|
|
 |
The Lord of the Flies (Penguin) |
| |
|
|
Author:
William Golding
By Penguin
Average Customer Rating:  
List Price: £9.78
Our Price: £4.60
|
|
|
|
Binding: Audio CD
Dewey Decimal Number: 813
EAN: 9780141800967
Format: Abridged, Audiobook
ISBN: 0141800968
Label: Penguin
Manufacturer: Penguin
Number Of Items: 3
Number Of Pages: 3
Publication Date: 1999-09-02
Publisher: Penguin
Release Date: 1999-10-04
Studio: Penguin |
|
|
|
Amazon.co.uk Review
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
|
|
Loved it, 2008-09-05
I was fortunate enough to not have to read this novel at school. It meant I could read it at my own pace and not have to write 10,000 words on the symbolism of blah, blah, blah. Lord of the Flies has become one of those tales that is a stereotype of itself. But I still enjoyed reading it. I think this book holds up well and it has stood the test of time. But as we move deeper into the Blu-ray generation, however, time can only tell?
Civilised life as a mere sheen - fifty years on, 2009-01-06
A review of a book as iconic as Lord Of The Flies should surely only offer comment, not mere description. It is over fifty years since its publication in 1954 and, it should be remembered, the story is set in wartime. So, while the marooned boys apparently descend into a mould of pre-civilised behaviour, their adult compatriots are engaged in it full time in the world outside. Jack may paint his face and display an identifying insignia, but so, probably, does his father at that time, a display he might call a uniform, and the insignia a flag or regimental banner. It is perhaps coincidence that William Golding casts a casualty of the nearby war, dead, but re-animated by natural elements, the wind in his parachute, as the intruding beast that terrorises the stranded boys.
Where this imagery falls down, of course, is at the end, when a suitably British naval officer rescues the lads. We assume they will promptly be returned to their besieged wartime homeland, no doubt to live happily ever after. Of course, there is the question of who saves the adults, whose war is the merely the same as the boys' limited creation on their island. But this element of the book perhaps reads less convincingly fifty years on from its publication, when the general reader would have needed no reminder of how horrid an experience the recent war had been.
Ralph's character poses something of a dilemma. He clearly believes he was born to lead. When he finds his authority both undermined and then by-passed, it appears he cannot cope with the demotion, his continued assumption of status blinding him to the obvious. At the time this surely would have been interpreted as a reference to the British class system. Fifty years on, the allusion is less than obvious.
If anything, Piggy presents the modern reader with the most problems. He is the epitome of the know-all, the swot, the annoying brat that always has something to say. But he is also the idealist and realist in one. He has few skills, perhaps fewer physical contributions to make to the group's survival. But he has a technological vision. He is an inventor of ideas, ideas that others, under direction, may realise. Hence he is also the visionary, the philosopher who not only knows what should be done, but also why it should be done. Significantly, his spectacles provide the only technology the community needs since, unbelievably for the period, none of them seems ever to have been a boy scout and so they cannot make fire.
But it is eventually Piggy, for all his analytical and intellectual skills, who seems a total prisoner of stereotypical assumptions. He seems to assume that "British" is a synonym for "civilised" and that all black people are automatically savage. The reader is left in some doubt as to whether these opinions are sincerely held, satirical, representative of the society from which the boy hails or merely hyperbole promoted by the panic of their situation. To some extent, they have to be accepted and dealt with rather like an opera-goer must accept Wagner's anti-Semitism as historical fact, rather than essential opinion.
Lord Of The Flies has weathered its half century remarkably well, but there are flaws which now seem more obvious than they would have been in the years that followed the book's publication. The power of the book's observation, however, remains. It is already iconic, its permanence assured.
A good education , 2008-07-20
I found the 14 year olds perspective really interesting. I read this book for G.C.S.E. and loved it! admittedly I had read it several years before and found it O.K. Looking back I think I missed some of the finer points and the more gory bits put me off (I was about 10 and more interested in ponies at the time).
It is true to say that often studying a book can ruin it, destroying the magic of the story. but in my case study enriched the experience and helped me to understand some of the finer points. at the time I loved the way that understanding added new depths to the text.
I have just read it again and I still love it. one of the greatest things about LOTF is its ability to appeal to both a young and mature audience, and I was delighted to find that, like teaching, age also offers new angles of approach and fresh perspectives.
