Lord of the Flies: Crash Course Literature 305 

Can we put 20 british 7-8 year old school kids on a tropical island and just settle this argument? I can kick in $20.

William Golding gave an interview where he cited two main reasons for not including women in this book. He said that he was more acquainted with the behavior of little boys, since he himself had only a brother. Additionally, he claimed that he did not want sexual activity, an innate component of savagery, to be included in this book because it would complicate the dynamics of the island.

My wife is a teacher of first and second graders and she claims that she can't leave the room for three minutes because the children would literaly kill eachother. Not because they are evil or bad, just because they are careless.

I think I've figured out why this analysis doesn't hold up for me - but at the same time, I've realized why the book doesn't hold up for John, either. In focusing too much on the Beast/Lord/Pig Head Kebab and its almost comically grotesque rendition of The Evil(tm) that lurks in the heart of Man, he sees Golding as trying to portray a 'true image' of human darkness, which is obviously wretched in every perceivable way. But the subtle genius of the book for me is how it shows the real evil as plain, basic, and even boring: contrary to what John says here, Piggy is so obsessed with rational purity, he denies taking part in the murder of Simon, denies it is a murder at all, and blames the victim for his own death, all in the same scene. And the allusions to wartime strategy seen in the hypocritical adoption of face/body paint - an act of savagery when done by the Other, but purely pragmatic when used for one's own (ie. the Allied Forces') agenda. The Beast is a bogeyman, not the actual symbolic representation of human evil. It's the "Other", a desperate construction which we project all manner of evil qualities upon, yet fail to recognize in ourselves, because it's just so mundane when we do it. How can you talk about this book in the context of WWII without discussing the various other lessons that have emerged from that same war? The Nuremberg defense. Arendt's concept of the Banality of Evil. The Stanford Prison Experiment. The Milgram Experiment. Holocaust denial. One of the most lasting cultural legacies of the Holocaust/WWII in general is the way in which it fundamentally and irreparably dented the concept of default human goodness, by demonstrating how unsettlingly EASY it is to commit evil, once the context around it has been normalized. The ending of this video seemed shockingly tone deaf: "but the war did end". Dude, seriously, c'mon. It didn't end by everyone coming to their senses, announcing a ceasefire based on mutual trust, and drafting out peace treaties based on the highest ethical standards at the time. It ended as it began: by normalized force. THAT is the point of Lord of the Flies - evil doesn't look like the Beast. It looks like normal life - until it a stranger comes by and asks you why you thought it was a good idea to set your own island on fire, or drop an atom bomb on a city, and then it doesn't. If you wanna get Freudian about it, the moment your superego starts vindicating the worst parts of your id, there's no stopping the ego from rationalizing some terrible, terrible things. But at the same time, I can understand why this book flops for some people. It's very hit-or-miss, IMO. You have to be pre-sold on the premise that evil is easy, and easy to escalate - once you do, all the rich subtleties fall into place. If you don't, the allegory seems like kitschy hyperbole. But to that I say: the Nuremberg defense, the Stanford Prison trials and the Milgram experiment all seem kitchy and hyperbolic in concept, too. And yet they bore some genuine, awful fruit.

"A man's true nature is revealed when he knows he will never be caught"

Everyone does have evil inside them. Even Ralph was slowly turning savage represented by the growth of his hair shielding his sight and he was slowly forgetting reasons to be saved. They just descend into savagery at slower rates

I think that Golding's message was pretty spot on with the theme. One of John's criticisms with this book is that Golding contradicts himself with the theme that all humans are inherently evil because of Ralph and Piggy. That they do not take part of the violent acts. But they do take part in the violence when they kill Simon. Ralph and Piggy have evil within them just like the rest of the boys but are better at fighting off their evil tendencies then Jack and the others. But ultimately cave in to their evil desires when they kill Simon.

In my English class we listened to a tape of Golding and he is actually for the idea that women are even superior to men. In the specific interview we listened to he stated that he left girls out because they tend to mature quicker and the book was to be aimed at primal instinct that comes with immaturity. He thought girls in the novel would bring too much of a practical and just reason for things happening on the island.

The man at the end didn't just show up at random...all of the children were trying to kill Ralph so Ralph hid...once the children found him they set fire to a bushel Ralph was hiding in to smoke him out and in doing so set the whole island on fire which resulted in a huge smoke signal which drew the ship in to investigate. So in a weird way them being murderous savages is what got them saved.

