Watched the '63 version of this film last night. I misread the caps of the rescuing seaman as 'HMS Troutbridge', it was a fleeting scene.
Discovered it was 'troubridge', I'm disappointed.
|
|
Horrible book. I had the misfortune to have it for my English Lit O Level.
|
Huh, so did I.
I didn't pay enough attention at the time to realise it was horrible. At the time it had about as much impact on me as Five on Treasure Island and I treated it much the same.
|
And me.
I'm sure that where I heard the phrase, 'Compare and contrast'.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Mon 18 Jan 21 at 19:24
|
|
How do you mean horrible? The boys descent into savagery was horrible or that you didn't enjoy it.? I too took it for "O" level in 1965 but I have read it s since. Its a very powerful book and quite disturbing but surely a great novel.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 18 Jan 21 at 15:29
|
...A set text for me for English.
.**********
jeez, that asterisked the whole paragraph!!
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Mon 18 Jan 21 at 15:34
|
>> ...A set text for me for English.
>>
>> .**********
>>
>> jeez, that asterisked the whole paragraph!!
>
That's a fail then
|
>> >
>> That's a fail then
>>
...Ithink it's quite an achievement, albeit unexpected and not necessarily one to be proud of...
|
...A set text for me for English as well.
About the only thing I can remember (since I haven't read it since) is the frisson that ran around the class when one of us (not me) was confronted with the phrase "b*****s to the rules" whilst reading passages aloud in a lesson.
|
>>How do you mean horrible?
For me I didn't read it properly at the time, nor did I think about it too deeply. Though I did pass. As I remember the essay question was something about a thin veneer of civilisation. I thought the book was boring and predictable.
Having read it in later life I think it's a great and thought provoking idea or story line which says a lot about human behaviour and our environment. It can be applied to so many different situations, different behaviours and different thought processes. I think it is important that it be read.
I don't think the book is powerful, though the ideas behind it are. If that makes sense. I mean that the value comes not from reading the book, but from thinking about what is behind the book.
As a piece of quality writing I thought and think that it wasn't very good. Actually not far from an Enid Blyton approach, though to be fair that is probably a lot to do with when it was written.
So I guess it's how you look at it. As a quality piece of literature, then I think it isn't. As a commentary on human behaviour and interaction then it's very important.
|
I've never read the book but have seen the film, which I thought was horribly near to the truth regarding about how human behaviour can easily degenerate if circumstances alter.
It can explain the mindset of the concentration camp guards in Germany or the Russian soldiers who committed mass rapes in Berlin, to name just two instances of too many to count.
|
Well I found it both powerful and disturbing but the book's style is certainly straight forward with easily understandable themes but that doesnt necessarily make it poor writing and indeed it perhaps makes it the the opposite. Comparable in some ways to the clarity of of George Orwell's novels I think rather than that of the stories of Enid Blyton.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 18 Jan 21 at 16:19
|
>> Comparable in some ways to the clarity of of George Orwell's novels
Yes, that's true and perhaps the comparison to EB was too strong. However, I would make similar comments, though probably phrased better, about Animal Farm and 1984. I think that they are straight forward and understandable to the point that they can be taken too lightly and in a shallow manner.
i.e. I did well in English Lit O & A levels yet quite clearly didn't delve into the depths of the book(s). Certainly not sufficiently to truly understand them.
And whilst I do agree that they can be powerful and disturbing, I would say that comes from considering the implications that lay behind the book(s) more than from reading the book(s).
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 18 Jan 21 at 16:27
|
>> I don't think the book is powerful, though the ideas behind it are. If that
>> makes sense. I mean that the value comes not from reading the book, but from
>> thinking about what is behind the book.
I don't think George Orwell saw* Trump, Brexit, the internet or Covid (specially all four at once) coming which has normalised the human behaviours described in the book. Read it now the immediate reaction is Yeah? And?
(ok maybe shades of 1984)
|
>> Horrible book. I had the misfortune to have it for my English Lit O Level.
