====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Andy Pollack wrote: >Gary's completely right about the pessimistic worldview of Golding. But it's always seemed to me that Lord of the Flies was an extremely effective portrayal, even if done unintentionally, of how thin the veneer of our civilization is, in this case despite all the advantages and privileges and supposed culture of the English upper classes. In that sense it mirrors Conrad's Heart of Darkness. But isn't that one of the mostr misanthropic things about the novel? I studied it in high school in sixth form (when you're 16). I hated it and thought it was not merely pessimistic but anti-human. The assumption that you take humans away from an existing society and they revert to some barbaric, savage state is without any foundation at all. It's in line with the whole 'Naked Ape' idea of humanity. In fact, taken out of a civilised society, humans tend to attempt to recreate civilisation rather than fall back into some savage state. I'm not quite sure what Golding's purpose was. Maybe he was trying to show that the English upper class institutions don't really civilise people. But if that was his point, there were better ways of showing it. I've just finished reading 'The White Tiger'. Its portrayal of the Indian upper class reminds me a lot of Rohinton Mistry's magnificent 'A Fine Balance'. Now there are two really good writers portraying the lack of civilisation among the social elite without writing novels that are misanthropic. Plus, for kids behaving badly Susan Hill's 'I'm the King of the Castle' is better than Golding's 'Lord of the Flies'. Phil ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