I've found that optimists tend to hate Lord of the Flies, and cynics tend to like it.

If they are making a female version of lord of the flies does that mean piggy is now mrs.piggy?

My English teacher also mentioned how the 4 main characters (Ralph, Jack, Piggy, and Simon) represent different ways of governing and making decisions. Ralph governs through common sense, Jack rules with emotion, Piggy uses intellect, and Simon uses morality or spirituality. I always found that to be the most interesting part of the novel, because people always focus on how power is distributed or enforced in governments, but just as important is how the conclusions are reached.

John Green, you've given Simon no love!

I would say that the characters in the book arent all meant to be individually human, but to collectively make up a human. They each represent a quality of humanity. For example, Samneric represent the weak but often innocent will of humans, and Roger is the part of humans that enjoy hurting others

am I like the only one who likes this book?

Primitive cultures aren't too relevant to the book. The boys were from a 1940s British boarding school, which had quite a bullying culture. Primitive cultures often have strong communities to survive in harsh environments but the boys didn't have that sort of childhood. Just look at the Stanford Prison experiment to see what one person can do to another when placed in a position of power and limited societal rules.

honestly, usually I agree with John on most things, but I really feel like he is misinterpreting soooo much of this.

Lord of the flies is one of the best books I have read. Really enjoyed it

"The theme of the book is that all humans are monsters without civilisation." "Then why do Ralph and Piggy act good?" Gee, maybe that isn't the theme then John.

Although I agree with much of what John is saying, particularly the point he makes that "not all humans are inherently evil," I must say that I actually quite enjoyed this book, and have read it three times over. I myself am rather more optimistic than cynical, and I have what people call a sunny personality, which is probably why many find it so shocking that I love "the dark themes," such as Fahrenheit 451, Lord of the Flies, All Quiet on the Western Front, Dracula, the Hunger Games, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Frankenstein, and others, and I've found that most often, the characters I fall for are the ones with Gothic hearts. So all in all, I think both John Green and William Golding are correct in their own way. People do have some kind of darkness within them, whether it be portrayed in their actions, behavior, words, beliefs, or even an obsession with a certain genre. Some people may truly be good, but it wouldn't be all that surprising to me to find out that they have a deep attraction towards "evil" themes, or slightly "malevolent" characters. It is this attraction towards evil which I believe all people possess, and while some find it easy to withhold the desire, others, like Jack and Roger, are easily persuaded and manipulated by its presence. I think that is the real point of "Lord of the Flies." John states that if "all the boys have evil inside of them, why did Piggy and Ralph refuse to join Jack's group?" It is shown several times throughout the book that Ralph and perhaps even Piggy are tempted, overwhelmed even, by the presence of evil. They feel the desire, the attraction, the taunting wish to let go of their morals and principles. But the attraction is only that: an attraction, and while it can bring about blind actions of cruelty every once in a while, it is not strong enough to completely take hold of boys like piggy and Ralph. as for the book being sexist, on that I completely disagree with John. A book is not sexist simply because it does not have any female characters in it. I am a female, and the thought that Golding was deliberately ignoring women never even crossed my mind. I believe a book with no female characters in it is far, far better than a book with a couple of air-headed flirts being the only portrayals of the female race. For anyone who actually read through all of this, I would like to also say that I absolutely admire and respect John Green, and am actually quite glad of a chance to hear his opinion on one of my favorite books. He was the inspiration for me to start work on my own book, and if mine is even half as good as The Fault in Our Stars, I will be completely satisfied! His opinions are valid, honest, logical, and well-stated, and I hope I have declared my own opinions as graciously and fairly as his were.

"Everyone has depravity/evil in their hearts" is not how I read the novel. Like you said, if that were the message, then Ralph and Piggy would directly contradict it. Rather, I read a novel about how humans are drawn to simplicity when faced with a complex world. The book is about little boys to exacerbate this problem: it is especially hard for young people to think abstractly. The Conch democracy is confusing and abstract, and even Ralph struggles to remember the purpose of the signal fire as hope for rescue fades. Jack's society is immediate, valuing the visceral rush of chasing and killing, and it quickly dominates the island. This is comparable to Nazi Germany--life in post-WWI Germany was confusing and hopeless, so they were attracted to the simplicity of scapegoating the Jews. The boys' war paint is an unfortunate reference to "savagery," yes, but it leads to one of my favorite ideas in the book--that Jack and the boys paint their faces to free themselves from individual responsibility. This is no different from men wearing military uniforms or waving flags: when you surrender yourself to this sort of group, you can commit the worst atrocities and feel no guilt so long as the group supports you. There's more I could say, but I encourage you to reread the novel without presuming its argument. It's not trying to say "civilization is great and people suck"--rather, it attempts to explain why civilizations so often turn to genocide and war.

