I still to this day don’t understand the point that book served. I don’t know if it was just a product of its time but I don’t think a bunch of children would behave like that in the event of being stranded
My literature class in high school discussed it as an allegory for man’s inhumanity to man and the patterns of violence and authoritarianism rather than as a prediction of what would literally happen if children were left to their own devices.
It’s supposed to be kind of over the top as an allegorical novel about the nature of humankind and society. Remember it was written after the atrocities of WWII so these things must have laid heavy on the author’s mind. I read it a long time ago though, so not sure what I’d think today reading it. I do remember I identified with Piggy a bit.
I sort of hated some books like that also. Anyway, I think it was more meant to be an allegory about society than a realistic tale of something that might actually happen.
Maybe I’m just built different but if society collapsed or something I wouldn’t do whatever that was
I hope you never face those circumstances. However, you can’t say you won’t do something until choices could be a matter of life or death.
There are a lot of discussions about society collapse in the not to distant future due to climate change effects on availability of water & food.
I truly hope humanity can use enough new resources and much better management of the continued insane levels of damage to prevent the worst case scenarios.
That’s the thing… it’s not really about society collapsing or being stranded on an island. It’s about human nature and how people set up societies.
You have no idea what you’d do when you’re a day away from starvation for weeks at a time.
Unless you’ve been there, in which case, ignore me.
Lord of the Flies was written by a sad man who had problems with humanity. I didn’t react that negatively when I first read it, but I also definitely soured with time.
Something interesting is that a real life lord of the Flies has happened. Spoiler: they don’t kill each other, they delegated roles, took care of the injured, established food sources, keep a fire burning for more than a year, and eventually got rescued.
Human nature isn’t merely brutish, pushing people to murder their neighbors because they just felt that way uwu, instead it’s some combination of rational and tribal. We do good by our tribe, we want to be accepted by our tribe, and we often unfortunately define ourselves in opposition to others tribes, whether they be real tribes in prehistory or Xbox vs PS4. However, people don’t murder people over their chosen console, they’re rational enough to realize that’s beyond stupid and meaningless. Children stuck on a island have enough rationality to realize half of them dying is less hands able to work on group projects, and that rationality transcends whatever base tribalism that might energe. The past 20000ish years of history has had people rationally define themselves in gradually bigger tribes, from village to city to religion to nation to supranational identities at different times and in different places. WW2 didn’t solely happen because humans bad and tribal, it happened due to complicated ideological breakdowns of rationality (among other things of course, single causes don’t result in world wars) that otherwise would’ve had the Germans and Japanese realize that prosocial cooperation with their hated groups would’ve had better outcomes for all.
Afaik iirc it’s a made up story, and by a pessimistic person.
I’ll look for my source.
Edit: Here ya go
spoiler
did the dude think children have a fondness of cannibalism or something
Humans never cease to amaze, that’s for sure.
I also quite disliked it!
I think it was meant to show just how horrible humans are, and that it’s innate. It claimed that the only think keeping us in check is the existence of a society that would punish any disorder.
I felt it has a component of voyeurism to it, setting up the worst show humanity could offer. And I just don’t believe it. I don’t think people would behave that horribly to one another, even i spite of the horribleness that happened a century ago.
deleted by creator
I managed to avoid that one. But I never saw the point of The Old Man and the Sea or Flowers for Algernon. And much as I love Shakespeare now, it’s in spite of the required reading list in high school, not because of it. (Honestly, who thinks the tragedies are appropriate for underage readers?)
Shakespeare has been compulsory for pupils aged 11-14 in British state schools since 1989. The four plays most frequently studied across all age groups are Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, and King Lear, and the plays most frequently studied by 11 and 12 year olds are A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Macbeth, and The Merchant of Venice.
So in answer to your question, British people think the Tragedies are appropriate for underage readers.
And all the female parts in Shakespeare plays were originally played by boys.
ETA: 11 and 12 year olds.
No, all Brits don’t think that any more than all Americans think it. But curriculum developers and legislators appear to think it.