Having sung its praises I do feel that William Golding had an axe to grind when he was writing LOTF and there is an ever-present religious undertone that can get a bit monotonus. I think for this reason the book is better suited to younger readers and will be especially appreciated by those with a bit of nouse, who are able to see but not be dragged in by some of the books (arguably) outdated moral ideals that seem a little un-realistic. Similarly some of the more obvious analytical gems, such as the island as a microcosm of the world and the boys as representations of humanity get a bit dull and repetitive, but a bit of reading around will see you well rewarded.
For me LOTF remains a good story and an excellent introduction to textual analysis that is very rewarding no matter when you read it.
It's a slow book that doesn't really go anywhere, 2008-09-01
For years this has been on my list of books to read, when I bought it I got ten other books as well. I started reading three or four to begin with. This was the first one I left reading. When I got some of the other books read I went back to it, still no, I picked up a different book. After another while I went back to it but started a few chapters into it. This time I finished it.
The plot I felt didn't go far. The psychological aspect only got interesting towards the end of the book and could've continued into the boys during the aftermath of what had happened. That is what I would be more interested in.
I know that that wasn't really his message but I just think it would have made for a better book.
Contender for 'Worst Book Ever', 2008-09-18
Let me just say one thing; I am an avid reader. I love books. Whenever I begin reading, I cannot stop halfway through, even if it is an absolutely awful book. However, this book went beyond awful. It was so far past awful it made me want to throw up (and I wish I were exaggerating). Not just because the book is basically a doctoral thesis on human psychology wrapped in a plot stolen from 'The Coral Island', but mainly because it makes no sense.
Let's start at the beginning: The arrival. The pilot manages to safely land the plane on the one island in the middle of nowhere, while the cockpit is on fire. Having done this, the several tonne plane then washes out to sea, after all the boys have left, without a scratch on them. Not even a bruise, after an emergency crash-landing through a forest. This is stupid.
Also, why is this deserted island of such importance that there are enemy planes patrolling? It cannot be between them and the enemy's target, or the plane would be going in exactly the wrong direction. This is also stupid.
Next, these boys, rather than being even slightly upset, and without the faintest trace of post-traumatic shock, begin to get naked and swim. Because once you are stranded on an Island with no hope of rescue, swimming is the first priority. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
The conch. Hands up everyone who remembers the conch. Not A conch, THE conch. This is highly unlikely. Where you find one, you find many. And yet, miraculously, they find a single conch, completely undamaged. And immediately Ralph knows how to 'play' it. Suspiciously stupid.
Skipping forward a bit: The pigs. Not suspicious having pigs, is it? Yes. Yes it is. How are there just pigs on this island? If you have pigs, you have other animals. There are no other animals. Then how did the pigs come to be there? Quite stupid. Taking it as read that they did miraculously appear, why do they act as they do? We know from experience (See Dodos) that an animal without predators loses its fight or flight instincts. The population should A) have been booming, and B) be so tame that the conch would draw them all to find out what the fuss was about.
Then there is the Beast: Lt's talk about the pilot. He (while dead, mind you) floats down directly on to this one island, in the middle of the ocean, and lands on the island. Once more this shows that there are ennemy planes over head, and this island must be of some importance, which would suggest the rapid discovery of the children, with their fires etc. Anyway, this pilot floats down, and gets lodged, inextricably, so that it cannot move. Until the plot requires it. Upon the death of Simon, the ropes all free themselves at once, and the pilot glides away. And this isn't the last appearance of our good friend unlikely coincidence.
No. To finish, I shall turn to the end (of the book; we already know we're coming to the end of the review. How? I just said so.). At the very end, the schoolboys, who are now all insane in the fastest downfall since... actually, the fastest downfall full stop(.) They are attacking Ralph, who miraculously retains his moral compass, and set fire to the island. At this precise moment, a naval ship appears, and a boat dispatched to investigate, just in time to save Ralph. Absolute tripe. The boys all then immediately regain their minds, and all is well.
I think my point is clear, that this book was not thought through, and was merely a vessel for Golding's feelings. The amount of symbolism in the book is beyond belief, to the point where it becomes unreadable (well, more so), and the plot feels contrived. After having done this book for GCSE (and somehow scraped an A, despite the ludicrously ambiguous questions), I felt like throwing the book through the window of the exam hall. I am now physically unable to read the book, without suffering from a headache, and I urge you not to even attempt to read this, and I pity all of you who are forced to do it for GCSE.
(As a post-script, I feel I should point out that this 'book' was lambasted when it came out, as it should have been, and it was only the Americans who decided it was worth the read (it wasn't), so we can all blame them for inflicting this on us)
|
|
