I just read Lord of the Flies for the first time.
I considered it very good and meaningful and analyzed it myself onto a paper.
Then I go to Wikipedia and Sparknotes to see what I have missed. I thought they were full of people more intelligent me, who could enlighten me.
But HOLY SHIT can people actually have these DUMB opinions? Do majority of people think this book is about some Freudian psychology "savage instincts rawwr", "without rules there are no morale, you will succumb into savagery", "I'd fuck my mother if my dad wouldn't hit me" bullshit?
I mean I'm just struck by the blindless of these so called analysts. They actually think the book is about civilization and society, rational and irrational, impulses and control.
So the question is: Where can I find actually good analysis on this book? You guys, what's your opinion?
>>7365637
briefly, what was your analysis on the book?
>>7365668
Shortly:
It wants to express the difficulties of managing society under stress/problems.
Major characters are Ralph, Piggy, Jack, Simon and little kids.
The major elements are the Beast, the signal fire, the huts/shelters, the meat/food, and the Conch.
Each character has their own way of managing the situation, but all are afflicted with a serious weakness that corrupts their decisions and actions.
Ralph's weakness is that he never adapts to the current situation. He manages to seize leadership in the beginning amidst the chaos (because he holds and blows the Conch) and the only argument later is that "because he is the leader". Similarly how wealth and power is inherited. He is not good in anything particularly, and he is only interested in keeping his power and investing in the future. He disregards the huts, the Beast and the food. Common normie dumb low-class reader will place his bets on Ralph and thinks Ralph is the good boy and everyone else sucks and should just respect the authorities.
Piggy is smart but his weakness is that he is too weak to ever enforce his ideas and skills.
Simon's weakness is his isolation from the community. If he hadn't been so retarded, people would've learned that there is no Beast and the signal fire could've be reconstructed.
I find Jack the most important character. He did the right thing, but was inhibited by authority. His major weakness though was resorting to violence and disorder, instead of using the authority system himself like a civilized man would.
The Conch was supposed to be democratic instrument of speech, but instead it just gives more power to those already in power (Jack and Ralph could just force everyone to stfu by showing them the conch, and force anyone to speak by giving them the conch), and doesn't give power to those who are weaker (when Piggy, the intelligent one, holds the conch, people just laugh at him).
Sorry it took some time, the analysis I wrote was in different language so I had to translate.
>>7365705
To put it more shortly:
I think people shouldn't be so black-and-white when distributing power and responsibility for failures and success.
Everyone was to blame for their failure, and everyone should be involved in the success.
>>7365637
>I disagree with other people's anylasis
>WHAAA THEY'RE ALL MORONS I'M RIGHT AND I KNOW I'M RIGHT AND I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT'S RIGHT!
Art speaks to everyone differently, anon.
>>7365724
Yeah, the answer of a true defeatist. The book is about political situation. Decisions must be made for common good. Do you think that optimal solutions don't exist?
What I'm asking you is: What would you have done if you were Ralph?
>>7365705
>It wants to express the difficulties of managing society under stress/problems.
But why is it difficult? Is it because people are naturally savage and rules have to be forcibly implemented to manage these instincts.
Can fear be used to influence people and be used for power?
>>7365637
I mean the civilized savage theme is pretty fucking strong and it certainly becomes clear in the end with the soldier entering the island, with the nuclear war and all.
But in general yeah, literary analysis is fucking weird.
>>7365637
>They actually think the book is about civilization and society, rational and irrational, impulses and control
It's been a long time since I read it, but that's what I got out of it.
Why do you think it's wrong? What's your take on the naval officer at the end?
>>7365753
In my opinion complication is often used to decoy the state of things. I think it's simple: smarter and stronger want to benefit on the expense of the weaker. As society progressed the smart and stronger learned that they need to mask that parasitic relationship.
Also optimal decisions are often hard to find, because human ability is limited.
>>7365764
I thought the naval officer was pretty loose and I got the feeling he was just stamped there so it would have a happier ending more suitable for younger people.
Ive come to loathe the term "Freudian". It feels like they're talking about a whole bunch of nothing.
>>7365771
From Sparknotes:
As the boys splinter into factions, some behave peacefully and work together to maintain order and achieve common goals, while others rebel and seek only anarchy and violence.
Question: Do you agree that the goals of the wild and uncivilized were anarchy and violence? And not things like: fun, dancing, meat, enjoying the sun and water?
>>7365788
The fact you don't understand what literary theory is shows you shouldn't be attempting to analyze anything.
Also, learn to read journals, Sparknotes is for 13 year olds who are too lazy to actually read.
>>7365788
Also, anarchy is not destruction and murder, 'anarchy and violence' is a fucking stupid term and a compelte misdirection.
>>7365803
Please link to these journals. I want to read what people far more intelligent and experienced than I think of this book. Hell, I don't know shit about politics so there is plenty to learn.
>>7365816
Gogle Scholar is a start for someone who doesn't belong to an institution. Or, you know, search 'Lord of the Flies Journal Articles' or something of the kind. At the same time go and Wikipedia some literary theory or buy a good anthology with excerpts from theoretical texts.
I'm not holding your hand for you, but props for not continuing the farce of being some sort of scholar when you clearly aren't.
>>7365785
Not to mention Freud's theories have been pretty much thoroughly beaten to death over the decades and still people base their works of fiction on Freud whenever they want to be "psychological".
>>7365832
But Freudian theory is simple to grasp and there is a fuck ton of material on it, so you'll find that people use him for texts like Lord of the Flies because they are most often studied as a sort of babies first criticism. It isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just a place to jump off from.
>>7365778
>I thought the naval officer was pretty loose and I got the feeling he was just stamped there so it would have a happier ending
I thought he was the return of authority, rules, and civilization. The fact that the boys immediately stopped their savagery showed that it was the lack of those things that caused it.
>>7365785
If this is OP, have you actually ever read any Freudian theory and then applied it to literature yourself? Because if it sounds like a whole load of nothing then you probably haven't. It is very basic and easy to understand.
>>7365841
But he was wrong about fucking everything he ever said, you're basing entire characters around blatantly fake psychological aspects. Even Jung has far more interesting material than Freud.
I guarantee you OP that the people writing those spark notes and Wiki articles are smarter than you and more well read than you and better at analyzing literature than you
>>7365848
But you have to read him and understand him before you can then understand why he is wrong. It's no good looking over a movement as big as Freud's just because 'HURR I DONT WANT TO FUCK MY MUM SO HE AINT RIGHT'
>>7365705
Are you that really pretentious freshman in my English class?
>>7365848
Also, he wasn't wrong about the uncanny valley, so don't make such a fucking idiotic generalization.
>>7365848
>he was wrong about fucking everything he said
That's wrong though.
>>7365831
>but props for not continuing the farce of being some sort of scholar when you clearly aren't.
Now it's your turn.
>>7365852
I'm not suggesting ignoring Freud simply not basing every single psychological character portrait on his theories.
>>7365862
You did suggest that - 'Blatantly fake'
>>7365861
Because Google Scholar isn't acceptable for an average reader? Or because you're upset that someone on /lit/ is trying to help someone?
What is your opinion on the fear of THE BOMB, anon, did you not take it into account ?
The shadow(not literally) of the atomic bombs, the not knowing if there is still civilization to come save them or no civilization to return to ?
