Spoiler: Lord of the Flies
So, I'm curious, LDG and anyone else who wants to contribute, why you cried when you read this book. Personally, I found no emotional attachment to any of the characters, precisely, I suspect, as Golding predicted. The narrative bumped along between characters, though, admittedly, it did focus on a protagonist (Ralph). Reading the text, however, as involved with the story as I was*, I was very detached from the situation, moreover that I was reading the story just to see how it unfolded, to watch the formation of the society and study the signs of decaying minds and, subsequently, the "civilisation."
After reading it and being disappointed by my lack of emotional involvement and, as LDG promised me, tears, I wondered if LDG's emotional response had been because she watched the movie, as opposed to reading the book. I know that Anna had not read the book, but only seen the movie and was "disturbed" (and refuses to watch it with me tonight as I just put the book down only a moment ago and told her, before the last chapter, that I was going to have to watch the movie when I was done with the book) by the film.
I find it curious that I had no emotional response to the book other than curiousity about how the story ended. Any thoughts on the subject?
*and if you know me at all, you know I can get involved in a human story in 60 seconds or less
After reading it and being disappointed by my lack of emotional involvement and, as LDG promised me, tears, I wondered if LDG's emotional response had been because she watched the movie, as opposed to reading the book. I know that Anna had not read the book, but only seen the movie and was "disturbed" (and refuses to watch it with me tonight as I just put the book down only a moment ago and told her, before the last chapter, that I was going to have to watch the movie when I was done with the book) by the film.
I find it curious that I had no emotional response to the book other than curiousity about how the story ended. Any thoughts on the subject?
*and if you know me at all, you know I can get involved in a human story in 60 seconds or less
posted by Ruth @ 16:40
6 Comments:
At 3/7/05 17:13 ,
twp77 said...
Well I for one did not feel like crying. On the contrary I was appalled. I remember reading this in the 8th grade and at the time thinking it was trying to comment on society in a way I didn't agree with. Basically I felt the same way about watching the movie "Seven". In both cases I think to point was to try and imply that brutality is part of "human nature" - something I strongly disagree with. I believe it is taught behavior and does not just "naturally" occur. That's my take on it anyway.
At 3/7/05 19:31 ,
Ruth said...
True. Golding never mentions the paternal history these boys were equipped with. Maybe Jack was raised with a "typical" English tradition of fox hunting or, unusually, an abusive father, giving Jack a tendency towards a blood-thirsty disposition.
I never even considered your perspective, T. Though, I have to say that I believe the author's intention was to comment that, in the face of a brand new society, with no precedents and no "history" (to determine a citizen's disposition), as one generally finds in the face of childhood innocence (thus the reason he chose children as his symbols instead of adults who come equipped with their own "learned natures"), the formation of societies and "civilisations" face the typical challenges as presented in his story, with the intellectual, "sensible" sort (like Piggy, prominently, and Ralph) versus the instinctual, animalistic kind (like Jack and Roger).
I found myself siding with both character opposites, understanding the drive of both the blood-thirsty savages who are blindly seeking the comforts of day-to-day living and the democratic, long-term thinkers concerned with ultimate preservation of the society. Even towards the end of the story Golding mocks Ralph as he begins to forget the reason why he insists on keeping the fire burnt.
At 3/7/05 19:36 ,
Bijtje said...
Ahem..so i assume i am the LDG who promised you tears by this book?
I never said that weirdo! ;)
I said LOTF was a weird ass book and that you just have to read it as much as you just have to see the movie "A clock work orange". Because they are both just tooo weird for words.
(and the book LOTF and the movie a clock work orange are two different things)
I never cried while reading it. Never saw the movie because i don't really like movies that are based on books, takes away my own imagination of what i read.
The only emotional response i had with the book was that the whole book consists out of symbolism. And the thing that i found fascinating was how they went from western civilization to animal instict, something we all have in us but rarely comes out in the modern and westernised (if that is even an english word) world we live in.
But i never cried during this book.
At 3/7/05 19:54 ,
Ruth said...
My mistake, bijtje. As it turns out, it was Anna who said I was probably gonna cry. Like you, I found it most interesting how they "degraded" to animal instict from "civilised" life.
At 4/7/05 12:21 ,
Bijtje said...
nah, it's ok. normally i would be the one to say that ;)
At 4/7/05 13:28 ,
anna j said...
erin also neglected to mention that i had seen the movie when i was nine years old leading to my disturbed feelings about it. it's hard to see children killing each other when you're a child yourself.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home