Scan barcode
A review by the_ya_assassin
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
2.0
Please do NOT bash me for having an opinion. You are entitled to disagreeing with my opinion, but I would appreciate it if you would leave me and my thoughts alone.
I know this is a classic, but I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as the Hunger Games (as it is suggested for). Perhaps if I had read it on my own time and not been forced to read it at school, I might've enjoyed it more.
That being said, there was a lot of confusing parts for me. The way it was written . . . old English does not read well for me. I understand that it was written in 1954, so it is NOT Golding's fault, but for me, it just isn't my style. I got confused in places and had to reread the same section over and over to understand it.
I have read past reviews who have also given this book 2 or less stars. I would have to agree, this book would've been more interesting if it had been females. However, it was also very interesting with the male POVs. I did see advances and development in characters, I just wish there had been more. Maybe if we had more information from before they were ship- (plane-?) wrecked, it would've helped distinguish the differences in their characteristics.
The plot moved very slowly, however, I do disagree with other low-grade reviewers opinions. This book DID have a plot - there was an exposition, a rising action, a climax, a falling action, and a resolution. The resolution might've been short, but it was there. I just found that each event in this book, while scary and supposed-to-be thrilling, I found myself not liking it. I just needed less . . . hunting.
Also, I found that the constant bickering for dominance between Jack and Ralph petty. I mean, they could've (Heaven forbid) worked together. It also didn't really matter WHO was leader, as long as there was one that would be responsible for caring for the boys.
In addition to that, Jack was kind of cruel. I mean, I know that was kinda the point, but . . . really? Who in their right mind would think that by having a mask on (especially a painted one) there would not be consequences for their actions? I realize the theme of this whole book is humankind's capability of evil, but still.
And don't even get me started on Piggy's and Simon's deaths. I mean, sure, they moved the plot a little bit, but they weren't really turning points. Ralph didn't act on Jack when Simon was killed, and when Piggy was killed by Roger, he only felt sadness. Ralph just kinda let it go and was like "oh well, he's dead (too)." and cries.
I DID enjoy the suspense layered throughout the book. I also appreciated the descriptions of the island. Golding has also accomplished the near-impossible: the WORST CHARACTER Award goes to: JACK MERRIDEW!!! It used to be Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter, but I have never wanted to slap a character as much as Jack.
The ending was not enough for me. It was also EXTREMELY obvious and unsurprising. Did the boys return to England safely? Was Roger/ Jack punished for his crimes (murder)?
I know this is a classic, but I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as the Hunger Games (as it is suggested for). Perhaps if I had read it on my own time and not been forced to read it at school, I might've enjoyed it more.
That being said, there was a lot of confusing parts for me. The way it was written . . . old English does not read well for me. I understand that it was written in 1954, so it is NOT Golding's fault, but for me, it just isn't my style. I got confused in places and had to reread the same section over and over to understand it.
I have read past reviews who have also given this book 2 or less stars. I would have to agree, this book would've been more interesting if it had been females. However, it was also very interesting with the male POVs. I did see advances and development in characters, I just wish there had been more. Maybe if we had more information from before they were ship- (plane-?) wrecked, it would've helped distinguish the differences in their characteristics.
The plot moved very slowly, however, I do disagree with other low-grade reviewers opinions. This book DID have a plot - there was an exposition, a rising action, a climax, a falling action, and a resolution. The resolution might've been short, but it was there. I just found that each event in this book, while scary and supposed-to-be thrilling, I found myself not liking it. I just needed less . . . hunting.
Also, I found that the constant bickering for dominance between Jack and Ralph petty. I mean, they could've (Heaven forbid) worked together. It also didn't really matter WHO was leader, as long as there was one that would be responsible for caring for the boys.
In addition to that, Jack was kind of cruel. I mean, I know that was kinda the point, but . . . really? Who in their right mind would think that by having a mask on (especially a painted one) there would not be consequences for their actions? I realize the theme of this whole book is humankind's capability of evil, but still.
And don't even get me started on Piggy's and Simon's deaths. I mean, sure, they moved the plot a little bit, but they weren't really turning points. Ralph didn't act on Jack when Simon was killed, and when Piggy was killed by Roger, he only felt sadness. Ralph just kinda let it go and was like "oh well, he's dead (too)." and cries.
I DID enjoy the suspense layered throughout the book. I also appreciated the descriptions of the island. Golding has also accomplished the near-impossible: the WORST CHARACTER Award goes to: JACK MERRIDEW!!! It used to be Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter, but I have never wanted to slap a character as much as Jack.
The ending was not enough for me. It was also EXTREMELY obvious and unsurprising. Did the boys return to England safely? Was Roger/ Jack punished for his crimes (murder)?