that any & all symbols should be mentioned in the article, with minimal explanation. This allows people to find their own meanings for each symbol while informing them of other perspectives, and any other symbols they did not catch. There should be a disclaimer of some kind that states that each symbol may have multiple meanings, or something like that.

I think that the themes and symbols section needs a rewrite.It seems biased to religon.
 * Have you read the book? The whole book is biased to religion.  It is a book that was heavily influced by the authors own religion, Christianity.Leo Collin 05:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The novel incorporates Greek symbolism often overlooked. The article, for instance, makes no mention of it. Ralph, blond and first seen against the sun, is Apollonian. Jack's red hair, dark clothes, and great singing ability make him a representative of the Dionysian. These are just a few details that come to mind; there are others. The Greeks saw these traits as opposites, to be sure, but provided outlets for both in society rather than treating one as good and the other evil. The key is not found by eradicating either in favor of the other, but in balance. Ralph made a mistake when he belittled and condemned Jack for hunting. Jack's explanation was that they needed meat, and this was true in that the boys' fruitarian diet was causing diarrhea. Might the community have succeeded had the leader managed to honor the various personalities and grant them useful roles? Paul Emmons 07:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add some of that to the text. However, rather than trying to find all this ourselves, we should use references, find some book reviews and incorporate those into the article. See No original research. Piet | Talk 07:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This article has been very helpful to me in undersatnding Lord of the Flies. It's quality however, is a problem. It is very plausible (and likely) that the author of the symbols section read the book carefully enough to come up with those "facts" on his/her own, but there must be some recource that can be cited? That would improve the quality, as well as the usefullness, of the article.

Does anyone know of a tag that summarizes the general opinion of the cleaning up of this article?? Bardofcornish 00:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You may consider placing sources in the offending section. For general cleanup of the article, if really needed, use cleanup. --Evb-wiki 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Devil
Beezlebub is translated into "Lord Of The Flies."

This is an extremely common fact when it comes to this novel. When Simon views the sow's head on a stick, it is referred to as the "LOTF" since it is actually an almost embodiment of evil speaking to him.

If you doubt this fact, then you should really re-read the book.

World War Three
I'm not entirely sure, but I think that right before the beginning of this book, World War 3 erupted. The notes talk about an 'atomic explosion' related to chapter 2, and Piggy mentions that the pilot talked about the atom bomb being dropped on Britain or something. Later on, it talks about an air battle (probably a battle in this WW3) and one of characters (I forget) mentions about 'When the war is over'. I don't think its World War 2, because there was no atomic explosion in Britain, and the kids would have been evacuated to the countryside and not overseas. Can anyone enlighten me on this? Seriphyn 14:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that this was World War Two, as the island is located somewhere in the South Pacific. Therefore, it could be inferred that the atomic bomb was the bomb dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. England had a number of colonial holdings in Japan, so it may be that the boys were on a British military base in Japan. It's mentioned that Ralph's father is in the navy, corroborating the theory.
 * No. neither of those cities were an island, or an uninhabited island. Also, if Britain is the enemy (they were part of the Allies), why would Japan allow there to be British bases in their land? Also, the boys were not in a British base. They were in an aeroplane. ALso, since the onyl enemy at the end of the war was Japan, why would they allow this base to exist yet shoot down the planes?
 * Also, the dog fighting above the island that the parachutist fell from took place at night. To the best of my knowledge, there were little or no dog fights at night during WWII.Thmars10 05:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there were a ton of dogfights during WWII. The British and the Germans were constantly battling each other over the English Channel. Sorry to contridict, but it was the fighter pilots in the RAF that kept Britain from being completly annhilated. Also, I interpreted the book to take place towards the very end of WWII. The atomic explosion was in Japan, and the kids were evacuated, like almost all kids in London and other British cities, because the Nazis were bombing the heck out of the English towns and cities. --Ironchef8000 03:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is not about World War Two, as the boys mention fighting against the Reds. The Communists, or the Red Army, were on the same side as Britain during WW2. -- Dandelions
 * And a source for this: "Ralph dredged in his fading knowledge of the world. "We might get taken prisoner by the Reds."" -- Dandelions 20:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Go back to high school people ;) The book illustrates the beginning of World War III, but never really says who is fighting. The bombs mentioned are nuclear devices that are dropped on england (WHICH NEVER HAPPENED IN WW2 lol). The entire book is a microcosm for the world itself, and the ending of the book is seen as highly ironic, because Ralph finally escapes the decent into barbarity that the island has brought, only to return to the greatest barbarity of all, only with much more powerful weapons. Lastly, Dandelions is right and the main enemy seems to be Communists, and no British school was very shipped en masse to a relatively warm climated island probably in the Americas.

