As I trudge to the classics, I found one that I wish I didn’t explored. “The Lord Of The Flies”, I would describe, is a luscious fruit matched with an enticing color (and even in an elegant food packaging) that in the end you would just throw away.
The labeled description tag attached to the fruit’s head says: A group of British boys crashes to an isolated island with no food and no adult. In the tense for survival, they decide to create a pack with a leader who happens to Raplh. All is well until one by one ceased to obey orders to follow another leader, Jack, who is more capable of gathering food. By then, all begins to get gory. The two leaders witness a clash of leadership and a conflict of interest among other boys. This story shows the existence of evil from a human mind amidst of loose laws and beliefs (and perhaps distinguishes Freud’s id, ego and superego.)
I know this doesn’t happen much in reviews but I admire the book’s layout. All of them – leading, tracking, font style, font size – pleases my eyes. The width of the book, which is considerably short, and with its rectangular size slides perfectly in my pocket. A perfect travel companion.
Now back to the rant.
What makes “The Lord Of The Flies” annoying (or even infuriating) is the way it tells a scene (or even the whole story.) Supposed you are a close friend of William Goulding, the author and who happens to be in a vacation, and you asked for a letter narrating his odyssey. You are impressed, at first, on how descriptive the tale but then you are baffled. You already finished reading five long paragraphs and you’re still at one place with no possible intention of going anywhere. How is it possible? Goulding sits in the park and sees a wonderful monument, a musician, a baby in a stroller, a boy hand in hand with a girl, a child eating ice cream, an old lady feeding the birds, a candy wrapper, an abandoned suitcase and the list goes on. He tells a story with too many details and – sad to say – most of which doesn’t contribute to the feeling he wants express. (In the case of the park, he would want to say how charming the park is.)
One thing you shouldn’t buy (or even look at) this fruit is because it has worms lurking not only in the inside but mostly on the outside. It is so evident that you wonder how it passed to the sellers’ taste. The worms represent the characters or even the process of characterization. The boys are still underage to make conventional decisions but Goulding could have made a better dialogue that mirrors their personality. Although the characters changes a little bit, most of the main figures can be closely labeled as a stereotyped. They don’t actually experience internal conflicts which makes the story less interesting. I’ll give you a saving grace: reading the whole book and reading the last several chapters makes no difference.
The book, however, has something to offer. It offers a great deal of topics for book discussions and can be the sole reason you might like it. Ho! Ho! Before you change your mind, the discussions still wont make the book an exciting read, at least in my scale. Besides, if you want a discussions about psychological issues and behaviours, why not read a psychology book or talk to a psychologist or a psychology teacher or better yet read another book.
I know I have no grounds judging a best-seller fruit or a fruit that has already stood to the test of time and to the taste of people. I might overlooked or underlooked something. Perhaps, I might have been blinded by own prejudices but until I get a new shade of the fruit, my judgement is this:
I can’t believe I’m saying this but I hate this book for it is dull and boring and most of all it wasted my time. In the end, I’ll be one of those costumers who contacts the fruit vendor complaining that the fruit made me sick and probably, most probably, asking for a refund.