A Midsummer Night’s Dream is my favorite of all Shakespeare’s works. Macbeth is a close second. I can’t stand Romeo and Juliet and I’m at best ambivalent about Julius Caesar. Ironically, I think I might like R&J if it were presented at a more appropriate grade level. But then, it still wouldn’t be a love story but a tale of the adult romantic relationship between a 15- and a 12-year-old in which six people died.
Please don’t think I’m picking on Shakespeare. There are plenty of authors I loathe because well-meaning but ham-fisted teachers demanded that I read them at an inappropriate time (Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Steinbeck leap immediately to mind).
I think Shakespear makes some sense at least, his works have had a profound impact on literature and culture as a whole
I agree completely. But his works are also profoundly inappropriate for many younger audiences. And they aren’t meant to be read; they’re best understood when presented on stage.
Of course, I also think that any work so dull it has to be on a required reading list to sell copies isn’t worth the time. This makes teaching an intro lit course challenging. :)
I think that young readers should be challenged and be brought out of their comfort zone during high school. High school is the last of not the only time they will have the possibility to safely explore difficult concepts, such as the one presented in Shakespeare’s tragedies. As much as I would like the opposite to be true, I don’t think the goal of high school literature classes is to make students enjoy reading, but to give them the tools to later be able to read high literature, and understand it at a deeper level.
Then, I agree that plays should be played and not read.
I have to disagree about forcing anyone out of their comfort zone. It’s up to the person to decide when or whether they’re ready; it’s not up to a teacher and certainly not up to a state curriculum committee.
I can’t imagine the universe where adults are not better prepared to safely challenge themselves after high school. If anyone else deliberately caused emotional distress to children and young adults, sometimes excessively, in a setting where they have literally no choice but to endure it, we’d have them up on charges. And rightly so.
I’ve seen too many people have their love of reading, and indeed of learning, irrevocably ruined by well-meaning but ham-fisted teachers. That’s the real tragedy because it’s unnecessary.
It’s probably obvious by now that while I love reading and am an educator, I’m not a fan of most public school systems. I hate book bans and legislative interference in the classroom, but I’m absolutely sympathetic to parents who are frustrated and simply trying to protect their kids.
I have been thinking about your comment for a while. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding your position: difficult and potentially uncomfortable questions and topics should not be presented to teenagers because they would be uncomfortable and therefore not like to read those works. Thus we should leave those works for self-discovery during adult years.
You’re not misunderstanding. It isn’t the state’s place to tell children that their families and values are wrong.
If we’re going to get into those weeds, it should be balanced. For example, if we’re going to require Diary of a Young Girl, then we should also require Mein Kampf. If we’re going to require Atlas Shrugged, then we should also require “The Communist Manifesto”. That, I expect, would go over about like a lead balloon.
There are some key elements on which I have to disagree with you. I think that reading a book is totally different from saying that the values in that book are right. I also disagree that “Diary of a Young Girl” (a memoir) is in the same category as “Mein Kampf” (a political manifesto). I would put it in the same category as “Commandant in Auschwitz” (also a memoir, from a SS). And incidentally, both of them were required reads in my high school, and I support them still being mandated.
I think the goal of end-of-high school literature class is not to encourage kids to read, that should have been achieved earlier. At this late point the goal is to form the kids as individuals, by giving them the critical tools to understand the world around them. That is achieved by showcasing the largest amount of opinions and situations possible. Tragedies for that are great, because they are often based on the contraposition of ideals: Machbet has to decide between hospitality and greed, and then deal with the consequences. Romeo and Juliet have the choice between love and their families honors. Contrasting ideals of the time.
I also think that playing with these concepts in a safe environment, dealing with fictional characters, is a good test run for when these same kids will be presented with similar ethical choices. While I understand your statement about avoiding making kids uncomfortable, I disagree on its application in this context. Shielding kids from unhappiness is doing them a disservice. We should absolutely avoid inflicting unnecessary pain, but philosophical discussions are necessary, in particular with kids on the verge of adulthood.
