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.