To support the WW3 theory, the book WAS written in 1954. This is around the beginning of the cold war, where the main "enemy" were the communists, which, as Dandelions pointed out, Ralph makes reference to. During WW2 however, there were plenty of dogfights over England. The Royal Air Force (RAF) conducted its missions during the night, Americans mostly during the day. It could be WW2, and the boys were evacuated not because of a real atomic bomb, but the threat of one. Anyways, it doesn't really matter, as all the reader needs to know is that there is a war going on with multiple nations involved. If Golding wanted it to be a major part of the book, he would have extrapolated more.


 * Well the article now says it was WW2, which i think must be wrong. There's obviously a debate, but can we not put something like above, that a war is going on regardless of which war? I think stating that it's WW2 is wrong when i'm pretty sure it was WW3.Calumm 08:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I support the theory that it's the Cold War, since the Reds were fighting with Britain at the time of the book, and as was said, it was the threat of an atomic bomb, it never said that it was an actual atomic bomb being dropped. It's been a bit of time since I read the book, but I do believe that it never confirmed that a bomb was dropped.-- Shroopliss T/C\U 16:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The details of the war are not important that's why Golding didn't give much detail about it because he wanted the reader's attention to focus on the island and not the war around it. Where does it say anything about Communists? Name a chapter because I've read a tonne of times and don't recall any mention of Communists and in fact I'm holding a copy of it in my hand right now and can't find any mention of them. That's not to say the war isn't important, it's the idea of war and it's effects that are important not the particular one in the book. Sorry if I'm not making myself very clear. Thunder Cat


 * I've just watched the original Lord of the Flies movie, which stays very loyal to the book unlike the 90s remake. It's set during a war, and NOT the second world war. The opening picture montage shows large missiles, artillery, jet fighters (including a shot of jet fighters, presumably Soviet, over London), and shows the first jet airline concieved, the "Comet" (meaning this is 50s time), being shot down by those Soviet jets. There's other militaristic shots too. The "parachutist" which people annoyingly call (studied LotF for my Literature course, and kept on calling him a parachutist, though is obviously a fighter pilot) is a dead fighter pilot. You could say it's just a novel to movie crossover, however, unlike most it aims to recreate the book rather then reinterpret it. Okay, so it's not a major factor for the story, but it's the reason for the boys' troubles in the first place. Seriphyn 15:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is based around a WW3 scenario - the Educational Edition says this in the notes. it also makes reference to Queen Elizabeth II (Ralph says that the Queen has a room with maps of everywhere) who came to power in 1952, clearly setting the book in a Cold War-gone hot scenario.--Jonnymoblin 10:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is definately based around a WWIII like scenario, in the original manuscript of the book golding had three long chapters in the book, at the beginning, middle and end which described the world at the time, the war that was going on, the technology of the war, including the plane the boys were on which had different escape pods and they for some reason were all put in the same pod. The middle section describes how the dead airman was shot down in a lot more detail and the end section describes the events after the boys are rescued. The book was so poor that most publishers simply refused to print it, until eventual editior Charles Monteith picked it up and read past the dreadfull first chapter and persuaded Golding to cut out all the detail of the world of the island, thereby removing the element of a fixed setting making the book much more of an allegory or myth instead of story of past events. In this way Monteith assured that the story could apply to people of many generations, not just the post WWII society of the time. 50th Anniversary of Lord of the FliesCDuck2 13:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What's with all these homosexual references?
Look, I may have forgotten something since I last read this book. I'm not claiming to be infallible. But I must say that all of these references to homosexuality never seemed to come out in the original work.

Everything from the first line of the plot summary ("A number of homosexual boys crash land on a deserted island") through to the final analysis of Roger, where the following exists:

However, one must consider the fact that regardless of what any annalysts say about the book, and conclusions about the book regarding symbolism and character representation are purely speculation; the true meaning of the book is left to the author's discretion alone; that the "spear" he is "famous" with is his genitalia.

