Why We Shouldn't Censor "Lord of the Flies": Addressing Racism in Classic Literature

 From the “Jungle Book” to “ Kill A Mockingbird”, many classical books as of recently are being called out for being problematic. While many critics argue for the removal of such stories, others support the learning aspects from these literature. The whole tension in the censorship debate comes from modern society wanting to dissociate from the past and become more inclusive versus the notion that we should simply embrace the past -  warts and all - and not try to sanitize history. While both sides have valid points, when it comes to “Lord of the Flies”, I opt for the latter belief. 

Throughout the book, Golding projected a lot of unwanted and racist opinions. These are some of the stuff he put:

Example 1) Chapter 4’s title: “Painted Faces and Long Hair”. It is PRETTY obvious that Golding associated savagery with the First Peoples and civilization with the Europeans. When the boys are “rational”, they are seen “marching approximately in step in two parallel lines and dressed [with] … shorts, shirts and different garments” (Golding, 21). That is how Golding perceived the Europeans to be - posh and organized. In contrast, when Jack and his friends start killing pigs, their faces are “smeared with clays” (82), disheveled and their clothes discarded. This is obviously a problem as the author represents violence with the First Peoples while the Europeans are portrayed as perfect and “logical”.

Example 2) There is also the whole concept with white superiority where everyone described as dark gets harassed. For instance, there is Roger who is described in chapter one having “black hair with fringes” and a “fiery blackness” in his eyes. In the story, Roger gets assaulted twice by all the boys when he imitates the pig they're about to kill. Similarly, the twins named Eric and Sam also get assaulted since they are illustrated as “dark boys” (chap 1). In comparison, “the fair boy” (chap 1) aka Ralph with blonde hair and blue eyes receives (in the beginning) love from his peers and eventually the triumph of survival.

Example 2) In chapter 11, or at least in the school’s copy, when Piggy yells at Jack and his group, he says: “Which is better - to be niggas like you are, or to be sensible like Ralph is?” In the original version, the word is replaced with “painted Indians”, but this just illustrates the extent of racism within the writing community in the 1900s (and even now) and how that excused a lot of the normalized behaviours of authors. 

That being said, I am in no way supporting the racist and problematic actions of Golding and other fellow writers. Obviously these type of people need to be held accountable and educated; HOWEVER, I don’t think this story should be censored to cater the feelings of some readers. This book and other stories with problematic elements need to be read so that this travesty does not continue to be accepted as right. The more we hide the uglies, the more confused we get with what is acceptable and what is not. Instead of censoring literature, we should be approach these topics and acknowledge their existence and use it as an opportunity to engage in meaningful discussions.It is time to live up to the constitution that says "ALL men (and women!) are created equal and deserve to be treated with respect”

!!DISCALIMER!!: While I am against censorship, in certain environments (aka elementary or maybe even highschools) there does need to be some precaution against certain type of literature. If a story is actively encouraging- for example- homophobia or indecent sexual activities, then there should be discussions before reading the book. Children/institutions can avoid certain stories until the individual has the proper mental capacity, but as a society, we shouldn’t resort to censorship.

The Missing Perspectives

 “Lord of the Flies”, though highly praised, is deemed as controversial due to its lack of female and racial involvement. Some critics argue that this is a limitation of the novel’s scope and relevance, and that it perpetuates a narrow view of the human experience. I personally agree with this criticism because Golding’s theme just doesn’t make sense. How are we supposed to believe in “hummanity’s innate evilness' ' when all the characters are the same: white middle class boys who lived in a democratic society. And that brings up the question if the book would have been different (aka better) if it had been girls that had gotten stranded? Or a group of children from another culture such as Korea and Kenya? If this is an inquiry of your interest, you are at the right place because Golding’s choice of characters quite literally bored me.

Before we start, Golding did state that his choice of male characters was intentional. He was more familiar with male actions and thought that a “group of little boys [were] more like a scaled down society than a group of little girls will be.” Golding was a peculiar man. Not only was he actively supporting the false narrative of feminine and masculine, but he was also perpetuating gender stereotypes. His novel suggests that only boys are capable of violence while women get to sit at home and remain docile. If anything, Golding’s choice to specially separate the genders is just another example of the fact that even well educated people still believed that men and women were completely different species. I do acknowledge that Golding wrote “Lord of the Flies” in the 1950s when the gender roles were much more rigid; however, there is no denying that Golding missed an opportunity to salvage his mediocre story by not exploring outside the standard perspective. 

Male struggles are fun and all, but by excluding half the population's experience, Golding loses a chance to examine the distinctive difficulties that millions of people encounter. For example, the experience of menstruation and how the societal norms of women influence their ultimate decisions. Furthermore, the book would have had more depth if there was diversity within the races. Not everyone opts for democracy and that’s especially the case for many Asian cultures. I’m sure that if a Korean group was stranded, the oldest would have been in charge - not because of their qualities, but simply because of their age. All these little things change the outcome of the book, and that’s especially why I don’t believe in the relevance of this story. Golding’s concept of power and human nature more or less only applies to his characters.

