Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: LotF stupid themes.png (179KB, 600x386px) Image search:
[Google]
179KB, 600x386px
>LET IT BE NOTED that not a single one of these boys bears any physical mark or injury despite being in a plane that crashed into dense island jungle. Golding wipes any emblem of the crash from his characters. Golding, though he makes frequent reference to the "gash" caused by the crash, wipes every last scrap of wreckage and any dead or wounded passengers off the island under the guise of a "storm" the night before.
>The tricky way in which Golding deploys the convention of the wreck without connecting it to the narrative, along with some other forced, stagey maneuvers (the choir marching down the beach), while they may serve Golding's philosophical aims, lend a sense of inauthenticity to the novel. This in a genre (the survival narrative) that earned its massive popular appeal (Robinson Crusoe) on the strength of its authenticity. Defoe, remember, first published the novel as a "true story." Here Golding again defies convention. His Lord of the Flies is totally artificial, but also very interesting, and interesting because of its artificiality.
>>
>>9043811
Lord of the flies is just anarchism_irl
>>
File: jack in paint.jpg (107KB, 1280x720px) Image search:
[Google]
107KB, 1280x720px
>>9043815
teenager pls go
continuing with my marginalia dump (btw if you don't produce mountains of marginalia while reading a book, you are a philistine)
>The physical evidence of the crash -- the "gash" in the forest -- is used primarily as a geographical marker, not a site of remembrance or eulogy. The boys behave as if gash is something that preceded them, and they arrived by some other route.
From the promontory, Jack points down at the scar in the trees and says, "That's where we landed." Landed? Why is Jack spinning the crash as a landing? Because that diction, that choice of "landed," is a subtle rhetorical trick that reinforces how Golding has already spun it.
>>
> For the contemporary reader Lord of the Flies may seem to obvious an attempt to affirm the Hobbesian hypothesis that if you remove sociopolitical controls, base savagery would reign.
> Though stylistically somewhat sophisticated, the novel is clearly driven not be the characters but by Golding's rhetorical aim.
>>
> In making the smartest character the most physically weak and defective -- asthma, myopia, obesity -- Golding could be having some fun with the question of what inspires intellectual pursuit, of intellectualism as a legitimate social mode. Is intellectualism not, Golding may be asking, simply the byproduct of physical deficiency? A compensation? The body feels but the brain is numb. For the physically afflicted, it seems only natural that they would seek to escape into the soothing numbness of the intellectual realm. Literary history teems with examples of sickly geniuses--from Paul with his "thorn in the flesh" to blind MIlton to Pope with his Pott's disease to the bedridden Proust, extending even to Helen Keller, who most vigorously pursued a life of the mind. But Golding sets Piggy down in the wild and through him contemplates the viability of an intellectual in a world where thinking might help but where physiology, tactile coordination, and practical know-how will be the final arbiter of survival.
>>
>>9043811
mediocre book tbqh senpai
>>
>Robinson Crusoe
>authentic
Oh I am laffin
Thread posts: 7
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2