If I am misreading things, then that's one thing. If this write-up is biased, then how do we get back a pre-anti-homosexual version? --Jeffuit 18:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not homosexual but there is sexual imagery and there is a purpose for this. It wasn't by accident that the main characters are around 12 and that is because they are on the cusp of puberty. They came with their innocence but as their characters develop they lose their innocence and become savages and one could argue that the development is puberty. They are becoming men and are displaying the characteristics of man and yes you could say the spears are symbolizing their manhood’s and when Roger forcefully inserts his spear into the sow's anus he is exploring his jaded sexuality. He is a sadist and feels pleasure from inflicting pain and exerting control over others, this is shown throughout the book like when he is throwing stones at Henry in chapter 4 he becomes aroused from this. I believe the incident with the sow is also showing rape because Roger is probably doing it more for exerting control than sex itself one reason is that he is probably too young to fully understand sex. I'm not saying any of this is the undisputable truth, it's an interpretation but when you do give an interpretation back it up with examples or reasoning. Saying things like "the scar represents man's destruction" doens't help. What's that based on? With that logic you could say anything about anything. Anyhows please reply to this and debate because that's how we'll get more sophisticated interpretations. Thunder Cat

Age
Does anybody know exactly how old the the kids are? There are the real young, around 6, children. They seem to be about 10-12, but I don't know if my image of the children is that heavily influenced by the movies. Does the book ever say how old either Ralph or Jack (or any of the older children) are? Bradley Elenbas


 * The book mentions littl'uns and bigger children, and I have assumed, never having seen the film, that the children are between 6-12. I don't think they have hit puberty because there is a quote in the book, near the beginning:

"He was old enough, twelve years and a few months, to have lost the prominent tummy of childhood; and not yet old enough for adolescence to have made him awkward."
 * This is describing Ralph.
 * Furthermore there is another quote again from chapter one,

"I ought to be chief... because I'm chapter chorister and head boy. I can sing a C sharp."
 * Refering to Jack - Now any boy who can sing a C sharp will be no older than 13, probably around 12 and a half.
 * Certainly, for this book to work, the children must not have gained the intellectual development of adolescence, for then their innocence and ignorance of the nature of the world would not come across and the novel, as an alegory could not work.
 * I hope this helps.


 * Benjaminstewart05 14:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Simpsons input is silly
Do we really need the note about the parodic episode from the simpsons - I think that it lowers the tone.

Benjaminstewart05 10:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The section talks of LotF and popular culture. It would be silly not to include the Simpsons reference, when there is an X Files one that actually has nothing to do with the story, but just shares its name. And what is the 'tone'? (Btw, sorry if I'm messing anything up on this page. I'm quite new to this.)


 * It links to modern day and relly relates, keep it.. !RealG187 16:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Class system
The book also seems to be about the class system generally. Any mention of this? wikiman, 12 May 2006

Well the class system doesn't feature much but Piggy is from a working class background and his accent could be one of the reasons that he is ostracised. But it does say in chapter 4 "Piggy was an outsider, not only by accent, which did not matter" but maybe they're just not conscience of this discrimination. From what I can tell most of them come from affluent, middle class backgrounds and classism was still strong then so they could have been brought up to be so. Thunder Cat 18:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In talking to British readers of LOTF I've come to understand that the class references are far more subtle to North American readers. From what I have been told the accents that different characters speak are somewhat important to their character. I'm under the impression that a British reader can infer their class directly from their manner of speech. Also, (this I'm a bit sketchy on, but it makes a bit of sense) I understand that Jack and Ralph are both upper class. Ralph's father is of some important rank, and if I'm not mistaken that alone implies some amount of high birth. I don't fully know about all of this however (Given that I am not British) Are there any people with a better understanding of the matter who can clarify all of that? Robert Mason 04:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I havn't read this in years. Of course class permeates a much of LOTF. There really should be something in the article about it. The main Characters except Piggy are all clearly Public school (private if you are American)or prep school boys; with there mixture of good english and public-school-boy slang ("WIZARD!"). Also the choir start the book in their robed uniforms if I recall. They naturally assume the leadershipe roles. Piggy is clearly a working class Londoner. This is clear from the way his accent is portrayed "Lit'luns" "Like what you are..." etc. This is another reason that piggy is excluded and disliked and resented for his influence over Ralph (AS well as the fatness, the Athsma, the specs etc...).

