Yeah, okay, this is still a book that high schoolers ought to read. I do think it's deep. I really liked it. Extremely tight, dramatic, meaningful, compelling...this book is killing it.
Like a more accessible version of Heart of Darkness, Lord of the Flies is about the darkness in our souls and where that might lead us if we don't watch out. It's not that I agree; I think that humans are pack hunters, and most of us prefer to cooperate. But we humans are too smart, and we're very good at overriding our natural impulses - we get confused more easily than any other animal - and books like these are meant to remind us how dangerous that is when we try to pretend we're tigers instead of wolves. This book does a great job of it. I loved it, once again. (This was my third time.)
Lemme ask you this, though, because I'm not sure how I feel about it. Given a small society - a group of castaways - what do you think happens? Would it devolve the way Lord of the Flies
does? Would it hold together? Would it depend on the people involved? Golding goes out of his way to show that Ralph has some kind of mental issue; he's a charismatic but not intelligent leader, who needs Piggy as brains. Jack has the combination of brains and charisma (less of each, but in one body) that lets him take control - plus the wild card of Roger the psychopath muscle. Is that natural? Is this just what happens given that combination of talents? If Ralph and Piggy were combined, would they have held together?
Again like Heart of Darkness, this book is exclusively concerned with boys. There are no ladies. Since it's supposed to be an analogy for society...is Golding missing something here? Has his DeFoe obsession gone too far?