Of course, there is no use complaining since the book is already 50+ years old, but the fact that this book is considered a classic is beyond me. If there was any way for this book to be better, I believe in the incorporation of the missing perspectives. 

False Dichotomy?

 

At its core, the juxtaposition between savagery and civilization in literature is a reflection of our own internal conflicts - the battle between the id and the superego, the desire for freedom and the need for structure. This theme is explored in the “Lord of the Flies” through little boys and their descent into savagery. Although this book is a well-respected piece of literature, I would have to argue that the dichotomy Golding tried to establish is completely FALSE.

The novel suggests that humans are either inherently good or inherently evil and that these states of being are completely separate and mutually exclusive. This theme is shown through the boy’s struggle with their innate desire for refinement and their natural impulses toward violence. Even the most civilized boys like Ralph and Piggy eventually abandon their rationality and join the others in killing Simon. However, in reality, once survival is on the line, there is no dichotomy. We don’t call survivors of Flight 571 savages for saving themselves by eating the bodies of the dead. We do things that are considered violent every day whether it be calling somebody names or hitting a person to defend ourselves. 

And if we really think about it, the conflict (violence vs. order) also exists within society because, if anything, civilization is savage. Certain people have fewer rights just because of their race. Minority groups are oppressed every day. Literally just last week, a muslim woman was jumped because of her hijab. The things we created within civilization is so much scarier than anything we could find in the real world.

Overall, I find Golidings's (for the lack of a better word) thesis really disagreeable. While the duality between savagery and order exists, these two concepts are not separate; rather, they are the same- especially if survival is involved.

Lord of the Flies: A Classic or Overrated?

 

Is “Lord of the Flies” overrated? Written in 1945, William Golding published his Nobel-Prize-winning novel which is still considered a classic to this day. Anyone can see why the story had its lasting effect on social commentary since its publishing. The overlying illustration of how easily man can devolve back to his feral instincts is striking, yet could have been (I assure you) 100% more effective if written by a decent writer. And that brings us to the point if “Lord of the Flies” should even be regarded as an enduring work of literature because, in my opinion, Golding’s novel is simply not worth the hype. 

The Plot

The book begins with Piggy and Ralph and their realization that no adults survived the crash. Rather than rejoice in their freedom or even mourn, they simply stand there like two bumps on a log. When Jack’s tribe kills one of their own, they have no reaction. They talk to each other for a bit about how horrible they are and that's it. The events after that are so dull too. They hunt a pig. Ralph talks about a fire. They eat. They argue over the stupidest things possible. Ralph talks about fire. Someone dies. Ralph is still mumbling about a fire. 

Instead of making these scenes more bearable, Golding decided that he wanted to write over 20 descriptions of the scar (the airplane) and 70+ mentions of the oh-so-interesting sand. The author spent more time describing the different angles of the sunlight than Simon’s death. 

The Characterization 

Other than the lack of a well-executed plot, I would have cared more about the little island society of prepubescent boys and their descent into barbarism if you know, any of the characters had been developed AT ALL. Besides being devoid of any emotion, the characters are basically just vessels for Golding to tell his story. This isn’t wrong, but it turns quickly into indifference when the story itself isn’t enough to hold people’s interest. The book just has a bunch of little boys who were created to conform to stereotypes: the leader, the rebel, the fat kid, the nose picker, etc. That’s literally just saying: Sophia, the loud one who represents the relentless noise of society - “loud” being my only characteristic. 

The Writing

 If you could shut your ears to the slow suck down of the sea and boil of the return, if you could forget how dun and unvisited were the ferny coverts on either side, then there was a chance that you might put the beast out of mind and dream for a while. 

The passage you just read was a sample of the “Lord of the Flies” description written by yours truly - William Golding. I don’t think he understood that more does not equal better and that putting random words together does not produce good imagery. And if you think that’s bad read the next passage!

“--d'you think--”

“No, I dunno--”

“On account of my asthma, you see--”

“--your auntie--”

“--I saw the beast!--”

Golding also was unable to make his characters form full sentences because apparently all the boys only retained a fraction of their brains when they fell out of the plane. If Golding was trying to depict the chaotic environment, he didn’t have to use the same format every chapter because half the book’s dialogue is just that: terrible. 

Overall, this book was definitely an experience, but sadly, it did not meet up to my expectations. The symbolism and theme were definitely there, but in terms of the writing quality, Golding failed to impress me. 

Is this book a classic? Perhaps.

Is this a good book? Nah. 

Therefore, “Lord of the Flies” earns a 1.5 star from me.