The failure of the boys to remain civilised is all the more shocking because these are the archetypal son's of empire who normally have such a ripping time in standard adventure yarns of this era (The names and setting were taken from coral Island as it says in the text). The format of the book is a corruption of these stories, that satirises the beliefs they portrayed. The books tries, amoung other things, to undermining the conidence in the dominant values of contempory british/western society. The posh lads have been moulded by and are representitives of these values (Values that prove insuuficiently strong against the darker side of human nature).

It is interestting to note that the only two boys who had any insight into what was happening and maybe could of stopped the catastrophe are both marginalised. Piggy the intelligent though undynamic cockney lad and Simon who's spiritual/intropective nature was also not valued by the more confident and unreflective boys. I thought that this was obviously meant to have parallels with the causes of the grown-up nuclear-war that the boys were excaping from.

This is all from memory of the book I read about 15 years ago and didn't overly like (I thought it a bit preachy). Sorry for the spelling mistakes, in a rush. Thrupp

Themes and Symbols
I have reorganized this section and tried to coimbine various ideas under each topic. However, the information itself is very largely opinion - much of it based on little evidence. It certainly needs either references to Golding himself or more quotations from the book and I have changed much of the "X represents" to "X may represent". Perhaps the whole section needs to be moved to a new article "Symbolism in Lord of the Flies"? Michaelrccurtis 19:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Golding explained all the symbolsim in Fable, The Hot Gates? Surely we should just use this for the symbolism? Thunder Cat


 * Things need to be referenced as per Wikipedia policy, I was only tidying up what was already there (which was a bit of a mess, no offense intended to anyone involved). To be honest, I think it needs to be in a seperate article. Michaelrccurtis 19:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it is in a mess as most of it contradicts or repeats itself. I think we should just include what Golding said in Fable as he specificaly says what things represent. So we know what things represent and we should remove everything else but we could another paragraph, for example responce from critics etc. Then we could include critic's interpretations as they have different ideas about the books and I believe this wouldn't violate the original research policy. But above all remove the points simply dropped in by people as they're violating the original research and as the book is an allegory the symbolism is very important. Does this sound like a good idea to everyone? Thunder Cat 06:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words
There seem to be alot of weasel words in the article, especially in the symbolism section, they do try and influence the reader in accepting someone's opinion and that is not what we should be doing. I know Michaelrccurtis got rid of some already but the rest of us should help. Thunder Cat 10:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Piggy's Glasses
I've come to a interesting discovery about Piggy's glasses. If the boys used the glasses to light the fire, that means the lenses had to be convex. However, the book mentions that Piggy is myopic: "The twins watched anxiously and Piggy sat expressionless behind the luminous wall of his myopia" (pg. 187). Since Piggy is myopic, the glasses have concave lenses, therefore diverging the sunlight instead of converging it. The glasses cannot be used to light the fire because it can't focus light. Did Golding oversee this error, or was it a deliberate mistake? WiKi 17:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I don't see why Golding would do this diliberately though, unless there is an implication that something else is starting the first. I'd say it was a mistake. --Steven 21:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)'


 * Good eye!, or whatever it was that discovered that, I never woulda noticed, I thought the rubbed rocks on them like in the Simpson episode mentions with Millhouses glasses, but then if they did that Piggy never woulda been able to use them again!! Also, if I was on and Island I never woulda thought of that or be able to focus the light proporly!! RealG187 17:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This error about the glasses is old news and was mentioned in the Notes section at page 252 of the Faber Education Edition of the Book first published in 1962. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.79.88.255 21:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Bill
I have discovered another error in the book. After Jack leaves the group and the boys build the fire, Ralph asks: 'Where's Bill and Roger?' Piggy leaned forward and put a fragment of wood on the fire. 'I expect they've gone. I expect they wont play either.' (Pg. 144) Bill has left Ralph's group and followed Jack. He is ordered by Jack after the hunt to raid for fire. However, after when the boys are attacked for the fire and Ralph holds the assembly, Bill is still seen with Ralph's group: "At last Bill held out his hands for the conch" (Pg. 156). Does this mean that Bill returned to Ralph after the raid or is it another mistake of Golding? WiKi 00:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a nice find, I never even noticed that! I think that it would be somewhat interesting to note that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shroopliss (talk • contribs) 22:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Plot Change
I made a small change to the Plot section. Both Ralph and Samuel were willing to build shelters and were the only ones to work on all three of them.

