The Lord of the Flies is a valuable work of 20th century literature for none of the reasons that William Golding intended.
First of all, the English is of a terrible quality. The prose is dull, pointlessly flamboyant, and ineffective. It fails to communicate anything in earnest to the reader, but it tries really hard to. I think that this is a product of the study of English during the time being deeply rooted in the use of vivid visuals for the sake of including them and nothing else. In any case, it would hardly stand up to the scrutiny of modern publishers. This is so terribly distracting from the other elements of the book that reading this became a chore. From a pure entertainment perspective, this book evoked a few visceral emotions which were fun, but overall it wasn't engaging.
Next, Golding was an extremely ignorant person, curating a story and environment which is very meaningful in a modern context, but not at all for any of the reasons he intended. In a description of his own work, he attributed the "savagery" of the story to what he calls "human nature"; although based on his somewhat racist terminology and upbringing it is more probable than not that this is just a thin veil for a frothing-at-the-mouth us vs. them mentality. Most importantly, Golding does not (at least from my understanding and reading) understand or intend the feminist connotations of his work which have been more recently made apparent by shifts in culture. The fact that the entirety of the cast is male does not indicate deliberate design, but a far simpler explanation; Golding's worldview was so small and constrained so as to only encompass the gender he was a member of. Quite frankly, Golding was not a competent author.
However, it is this distinct brand of ignorant and pessimistic incompetence which makes the Lord of the Flies very useful to read in a modern context. Frankly speaking, just because Golding did not intend to write a feminist novel does not mean that he didn't accomplish such a feat. Golding's horrific world portrayed in the Lord of the Flies is perfectly reminiscent of the world as it is seen through the lens of masculinity. As somebody who seems to be completely engrossed in a world of men and nothing else, Golding is in a unique position to fully address the concept of masculinity itself in a literary sense; the Lord of the Flies is the result. At the end of the day, the Lord of the Flies is important to consider as a criticism of masculinity and can provide a great deal of fulfillment when read by a critical modern audience.
First of all, the English is of a terrible quality. The prose is dull, pointlessly flamboyant, and ineffective. It fails to communicate anything in earnest to the reader, but it tries really hard to. I think that this is a product of the study of English during the time being deeply rooted in the use of vivid visuals for the sake of including them and nothing else. In any case, it would hardly stand up to the scrutiny of modern publishers. This is so terribly distracting from the other elements of the book that reading this became a chore. From a pure entertainment perspective, this book evoked a few visceral emotions which were fun, but overall it wasn't engaging.
Next, Golding was an extremely ignorant person, curating a story and environment which is very meaningful in a modern context, but not at all for any of the reasons he intended. In a description of his own work, he attributed the "savagery" of the story to what he calls "human nature"; although based on his somewhat racist terminology and upbringing it is more probable than not that this is just a thin veil for a frothing-at-the-mouth us vs. them mentality. Most importantly, Golding does not (at least from my understanding and reading) understand or intend the feminist connotations of his work which have been more recently made apparent by shifts in culture. The fact that the entirety of the cast is male does not indicate deliberate design, but a far simpler explanation; Golding's worldview was so small and constrained so as to only encompass the gender he was a member of. Quite frankly, Golding was not a competent author.
However, it is this distinct brand of ignorant and pessimistic incompetence which makes the Lord of the Flies very useful to read in a modern context. Frankly speaking, just because Golding did not intend to write a feminist novel does not mean that he didn't accomplish such a feat. Golding's horrific world portrayed in the Lord of the Flies is perfectly reminiscent of the world as it is seen through the lens of masculinity. As somebody who seems to be completely engrossed in a world of men and nothing else, Golding is in a unique position to fully address the concept of masculinity itself in a literary sense; the Lord of the Flies is the result. At the end of the day, the Lord of the Flies is important to consider as a criticism of masculinity and can provide a great deal of fulfillment when read by a critical modern audience.