Ditto, hated it, passed tho with a B. These days I would have written some rubbish about it being a parallel to the far right Q anon and Piggy being a secret left wing BLM agitator causing the others to be horrible on purpose to discredit them.,
|
Good enough book but why were these set texts the same for my kids as they were when I sat exams 50 years ago? To Kill a Mockingbird, 1984, Catcher in the Rye.......all in the same category, lazy choices.
|
|
Went to see LoF in Theatr Clwyd with an all-female cast. It was quite good actually...
|
Read the book at school, and was made to see the film. Left a lasting impression of how ugly we humans can become in an uncontrolled environment.
Oh, and I went to school with the boys who played the twins.
|
Also a set text at my hateful school. The scene with Piggy falling onto the rock burned itself into my imagination, but otherwise it wasnt a great read for me.
I think that was the same year we were asked round the class if we wanted to read a particular famous John Steinbeck classic or that blasted Catcher. But I had never heard of the Steinbeck title, so I picked it and was a bit taken aback to discover it wasn't in fact about the founders of a German pottery.
And then they made us read Catcher anyway.
|
>> it wasn't in fact about the founders of a German pottery.
Of Meissen Men?
I had the same reaction as Bromp to LOTF. I can't even remember the specifics, just the misery of it.
I've always liked stories with a just resolution if not an outright happy ending. I choose fillums that cheer me up. I don't mind the occasional thought provoking watch or read but I don't want to be made hopeless.
|
>>
>> Of Meissen Men?
Indeed yes.
I very rarely read fiction these days. It just annoys me. I half wonder whether being forced to consume "the greats" as a child has a negative effect on some of us.
|
>I half wonder whether being forced to consume "the greats" as a child has a negative effect on some of us.
It certainly did for me. We had to do Cider with Rosie, Midsummer Night's and something else I can't remember at the moment. Hated every minute of it even though I managed a '3' in English Lit.
Probably something to do with our teacher who's only style was to set the next chapter as homework, start the next period by making some poor sod read it aloud while interrupting after every paragraph or two by saying:
"What do you think he means by ......"
|
I think I've mentioned this before here; apologies if so.
At University I did some film studies, and we were told that the next week we were going to be studying Laurel and Hardy.
I realised the course wasn't for me after I went in really just wanting to see Ollie's hat fall off, but they all wanted to discuss their cyclical vortex symbology.
I never found out what that was, but Ollie's hat falling off will still make me laugh.
|
Cyclical vortex symbology,
If you had the the Post-Modernism generator you would have been able to keep up.
bocktherobber.com/2010/05/post-modernism-generator/
|
I rather enjoyed some of the in vogue novels that were around in the 60s. Day of the Triffids was very good, but I was really taken with what is now called popular science. Silent Spring and Since Silent Spring were formative. Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb was as popular but very wide of the mark compared to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, which was prophetic.
Like others slogging through tedious fiction did not do a lot for me. I do remember The Machine Stops as being fascinating, but will for ever remember George Eliot’s Mill on the Floss stands as the most awful, tedious example of required reading.
I have just read Daniel Kahneman’s Fast and Slow Thinking. A very good read although he is not afraid to blow his own trumpet, but I guess I would if I had a Nobel Prize
|
>>
>> >>
>> >> Of Meissen Men?
>>
>>
>> Indeed yes.
>>
>> I very rarely read fiction these days.
Same here, I can't remember the last time I read a fiction book, years and years I would think.
It just annoys me. I half wonder whether
>> being forced to consume "the greats" as a child has a negative effect on some
>> of us.
>>
I don't think had a negative but I'm not sure it had much value. I can remember A midsummer nights dream being the Eng Lit choice, way over my head. 'What do you think he meant when...' Not a clue, more chance of me translating Armenian.
|
>> I've always liked stories with a just resolution if not an outright happy ending. I
>> choose fillums that cheer me up.
Sounds promising, as we have a similar set of criteria. Any examples?
|
|
If you want to take a chance on the less obviously feel-good, try "Dean Spanley". I think it's still on Amazon Prime.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 20 Jan 21 at 02:24
|
When I see the title "Lord of the Flies" I'm afraid my brain conjures up the alternative title of "King of the Zips".
Sorry about that. Should it be in the Terrible Jokes thread?
|
Lord of the flies - Manatee