The book was intended to convey the darkness of a man's heart in a warlike setting, I believe. You can see this when the British warship comes to rescue the boys and he looks upon them disprovingely. It is intended to emphasize that it is the exact same situation. Substitute Germany's hyper-civilized and enlightened ideas with the boys' innocence, and you will find how Golding portrays how evil can come from unlikely places. Then on the other hand you get the 'moral' Allies (the captian of the warship coming to end the madness) that bombed civilians into dust and basically destroyed a whole enemy city a night. Given a warlike setting, it is understandable why he didn't add women. They didn't play a major part in the world wars, not where evil was concerned. Truth be told, Golding was screwed if he added women and screwed if he didn't. Truth be even more told, every book ever written could be construed as sexist in one way or another by modern feminism.

John I want you to know that as someone who's heavily dyslexic I don't enjoy reading. Because of that I never really look at books in such a way that I can interpret them on several different levels. This series opened my eyes to the depths novels can reach and I cannot thank you enough for doing what you're doing

This felt like an opinion piece not a in depth look.

"The central idea of the book is that everyone has evil in there hearts." "...evil in there hearts." "THERE hearts." rip

Wow, so biased. Amazing.

The scene where Simon confronts the Lord of the Flies is probably one of my favorites in all of literature. "I'm the reason. I'm the reason why nothing can ever work. You cannot run from me. You'll find me down on the beach, for I am inside of you." Paraphrasing here but you get the idea. It's so powerful.

Actually, Ralph an Piggy do not always keep their moral values, as- I found in proprofs quizzes- "To an extent, even the seemingly civilized Ralph and Piggy are products of social conditioning, as we see when they participate in the hunt-dance" Like if you approve!

DISCLAIMER: Lord of the Flies is one of my favourite books. First off, a book of ideas can be good even if you disagree with the idea. Prose for example. Golding's prose isn't THAT great in LOTF, but it becomes quite good in his later books. Secondly, the most obvious thing you need to get about LotF is that it's a metaphor FOR society. Once we start feeling that resources are limited, we organize ourselve. If that organization fails, the excesses come out. People get crueler and superstitious (Jack and friends), more scared/repulsed by those who are different (Simon, who represents a messiah figure, and piggy, who represents the scientific figures), and psychopaths (which is what Roger represents, NOT all humans as this video claims) basically get free reign, like in the world wars. The breakdown of the rules STILL HAPPENS in society. It always has. Now here's the thing. Golding gives various reasons for why normal kids (or people) would resort to such evils, and those reasons aren't far-fetched at all: fear, need for resources, the sort of stuff a good society provides us with. Another misconception, I feel, is the claim that Rousseau would disagree. He would PARTLY, but the savage state (hunting and leaving outcasts) is something he said was natural. Natural isn't NON-EVIL to him. Natural transcends evil or good, those are concepts of society, concepts that Rousseau believed constrained us. Take from that what you will about Rousseau. Lastly, the "Beast" is not a metaphor for evil itself, it is a metaphor for our fear of the unknown, and ultimately of death. This fear itself can lead to evil, but doesn't have to. This is where Simon as the messiah figure comes in (typically a bit mentally unstable in the book), who sees through to the core. Evil is something inside us all, yes, but it is possible and desireable to resist it. hence why Ralph and Piggy are able to behave well.

He call pessimism what he doesn't know about war. I think that after a war you would have a better understanding of humanity than through a 1000 good novels.

Why is this video in the Education category? I feels more like an opinion piece.

War is like prison, it only ends for those who were not in it

9:30 Glorious. Now killing a pig is sexism. That makes literally no sense.

ok...i just finished the entire thing and I couldn't disagree more. from start to finish I completely disagree.

Ok, first of all, The Lord of the Flies is a great book, and it is not proper to judge a book written in the twentieth century according to modern conventions about sex, gender and civilization.

People don't like being shown uncomfortable truths. When books show them to them, people don't like those books.

