Book Review: Lord of the Flies

Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Release Date: September 1954
Publisher: Faber and Faber
Pages: 248
Buy the Book: Amazon
Book Rating: 2/5










In the end section of the edition I picked up at a thrift store Golding states that: "The theme is an attempt to trace the defects of society back to the defects of human nature. The moral is that the shape of a society must depend on the ethical nature of the individual and not on any political system however apparently logical or respectable." Now, I went into this under the base assumption that the book was essentially about the collapse of civilized behavior into barbarism; that the confines of society were traded for the savage human nature barely concealed by ethics and morals. However, I don't feel that the novel is doing as much as Golding is saying its doing and I felt that it was a long story to make a short point: when society changes, so does our idea of civilization.

Perhaps to clarify my grievances, I will try and go into more detail.........


As the novel progresses, two distinct 'societies' form behind the two elected leaders of the kids stuck on the island. (To speak on the plot quickly: Plane full of kids crash on a deserted island, kids do what they can to survive). The society behind Ralph looks outward towards the sea and rescue. Jack's society looks inward at the island towards food and hunting. Ralph's society is more democratic in nature and based on faith in rescue, Jack's more a cult of personality and corporeal reward of bodily desire.

I suppose my problem is that technically both of these societies are functional and, to an extent, self-sustaining as long as the raw resources that keep said society running (food/fire/hope/hunters) are available. Sure, Jack's society, to our standards, is barbaric and superstitious, and puerile in its interpretation of events, but still functions. There is a structuring of the society and delegated jobs, etc. Similarly, Ralph's society functions, less effectively as time progresses as Jack, through reward or fear, gets people to join his society, and also has a rules, structure, and responsibilities. That, and both societies aren't enveloped by individual desire: Ralph's society is altruistic in that people devote time and energy to keeping a fire (when they can) lit, and Jack gives out offerings of meat to other kids at his feasts.

SPOILER: While this exploration of the human character is certainly interesting, the fact that the kids are rescued at the end, for me, unravels anything Golding was trying to weave with his narrative. End moral is that none of their actions really mattered whatsoever as they were subsumed by the larger society they were isolated from for the duration of the novel. Golding adds that the adults are mired in a similar struggle of societal clashing, just on a larger scale. For me, the fact that they were rescued I think removes the foundation of any type of authorial statement as their are no real consequences for the kids actions. Sure, not all the kids survive their stint on the island, but, as far as the novel is concerned, that doesn't really matter in the big picture. So, if it really doesn't matter, why should I care about what the novel is trying to say? There is also discussion about each of the kids representing a type of societal discourse/critique contemporary with Golding, but I'm not buying it personally.

The commentary at the end of my novel mentions that the novel is certainly more than just an adventure on an island, and I do agree that it is more than that--just less than what the commentator and author claim. For what the novel is, it isn't bad, and perhaps the slow dissolution of civilization hadn't been done before Golding, and gave the novel a place in dystopian canon because of it, but I just didn't think it was as good or as much as people give it credit for.