/lit/ - Literature

I just thought the point is that we should beat up, and eventually murder fat dorks.

>>4928847

You're one of them

>>4928853
gooble gobble motherfucker.

>>4928844
i didn't get why the guy cared about the files so much. he seemed to kind of have his shit together more than most in other aspects of his life. i guess the novel was trying to say something about the way people see their work in contemporary western civilization, but it didnt really work for me.
i felt like the part at the end when he burns all the files in the parking lot was a bit contrived. it was sort of like he came up with the title and then just made shit fit into what he was trying to say without bothering to have it make any sense.

do you think there was anything interesting in the files? just a macguffin?

I read it in high school and I liked it then. I still like it.

It's a big symbolic middle finger to a book called The Coral Island by R.M. Ballantyne, which took a much more optimistic perspective on the same scenario. While The Coral Island posits that humans are inherently good, Lord of the Flies takes the perspective that humans are inherently evil and that when the seemingly arbitrary societal rules and social contracts of civilization fall apart around us, we default back to savages. Humans, without affectation, are naturally superstitious, cowardly, logically and morally devoid, and hungry for instant gratification, even if it is self-destructive.

There's a lot more depth to what each character represents and what their relationships between one another mean beneath the surface, but I ain't in 10th grade anymore and I'm done writing essays about this fucking book, man.

Read it in high school, didn't really like it. The symbolism of Jesus and Pighead seemed forced. Like he wrote the book and said to himself, oh shit, where are my classical references? And proceeded to just shove some shit in. It's not bad, I just don't think it's very well done.

>>4928870

>The Coral Island posits that humans are inherently good

White humans, you mean.

>>4928844
We're all a bunch of ''savages'' untill we have some authority. The kids are ready to murder one another, but as soon as they see an adult, everything is forgotten and they know how to act properly again.

It could advocate against objective morality, it could advocate for religion, it could advocate for a lot more most likely, which makes it a good book already. Other than that, I enjoyed reading it, although it has been a year or 5.

i partly agree with the message. it's not like life can be broken down to either this or that.

i think we are savages to a degree. but so many things happen including society itself because people can be more productive working together in various ways. yeah, we have many dillholes that abuse shit about out system from all walks of life but there are many people who try and they do make a difference even if it's not always noticed. bascially people try and you should respect that. because if it weren't for that it would be 100% dog eat dog and life would suck 20394823 times more i guess.

Read it when i was 14 at school, I think it''s important to note that when it was written the idea that boys killing another boy was unthinkable and horrifying. These are young children who descend into savagery and murder each other. In this day and age however, that concept bears little weight. We have children watching violent films, playing military video games and being desensitized to violence. I'm not saying that's a terrible thing and that we should "protect the children", im just stating a fact. I think you have to take into account when it was written.
Also, I thought the ending was slightly Deus ex machina. It was so tense and then "everything is ok". I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

>>4928921
or it could be how hedonistic kids are. i think the book had to do with maturity. the protag was the most mature one and thus the one who tried to maintain any sanity the group as a whole was losing.

>>4928961
>I thought the ending was slightly Deus ex machina. It was so tense and then "everything is ok".
It's not. The war is still going on, they're not going to be safe, the world they're "rescued" into is just a macrocosm of the island.

>>4928961

The first time I read it I thought the naval officer or whoever it was, at the end, was there because it was a Truman Show type scenario

It's a horror story for Libertarians.

>>4928961
The ending was supposed to be the big reveal that the adult, civilized world is little different from the children and the island. He looks down on them and their savagery, but he's a naval officer on a fucking war vessel doing the same thing that they are on a larger scale.

I read Lord of the Flies when I was 12.

I cried for Piggy.

>>4928921
lol you only peeled off the first layer of onion kiddy.

The boys are rescued by the Navy (either Amerrican or British, I forgot).

So murderous little boys are saved by an even bigger murderous entity.

Mind fuck.

>>4929038
Or, savages on an island can only be cured into being civilized by military intervention from the West.
The kids turn into depraved beasts when left alone, but the West brings civilization.

Although your whole patronizing onion joke doesn't really hold up when your supposed deeper layer is hardly worth mentioning, as the focus of the book does not lie with being ''murderous'', but losing morality in general. Which the navy does not exactly represent.

>>4929038
In the book I believe its the British Navy, but in the movie its American (because in the film the kids are American).

>>4929072
>but in the movie its American (because in the film the kids are American).
You mean the newest film

>>4928870
>>4928921
>>4928961
>>4929062
http://www.simplypsychology.org/robbers-cave.html

>>4929089
What a stupid study.
>Hey let's put some people into direct competition and see if they fight

>>4929062
lol shut up, your little sore dink is showing, kid.

The kids were educated in a prep school, it doesn't get any "Western" than that.

Perhaps the book is trying to say that the difference between "Western Civilization" and pure savagery is simply "veneer". Western Civilization gives euphemisms to barbarity (heroism, daring, boldness, power).

Furthermore, I think book doesn't say that the "noble savage" doesn't exist, but rather, that the average "Western specimen" is always on the cusp of savagery, depending on the circumstances.

There are however, in the group of boys, 2 or 3 boys that are inherently noble.

Ralph, Piggy, and that Jesus/messiah/saint complex kid (think his name was Simon).

If we are to take the prep school as a litmus for Western Civilization, about 10% of the total are truly noble, the rest are merely savages groomed to be civilized under threat of punishment. Remove the threat of punishment and consequences and their true savage selves come out.

But we really don't need to make this so "Western Centric", we could actually just apply this to Man in general--Homo Sapien Sapiens.

Your turn to say something interesting faggot, also, try referencing the book in specifics, kid.

>>4929017
Free market would've fixed it.

>>4929204
Like fucking clockwork.