There was no character called Samuel, you might be thinking of Simon. Thunder Cat 08:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It is supposed to be Simon. --Jonnymoblin 10:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The Movies
there needs to be 2 seperate pages for each of the movies. does anyone else agree?
 * Yeah, I'm sure tons of people do, but anyone who reads your comment will think they shouldn't because they think you're going to. In that, you're the only one who possibly can. So learn correct spelling and grammar, start signing your comments, and write those pages. VolatileChemical 22:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are volatile, aren't you. Asshole. 68.166.69.73 14:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Twiztid Lyrics under Popular Culture
I removed the citing of the Twiztid lyrics "When I close my eyes my body's paralyzed, Engulfed in the swarm by the Lord of the flies. My eyes stay closed my temperature falls, My bed starts shaking blood dripping from the walls." This is the only line in the song that references the Lord of the Flies, and nothing about the quote indicates that it references the novel rather then the demon/devil Beezlebub. --74.129.35.191 10:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Id keep it really relates, why shouldnt it be there? What song is that from, its by the Twiztid that hangs out with Insane Clown Posse?? RealG187 16:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Jack's name
The article currently reads:

" Jack's name is derived from the Hebrew name "Yakov", which literally means "one who deceives" or "one who takes over," just as Jack took the role of leadership by force from Ralph."

Is there a reason to think Golding was going for this connection? The Biblical character Ya'akov (יעקוב) (Jacob) is said to be named from the fact that he was the younger of two twins (the root עקב in Hebrew has to do with following and the heel, as he is said to have gripped brother Esau's heel while being born second of the two). I've never understood it to relate to deceit or usurpation... after all, Jacob (later "Israel") is a very heroic character in the Torah. Moreover, the English name "Jack" is generally a nickname for "John." The link to Jacob is not obvious. J21 03:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason to think Golding was going for this connection? None at all. There is a section on Coral Island somewhere in the article — probably whoever wrote the quote above was taking off from Beelzebub. Njál 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the English name "Jack" is generally a nickname for "John." This is true, however the name Jack originally comes from the French names Jacques, which is the French form of Jacob or Ya'akov, and does mean "one who supplants" even though Jacob in the Torah is heroic, the mean of the name is not changed. (Google It!) We have no way of knowing whether Golding named Jack because of the meaning of his name, or the reference to Coral Island, or perhaps he chose it because it was convenient that one of the names in Coral Island would fullfil his names destiny in the course of his own book. We will never know, but it is worth mentioning. CDuck2 14:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Movies
This really needs a asection on the movies both of them and how they were different from the book and each other 68.39.200.216 20:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I would do so, but I have only read the book, not seen the movies..... -- 24.41.42.153 03:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Coral island
i added a bit onto coral island, but it needs to be tidied up. --Chickenfeed9 17:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Piggy's name in Name section
The Names section of the article currently contains a great deal of ridiculous observations on the symbolism of Piggy's name. For instance: Piggy is the most intelligent boy on the island, so it can be assumed that he is the "Lord", and all the boys are the "Flies". Please... Someone who knows what they're talking about... - Pingveno 00:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree - on reading this seemed wrong and misleading - especially since the title "the lord of the flies" is to do with the devil and nothing to do with Piggy. I have deleted the statement and one other which allows the paragraph to flow more freely and is less subjective. michael  Curtis talk+contributions 23:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: the section has major spelling and grammar problems, and needs drastic proofreading; as does a lot of the other character descriptions!203.213.140.50 17:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

quotes from the book
i saw some quotes used in the article, but no page reference. it would be really nice if someone could find the pages, because i need some context on them and the page numbers too —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.236.19 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Apocalypto
Seriously? I'm not going to edit it as I haven't seen the film, but that part seems unnecessary at best. Maybe shuffle it into the pop culture section? Either that or remove it altogether, it seems like a very tenuous link. Mattemeterio 09:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)mattemeterio