I find that the analysis of this novel as an exploration of the toxicity of a particular type of masculinity is the most compelling interpretation, even if the author had no idea that he was doing so. He thought he was writing about the inherent evil that lives in all men, but he failed to recognize that this evil is A) not inherent but rather learned, B) not in all men (even within the context of the novel as John points out) and C) essentially exclusive to men. To be clear, evil may lay in the heart of all persons, but this particular type of evil is decidedly masculine. Golding's mistake (as is all too common) is to assume that his experience as a white man is the default experience of all humanity. This is probably why he thought that including any female characters would have been a complicating factor rather than, you know, as essential part of humanity. Their femininity would have gotten in the of the way of his analysis of humanity, which is another way of saying that he doesn't consider femininity a part of humanity, or that his analysis is not of humanity but of masculinity.

So is it deemed a sexist novel because of the lack of girls or because boys are portrayed as evil?

I absolutely loved Lord of the Flies, and watching this video helped me realize that it was because I also felt like the novel had a different message than what Golding intended. The way I see it, the novel shows that there are inherently good people as well as inherently bad people, but without the confines of order, the bad will always overwhelm the good. It's pretty easily applicable to the world today.

I liked lord of the flies in High School. It was really good i thought.

To be fair, Lord of the flies is a million times better than any of Ayn Rand´s books

although I love john green's analysis, this one seemed a bit too tainted with personal bias. I love lord of the flies. it's gritty realism coupled with such powerful symbolism truly sets it apart from most conventional classics. also Green fails to appreciate how this book got Golding a nobel prize

I'm not here because of school like probably everyone else, I just love the book, favourite book I ever read, and I read it without being told to

Ok, wheres the informational facts that I depend on? This is very opinionated, and not very objective. "Wars end", do they really, or they just name themselves differently?

Can you please cover John Steinbeck's of mice and men

Dude, sometimes, a pig is just a pig. Maybe the author refrained from having girls in the book exactly to avoid people such as yourself from trying to make sexist parallels.

I read it this year, and I liked it (although now that you point these things out I agree). My favorite part is that at the beginning Jack legitimately thinks being able to sing C# makes him a qualified leader.

It's shadow work. The fact that it makes you so uncomfortable shows how effective it is

5:52 "Problematic"

I really, really disagree with you on this book. I'm a feminist, a psychologist, and a human, and this is one of my favourite books. I knew you dislike it, so I was really looking forward to hearing you talk about it and I'm astonished how different your interpretation is from the way I experienced the book. Psychologically, I find it realistic (I mean, the Stanford Prison experiment had a LOT of issues, many of them methodological, but it nevertheless shows us what humans can be like, particularly when hierarchies are introduced). From a feminist standpoint, I think it does a great job at criticising our way of constructing masculinity, its relationship to power, and its harmful effects. And it does a great job at illustrating how fragile peace and "civilization" are - I use quotation marks because to me, this does not mean Western civilization (as opposed to "savages" such as hunter gatherers), but just... civilization INCLUDING hunter gatherer societies. It shows how easy ANY type of civilization can break and lead to destruction and chaos, but not necessarily because of "nature" (after all, the island was peaceful before those kids arrived), but because of the dark side of our culture such as hunger for power or unhealthy gender roles. I'm not saying that this is how Golding intended his book to be read, but that is how I interpreted it and why I like it so much.

I missed you Mr Green. i took it for granted that i always saw you on crash course, and now i see new people. If you're stepping down and passing the tourch just know that i truly appreciate your sessions

LOTF is such a good book. Such an accurate perception of human nature... Truly a classic

How is calling "spear throwing face painted people" backward problematic? Even in Golding's time, if a society were throwing spears instead of shooting guns, they were already far, FAR away from modernity. It's not a race issue either; many African, American, and South Asian societies had great cities and empires just like Europe did and adopted the most modern technology of their times. Saying that technologically primitive societies are backward is not wrong; saying technologically primitive societies are worse than modern ones, I'd argue, is also not wrong.

what we really are is F) Dancer

Glad he takes a perspective on these books, and even more for a thorough defense. Respect.

Behind the certain flaws of this book, I do appreciate the multitudes of grim symbolism. Whether it be the pig head on the stake, the conch, the beast, or adults fighting their war; there is always some aspect that does apply to the dark side of our human nature.

I actually enjoyed Lord of the Flies

I always thought that there were no girls because they were from an all boys school and travelling together. Male/female segregation in schools was fairly common. I never thought that part of the story odd at all...

Glad I read the novel first before watching this "review".

