On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 14:56:55 -0400, 4s00th <4s00th@hushmail.com>
wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:13:01 -0600, HMS Victor Victorian
><victorvictorian@hushunomail.com> wrote:
>
>>Dear Friends,
>>
>>I confess with some embarrassment that for the first time I have read
>>William Golding's novel, "Lord of the Flies." I made the mistake, as
>>it were, of reading it before retiring each night ... only a chapter
>>at a time ... and discovered that with each successive night, my sleep
>>became more and more disturbed. What a horrible and sad tale, so at
>>odds with my affectionate beliefs, or delusions apparently, of the
>>basic goodness of boys! Powerful. Powerful.
>>
>>I've seen the film several times, and was pleased to see how closely
>>it followed Golding's work, although the movie excluded the disturbing
>>conversation had between Simon alone in the thicket and the pig's
>>fly-encrusted head on a pole. Nevertheless, reading the novel, and
>>diving into his prose, affected me far more profoundly than the movie
>>ever had. I readily suggest that, my friends, if you have not yet
>>read it, do so. It represents the quality of art that earned Golding
>>the Nobel Prize later in life.
>>
>>Many lauded experts have attempted to explain the deep significance of
>>"Lord of the Flies." Was it a condemnation of human nature, a treatis
>>on the ultimate disintegration and decay of all charity that we
>>cherish and value, an apocalyptic vision of a sick society that must
>>result when we abandon love and sympathy for one another?
>>
>>Well, who am I, relatively untutored and unread in the classics, to
>>comment intelligently on Golding's purposes? E. L. Epstein's
>>analysis, presented in the volume that I read, at least depended on
>>Golding's own brief and somewhat superficial motivation, and I think
>>him spot on.
>>
>>With one exception ... and it is one that upset me. In the passages
>>where Roger and Jack mercilessly attack and slaughter the sow suckling
>>her piglets. There is considerable horror and revulsion, simply done
>>in a masterful way, as Golding describes the boys plunging deep into
>>her with their spears. Now, in his interpretation, Epstein noted that
>>this represented the uncomfortable sexual awaking of young adolescent
>>boys ...
>>
>>And that analysis, which had never and would never occur to me, was
>>ever more so revolting than the murder itself!
>>
>>Do you think Golding intended such a thing, or had Epstein gone
>>bonkers like so many other social scientists, over such a Freudian
>>idea?
>>
>>I hope soon to post here several nice clips I've collected from this
>>wonderful movie, including a few outtakes.
>>
>>Sincerely yours,
>>HMS Victor Victorian, NP-g18
>>
>>
>>
>>God Save the Queen.
>>God Bless the Prince of Wales.
>>God Preserve the Windsors.
>>Rule Britannia!
>
>
>First, thanks for your concern about me. I don't plan to post much
>since I am ... what would be a good word for it ... fucking nuts!
>Don't tell my counselor I said that -- he and my friends tend to get
>pissed at me when I say such horrible truths about myself. But when my
>Borderline Personality Disorder acts up, then I prove pretty much
>every bad thing I've ever said about myself. And then, in true BPD
>style, I get histrionic and become what my counselor has termed "a
>pretty amazing drama queen" in response to the comment that I was a
>lousy drama queen.
>
>BTW, I disagree with you about self-delusion -- the root of all evil
>(I miss Robert Heinlein!). If you want to delude yourself about your
>own abilities or qualities, I guess that's fine if a bit silly. But
>one thing that we must never allow ourselves into self-delusion is
>anything to do with our boys. It's far too easy to delude ourselves
>into thinking that they want the same kind of relationship with us as
>we want with them when most of the time they do not. Oh, do we delude
>ourselves that our boys are great and awesome and beautiful? I'll
>leave that for others to argue, but I don't think that's a delusion.