Seriously. I recently watched Apocalypto and finished reading the Lord of the Flies, and I think that associating the book with Gibson's film is not neccesary but a good idea nontheless. I do, however, have an issue with the following statement: "The underlying message is one of paternalistic racism: Caucasians are like grownups, other races are like children, who will be sacrificing each other to idols unless controlled by the Caucasian grownups." This is bollocks. I arrived at no such conclusion, nor agree with it, after reading the LotF nor after watching Apocalypto. I believe that in the book, as in Apocalypto, the arrival of the European powers is a great way of putting the whole story into perspective - are the children really saved if there is still a war going on outside the island? Is Jaguar Paw really saved by the conquistadores, who end up greatly contributing to the destruction of native American civilizations? European powers happened to be Caucasian and they happened to attach meaning to skin color, but I do not agree that the control of "other races" by those "Caucasian grownups" is an "underlying message". It is no more than just historical accuracy. If noone objects, I will remove the quoted sentence in 3 days time.

DrSlony 02:06, 04 Januray 2007 (CEST)

Red Army ?
I don't think "exemplifications" should be so obviously biased. And why not the US army in Vietnam as an illustration of Evil, or any colonial army, which wouldn't be more of a militia than the red army is. The Red Army is indeed no more a militia than, for instance, Napoleon's armies, that is to say, a new military organisation built up by a new regime. I suggest thus to erase this comparison.

The Red Army is refrence the the Soviet Union and other Communist countries which would have been taking place. However, It may have been an implication from Golding that Communism has spread or that the Soviet Union alone has grown more powerful.

Edited??
It says Piggy calls Jacks tribe Painted N!***rs, I dont see it but on page 180 I see: Which is better-to be a pack of painted indians like you are, or to be sensible like Raplh is?

Is the N word replaced with Indian??

RealG187 16:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Peace Out


 * PS Its on page 180 and the cover of my book it this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lord_of_the_flies.jpg

As far as I know, in some versions of the book, the N word is replaced with various other words, while in some it is left in. In the original, it will have been the N word as I do not think it was considered offensive when the book was written. Aphswarrior 22:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that the part so does it say this in the original?:

Which is better-to be a pack of painted n654321 like you are, or to be sensible like Raplh is?

Where the numbers represent these letters [I just cant type it!] 1s 2r 3e 4g 5g 6i

RealG187 16:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't find my version of the book at present, but from memory, that is correct ( minor point : I *think* Piggy doesn't use grammar correctly in the sentence e.g. "like what you are" instead of "like you are") Aphswarrior 16:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The quote appears on page 199 of my 1974 Faber Paper Covered Edition of Lord of the Flies. Quoting directly from the book, which is open in front of me... "Which is better -- to be a pack of painted ni**ers like you are, or to be sensible like Ralph is?"

Simon
WAt chapter did he die in?? !!! RealG187 17:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Simon dies in Chapter 9 Aphswarrior 22:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So he dies before piggy, but it was an accident cuz they thought he was the beast? It says Roger was the first to kill someone, he killed Piggy, but if this happened wasnt who evr killed Simon the first, unless that doesnt count since they had no intedntion to kill Simon, they wanted to kill the beast? RealG187 16:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Simon dies before Piggy. Simon is killed by a group so sobody can be directly accused. It was an accident. Rodger was the first person to intentionally kill someone. Where does it say Rodger was the first to kill someone? Aphswarrior 16:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

DVDs in the 60s??
For http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LordoftheFlies1963.png it says its the 1960's DVD cover, this doesnt make sense, neither does the 1990 cover http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LordoftheFlies1990.png ! Didnt Dvd come out in like 1998??? RealG187 17:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It means that those are the covers for the movies after they were put in DVD format

Challegned Books
HOw can this book be controversial??? Anyone to find this book offensive would have to be a wimp. Try listening to lryics in todays songs, man have times changed for the better.. !!!!!!RealG187 16:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Need references!!
This article is going the wrong way. Instead of adding what you think about Ralph and Jack or Piggy or whatever, find a book review and use this as a reference. Remember No original research: any opinion or interpretation that has been made by a wikipedia editor rather that taken from a published source, can be removed without discussion. Which currently means apart from the lead section, about the whole article is liable for deletion. Piet | Talk 08:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

