Rating: 
Summary: Gross
Review: It was easy enough to read, but it was really weird. The story started off decent, then seemed to get really stupid. Most of the good characters were killed and the ones that wre left were crazy
Rating: 
Summary: Readers made this book "great"
Review: The first book Golding wrote and the only book he wrote considered anywhere near classic level. I think the things people have come up with as symbolism in this book are absurb. Comparisons to Conrad should not be taken seriously. I think it has more of the aspects of a political novel. It pokes fun at how democracy's choose their leader and at fascist governments, tyrants, and at pagan rulers. This novel also shows the humans need of some type of spiritual beliefs. Golding intended this as both a slightly symbloic novel and an adventure story. The happy ending is a testament to that. Clearly not deserving of a spot in the top 100 books of the century (at least not in the top 20) it is still a good effort by golding and a book for lovers of implied ideas. The poor plot and impossible keeps it from being great.
Rating: 
Summary: a great book
Review: One of the best books i have ever read it is well written and exicitin
Rating:
Summary: Richly textured masterpiece
Review: On the surface, Lord of the Flies looks like a normal adventure story about young boys. Yet when one further delves into the novel and reachs its core, one relaizes the true intent of Lord of the Flies. It paints a portrait of the slow dissintegration of a reckless society. At first,the society of grade-school boys had assemblies, discussed their plans in a responsible manner, and formed a cycle of getting things done on the deserted island. Yet the gradual destruction of the society showed by the symbolism of Piggy's glasses slowly crumbling.Lord of the Flies shows how the absence of rational thinking leads to an apocalyptic end. Read this novel, and brace yourself for an exploration of horror, pain, and the dissapearnce of hope and logic. Read in between the lines to find the true literal magic of Golding's work.
Rating:
Summary: A genuine classic that can be read on many levels.
Review: Golding's tale is a parody of R.M. Ballantyne's adventure yarn - "The Coral Island", in which Jack, Ralph and Peterkin, despite being shipwrecked and cut off from civilisation, never lose sight of the public school values and rules in which they were raised. They remain young gentlemen throughout the novel. Golding borrows the names Ralph and Jack for his two principal characters and rivals. But most of the similarities end there. Like all great novels, the Lord of the Flies can be read on several levels. It can be seen simply as an account of the way a group of schoolboys descend into savagery after their plane crashes on an island. They are cut off from civilisation and freed from the controls of parents and other adults, with results that would surprise no teacher who has ever left a third form class unattended for a few minutes. (One can only assume that Ballantyne never taught third formers). More seriously, the novel explores the formation and disintegration of social groups, leadership and the legitimate basis of authority, the appetite for and exercise of power, the results of blind obedience and the way people who are "different" can become outcasts and scapegoats. Piggy, the fat bespectacled asthmatic and staunch supporter of Ralph, is from the first the subject of Jack's taunts and sneers. Piggy's murder signals the death of reason, and the rapid and uncontrollable plunge into savagery. For me, the novel is a reminder that the most civilised society is, at best, only a few good meals away from anarchy and collapse.
Rating:
Summary: Every one should read this book
Review: You can find in this book all about human nature, everything about the good and the evil. You can also take it like a book of history, and learn of it esential things for life.
Rating:
Summary: Susceptible to more than one interpretation
Review: When I first read this book (in high school, but not as an assignment) I also read one or two standard critical commentaries and bought into their analyses as its meaning. They teach us that it is a melodrama with Ralph as the hero and Jack the villain. Pursued by Jack and his tribe, who are going to kill him, Ralph (and in fact all the surviving boys), are rescued at the last minute on a beach by a naval officer, attracted by the conflagration to which a large part of the island had been reduced. In the last phrase, we see "the trim cruiser in the distance:" a warship. I.e., there is no real rescue. They will only be transferred from microcosm to macrocosm. They will live awhile longer, but are destined to see destruction on a larger scale, for that is man's destiny.The novel describes the failure of a society; but there is something troubling in the conclusion that such is an inevitable fate, a natural trend, the playing out of man's truest self. One must ask, if this is man, how can we possibly "weep" with Ralph, "for the end of innocence, the darkness of man's heart?" We can have no sense of how bad this is unless we have also a sense of something better. Can we fall without having first risen? From whence comes the standard against which we can call this denouement chaotic, evil, or in any way disagreeable? The customary interpretation suggests as Golding's message that, well, we just have to try to be civilized and keep our fingers crossed, maybe it'll work long enough for us to die a natural death. And when we're bullied, try to find the officer to protect us. Apres-moi, la deluge. Can this multi-layered and complex novel really have been crafted in the service of such a platitude? I liked the book then, and I like it now; but this sense of its begging the question nagged away-- from the first, I like to think-- behind the appreciation. Only years later would I stumble upon an article proposing an alternate interpretation. I regret that I did not photocopy it on the spot, for subsequent efforts to locate it have failed; evidently it has disappeared from the library. I read it at first with some distaste-- how dare this author say anything against the beautiful Ralph whom I had come to revere-- but in the end, I found it satisfying; and furthermore, it suggested something more insightful and practical than a bromide. In a nutshell: Ralph is not good, but Apollonian (fair-haired, first seen against the sun). Jack is not evil, but Dionysian (red-haired, dark-clad, the supreme singer). And "it takes all kinds." The trouble begins when Ralph belittles and scolds Jack when he hunts for meat. Jack's apologia is simply, "we needed meat": and that was a fact, as shown by the boys' hitherto fruitarian diet causing diahrrea. It was Ralph's responsibility, as the elected leader, to acknowledge, validate, and enlist even impulses and viewpoints which he might not understand or share-- but he could not see beyond his own. He alienated and denied a part of the community-- perhaps a part of human nature-- and things went downhill from there. This article was illustrated and supported by an abundance of details from the novel itself. Not all will be convinced by it, of course. But that a learned critic could find a meaning in the book which is so at variance from the conventional wisdom, and support it so well with details from the book itself, says something about the stature of the novel and its author. Less-than-great books do not sustain such ambiguity. It remains, of course, a minority-- perhaps a renegade-- thesis. But there is no doubt, as has been remarked by other critics, that Golding was dealing with ancient Greek as well as with Christian symbols and ideas. I speak as a Christian when I suggest that the neglect of the former is due to a caricature of the latter among many readers.
Rating:
Summary: Curiouser and curiouser!
Review: I believe that it is the very stule with which Golding writes that captures the reader's attention. The book has a very curious nature which draws the reader inside of the characters' heads, forcing them to feel the boys' pain, suffiering, joy and fear. Each chapter is open-ended and seemingly meaningless until the final chapters pull the whole story together with a gripping climax and astounding finish. I reccommend this book to anyone who is a patient reader and like spooky, mysterious, chilling stories.
Rating: 
Summary: Lord of the Flies opens up and examines the core of society.
Review: After reading Lord of the Flies, I was very disturbed at what had happen to the young kids on the island. They went through so much physically and mentally. I liked the fact that Golding used children as the strugglers and survivors. It just shows how so many things in the outside world can influence a young person's mind. I was especially attracted to Ralph who wanted to set order and maintain hope of being rescued. At the end he was able to realize that what he wanted could never happen because of what was lost in each child on the island, innocence.
Rating:
Summary: Amazing, Haunting Story
Review: Contrary to what many school systems believe, this is not a book for children. Although it may be simple to read, it is complex, difficult, and harrowing to understand. From a language standpoint, it is rich in symbolism and imagery, but more importantly, from a literary standpoint, it is a poignant story of the world's problems and the natural instincts of man. There are many Biblical allusions in the novel, but there are also an abundance of allusions to real-world, relevant problems.
|