>
>Regarding LOTF: the one thing I think you fail to take into
>consideration is the way boys interact in groups. Individually, they
>can be the sweetest people in the world. Put them in a group of boys
>and they can be the cruelest -- especially without supervision. They
>become overly-competitive, and, unfortunately, one of the things they
>do to impress each other is to be cruel. You want to know if a little
>boy likes you? See how much he teases you when he's in a group of
>boys! And that's primarily what we see in action in LOTF. Add to that
>the whole "mob mentality" thing. In most situations, I don't think
>boys would degenerate to murder and savagery. But when you're part of
>a mob, you stop acting as an individual and the normal, healthy
>inhibitions are weakened considerably as the tension and actions
>escalate. One of the boys acting in one of the films talked about how
>different things felt and got when they were in their make-up and
>costumes as opposed to how they felt and acted when they were properly
>dressed and sans "war" paint.
>
>So I think it's safe to say that there are several things going on
>here -- not the least of which is the whole situation of being
>stranded without adult-type supervision on an uninhabited island. The
>boys are already stressed out missing the amenities of home and
>needing to take responsibility for themselves and their mates.
>
>BTW, do you seriously not know who ALF is or are you just pointing out
>the dated reference through hyperbole? You're right, anyone born after
>the '80s probably doesn't have much of a clue about ALF.
>
>Regarding the pig-stabbing scene -- I just disagree with anyone who
>thinks that sharp objects -- phallic shaped sharp objects -- stabbing
>into bodies is any kind of symbolism for sexuality. The very idea is
>Freudian taken to the extreme! Boys express their burgeoning sexuality
>in much more concrete ways. Symbolism is often lost on boys of that
>age. There was a great scene in the movie The Devil's Playground (an
>Aussie movie) where two of the boys of the boarding school are
>discussing sizes as seen in the shower. As they start talking about
>the biggest boy, you see them clenching their fists around clumps of
>grass and tearing the grass out in handfuls. Symbolism? Hell, no --
>they're just doing what they want to be doing, grasping and stroking!
>
>Just my 2 cents worth ...
>
>-- 4s00th@hushmail.com
>
>My email is always available for those looking for and willing to supply support in the effort to remain boy-lovers and not become child-molesters de jure if not de facto.
Dear Foursoothe,
It's brilliant to hear from you ... whichever personality you have.
First, the most important item. Alf. Yes. I haven't a clue. I only
recall the line from the later film because it was so incongruent.
I found several of your points well taken. Boys in groups ... as well
as any other variety of human being ... are susceptible to mob
mentality. I think it comes naturally from our essence as social
beings ... not unlike swarming bees perhaps. This susceptibility to
take group action becomes nearly irresistable if people feel
threatened. Certainly, the "beastie" that the one little fellow
brought up during one of Ralph's early assemblies, at first roundly
derided as ridiculous and childish, became that threat, binding Jack's
tribe together under his leadership. From that, horrible deeds were
done and ... rationalised.
Yet boys are quite capable of cruelty by themselves. I recall that
horrible case of the two Brit lads who killed that little boy by the
tracks, after luring him from a mall ... just to see how it might feel
to do it.
Don't overlook Golding's allegorical purposes in telling this
horrendous tale. He was writing about adults as much as the kids.
When you think on it, every motivation that led the boys to their
degredation on the island are reflected perfectly among adults. After
all, sordid and despicable acts are done by nations, under the
supervision of so-called mature adults, all for the "best reasons."
The lifeless pilot, landing on the island mountain, was the beast
indeed ... a rotting symbol of the destruction that men visit upon
men. As for the officers who by chance had saved Ralph ... ironically
brought there from the conflagration lighted by Jack, Robert and the
tribe to flush out and kill Ralph ... they will continue on to attack
the enemy ... flush them out and, though perhaps not literally, raise
their heads on sticks sharpened on both ends.
A curious observation. Jack and his choir boys, with their unform
caps and gowns ... certainly the most disciplined of all the boys ...
were the first to cast it off in favour of savagery.
Most Sincerely,
Victor
God Save the Queen.
God Bless the Prince of Wales.
God Preserve the Windsors.
Rule Britannia!
|
|