An entire section was just added which contains the sentence, "Jack has been viewed as having a likeness to Hitler." No references for this comparison are cited. The entire article is full of such un-sourced OR interpretations. Some MAJOR work is needed here. - Big Brother 1984 14:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Jack and the choirboys
Does the Id / Ego / Superego bit really belong here? There's nothing about the choirboys in it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.108.66.67 (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Notes on Lord of the Flies
A possible reference: http://scottlandonline.tripod.com/lotf-ebook-html.htm. Scroll to the end of Ctrl+F "Notes on Lord of the Flies." I can see some bits of this article have been taken from it, esp. "decay, destruction, demoralization, panic, hysteria." This is at the end of the mass market edition I have, and is written by E. L. Epstein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.108.66.67 (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

The same "notes on lord of the flies" can be found in the back of the "Perigee book" edition published by the Penguing group and some parts of the analysis found in the article are copied straight from the book in question. I don't know if credit is given to E.L. Epstein in the article but I would advise that someone with more knowledge than me take a look at it to ensure it isn't plagiarized. An example of the copied text is "The killing of the sow".

"Beastie" vs. "Beast"
I updated the article to substitute "beast" for "beastie" throughout. The term "beastie" is not used in the book except at the very first meeting, where the boy with the mulberry birthmark introduces the subject of the "beastie"; in the rest of the novel, "beast" is the term used. 218.191.194.91 12:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Novel Information
Added novel information for all to view. The cover artist relates to the company who designed the cover art of the version of the book that has added notes from Faber and Faber in 1962. All other information is correct to my knowledge, so enjoy!

(It is also interesting to note that within the added notes of the novel, the writer adds the information that Piggy's lenses were meant to cure myopia so the lenses were not correctly designed to use sunligh to create fire. I believe this was previously stated by another, so i just thought i'd add a reference.)

Vociferous Visionary 08:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

LotF in popular culture
THere is a reference to Lord of the Flies in Fables (Vertigo), issue 6 of the Animal Farm storyline; in which Colin the pig has his head cut off and put on a stick. One character, Rose Red, explains to her sister: "It's poor Colin. It also appears to be a literary reference. My guess is someone wanted to make sure we got a very specific message." (The bolding is from the actual comic, not mine.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.233.247.79 (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

where can you see lord of the flies on the netquestion
where can you see lord of the flies on the net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.208.146.0 (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Please be more clear, and use proper capitalization and punctuation. —LOL 22:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Other boys
Their should be another section about the boys, such as Maurice, bill and henry.

Roger
Page 29 Educational edition by Faber and Faber- It states Roger implicitly as not choir "who nobody knew" also on same page and next he suggests the idea of vote as method of subverting Jack- not sycophantical behaivour; he also doesn't talk too much in the novel- again not a sycophantical trait.

-alex- 19:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Island shape
There is something about the shape of the island .... the shape of the island is like the boat and Golding is trying to mention the journey of the transformation of the children from civilization to savagery.

Heart of Darkness
I'm not an English major, so I don't know how relevant this is, but my edition of Lord of the Flies contains an interview with Golding in which he said he never read Heart of Darkness. I rented it from my local library, so I won't have it much longer, but it is a “Casebook Edition” with notes and criticism from 1983. The interview was with James Keating at Purdue university in 1964.

The exact quote was: "Q:...Did the work by Richard Hughes, High Wind in Jamaica, have any influence on your writing Lord of the Flies? A: This is an interesting question. I can answer it simply: I've read this book and I like it, but I read it after I'd written Lord of the Flies. And if you're going to come around to Conrad's Heart of Darkness, I might as well confess I've never read that"

I think that makes it pretty unlikely that a perceived reference is anything other than someone reading too much into the book. Drhawley 22:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Something to point out...

 * I actually may be the first to have noticed this... I surely hope not, however (since so many reputable scholars have read this several times, and I noticed this small fact the first): Since the plane was shot down, the land the group of boys now inhabits is obviously contested territory... This means that Ralph's supposedly intelligent idea of keeping the fire going actually puts the boys in considerably more danger. An enemy which has potentially killed millions in utilizing atomic warfare could be supposed to killing/imprisoning a small band of boys. My English 10 teacher said that this thought never occurred to him. Indeed, after searching the internet numerous times, I have found no discussions nor arguments on the subject.--A metal shard 23:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not likely that the boys would have been in any danger from a Nazi massacre. German atrocities seem to have been limitted to their genocidal efforts and supression of guerillas, unless you want to use wartime propaganda as a scientific source. A handful of British boys would not fall under either category. Cc08 07:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, I think it has been established that this is a war against the communists and the Nazis are not the enemy (see the above discussion question). Also, that the plane was shot down over the island does not mean the island is disputed territory. It is probable that the plane was shot down by (perhaps aircraft-carrier based) fighters that were on patrol. As fighters from this time could fly thousands of miles, it is likely that the plane carrying the children was simply a victim of bad luck.Keegsshipguy 22:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up
This article is definitely in need of help, which has been mentioned already on this talk page. I divided things up into section to separate the rampant subsections that all fell under "Plot summary." This may encourage better clean up on those specific sections. Anyway, just a reminder that all additions to this page should really be cited with in-line citations or it's considered original research. Also, I'd recommend removing the section on "Editions." It's really irrelevant how many times the book has been printed in paperback or hardcover or on stone or whatever. The same goes for all the pictures of covers; I'd suggest that we're bordering on copyright violation having so many non-free images on this page. The most relevant is the first edition, or at least an early edition. Thoughts? --Midnightdreary 01:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations are REQUIRED for Wikipedia
This isn't an option for wiki articles - cite your sources when adding to articles. The ENTIRE "Character analysis" and "General analysis and themes" sections of this article read like generic high school/college-level English essays, reeking of original research (or, worse, regurgitated analysis without proper citation). Hearsay or not, this sort of thing is NOT fit for inclusion in WP articles. This article has been marked as needing citations for some time. Unless someone can cite the MANY claims made in the "analysis" thus far, they will be deleted from the article shortly. I don't mean to be a dick; I think most of this makes sense and seems scholarly, but it's just NOT fit for inclusion as-is. Alvis 06:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Literary critism section
In hopes of cleaning up the literary critism section, I have found an edition of LOTF which includes several interviews with Golding as well as many essays by critics and scholars (Casebook editions). However, before I start, I would like to know if people think this a reliable source. Thanks. Bardofcornish 17:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, slightly OT. Can anyone explain why this book is so highly thought of? Banal Boys Own adventure meets obvious symbolism, was my verdict. Greglocock 13:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The articles introduction is very american orientated
I just read through the beginning of the article, and I must admit it's got a very USA centric viewpoint. For example it makes reference to the American Library Associations top 100 books, TIME magazine, how it sold poorly in the USA at first (making no mention of it's initial print being in the UK and actually a successful book). William Golding was a British author, which is not mentioned, and this American focus almost implies this is an american classic.

I'm not saying this on nationalistic grounds; but because I think it may confuse readers of this article. As this book is an internationally recognised classic of significance to all english speakers and beyond, perhaps other sources could be found to demonstrate its high regard? I'd also question the notworthy ness of being in the American Library Associations top 100 most frequently challenged Books of 1990–2000 (whatever that means?) or TIME magazine 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to the present. Although both are probably well known in the USA (well I've heard of TIME magazine anyway), thats not so true elsewhere in the world. Also do either of these rather abritrary accolades deserve mention in the introduction to the article?

I haven't altered the page yet as I wanted to see whether anyone disagreed or had any further suggestions? --DomUK 00:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you make some good points. I would suggest, though, that the information about TIME magazine is still worthwhile but definitely seems to be in the wrong spot. Maybe under the Critical reception section? It might even be worth adding subheadings for reception at "home" and "abroad." I agree, though, that being on a list of challenged books for a mere ten year period isn't entirely exceptional - but, I wonder if there's a spot for discussing how it has been challenged... has it been challenged in the UK at all? --Midnightdreary 23:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Girls
Just out of curiosity, what do you think might have happened if there were all girls on the island? Also, could they not have mixed the groups? It seems very unlikely the group would have been traveling without a female in sight... to tell you the truth it is the only thing in the book that didn't make sense to me. I'm no girl crazy idiot. But even I still can't help but be bothered by such a loss. They were scarcely even mentioned in the book...ThegreatWakkorati (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Are Humans Inherently Evil?
In the novel Lord of the Flies written by William Golding humans are portrayed as being inherently evil. It is hard to determine if this statement is true, from never being in such an environment, but I would have to agree with the statement, we are inherently evil. Taking away from society and broken down into a primitive form, the boys fall under the persuasion of Jack and his wrong doings. The boys much rather do uncivilized things, than to try and act out together to form a progressive group that can survive. It is easy to assume when taken away from the rules of society that a person will do almost anything to survive. But would you agree? (24.161.71.135 (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Nich D.)