Personally, I appreciated his analysis. Honestly, classic literature is very hard to interpret the same by every person. Everyone perceives books and their messages differently, and that’s why I love these discussions. Lord of the Flies is one of the most argued over books because it has so many different themes and messages that are perceived differently by different people. Thank you for bringing this video and your perspective to the table John. :)

He lost me when he said the book is sexist.

I don’t think that either civilization or human nature is evil. To believe that civilization or human nature is solely evil or moralizing presents us with a false dichotomy. Rather, I believe that all of us are inherently flawed. Our flaws are reflected in the ways that societies are structured. Whether we remove ourselves from civilization or not, we will bear witness to similar evils. However, there is good in us as well. Attempting to ignore our multi-faceted nature means depriving ourselves of truly understanding who we are and what we are capable of.

how biased can one video be?

What was the nuclear war stuff that was cut from the book?

There are no women in it because it's a British public (private) school in the UK in the 1950s. Do your research, John. And what exactly is wrong about the Hobbesian vision? Human beings do have a dark part of the human soul that makes them enjoy conflict on some level. You also have a very simplistic reading of it.

This is weird, usually it's the teacher that liked the book and me who hated it, but here it's totally reversed.

While the book is greatly exaggerated, it isn't like we haven't seen similar effects. See: Stanford Prison Experiment. We're not necessarily built for 'evil', but we sure do like it.

Maybe its not such a good idea to review books you dislike. You should rename the video "My take on the Lord of the Flies."

Because people keep asking these are the books they are doing Their Eyes Were Watching God - Zora Neale Hurston The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn - Mark Twain Sonnets - William Shakespeare (Particularly sonnets 18, 116, & 130) Lord of the Flies - William Golding Invisible Man - Ralph Ellison 100 Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez Sula - Toni Morrison

Thank you for explaining “Deus Ex Machina” so I can finally understand all those Cinema Sins jokes 👍🏽

This just makes me wonder if John Green has ever taken care of large groups of children for a prolonged period of time.

Golding also said that he only wrote about boys because 1. he has never been a girl 2. a mother and 3. a grandmother, he is not being sexist he is just going based on what he knows, he has been a boy, a father and a grandfather

This book was a brilliant piece of literature and I believe that all should read it.

So, basically he doesn't like this book because it's offensive to hunter-gather like tribes and women? The SJW shines strong in this one.

I like how Crash Course included discussion on many of the allegories presented in the novel; however, it would be super helpful if you guys also included something on Freudian allegory!

Thank you Mr. Green! I just took a job teaching English in an international school in Myanmar, and I have to teach this novel! One that I have avoided for all of my twenty year career! This helped a lot to give me perspective on how to approach it. Also, lots of kids here have read your novels, so they may listen to you....

I think the Lord of the Flies makes more sense as a symbol for fear, rather than evil.

Lord of the flies it's society, even you actually are the voice of reason... The larger dumber and(usually) stronger and more violent side will still crush you like a bug. So you'd better be able to let your murderous side out when they do.

I love the way John Green teaches! It is amazing!!!

As a person who works with children on a daily basis, I have every confidence in the realism of Lord of the Flies

Why didn't mention that its title is taken from the literal meaning of Beelzebub?

They set the whole island on fire, and THEN the ship arrives. Get some logic and read the book, It didn't click for me first either.

I saw a film version of this years ago. Maybe it's somewhere online now? The one bit I remember is the ending where the boys being chased and literally running for his life trips and falls ... only to finding himself clasping the feet of the naval officer. Funny how some images stick in your mind for decades.

5:17, *Jonh talking about England, shows a picture of a street three blocks from my house in Denmark*

Lord of the Flies is amazing! I was one of 3 people in my English class to enjoy it! I don't know why so many people dislike it

The Afghanistan war is still raging ...17 years, 5 months, 2 weeks, 2 days!! We are insane!

Personally, after studying it for GCSE and analysing all the complexities and hidden meanings of this story, I have grown to love it!

Thanks, I’m reading Lord of the Flies in my honors English class and I needed some background on it!

whilst I absolutely agree that Golding was a typical product of his time, and a lot of the imagery in that book was meant to elude to tribal societies; you could choose to look at it on a few other levels. the face a paint that jack wears could be like a mask, to detach him from the guilt of an individual and purposefully dehumanize himself, so that he can commit these crimes. Ralph's gradual loss of power, could be about how no matter how hard Ralph tries to do what is best, the masses are like brainless sheep and their opinion and leader will change on a whim. it also tells you about the incompetence of the masses, only after short term impermanent solutions to each of their problems instead of putting in the thought and effort, leaving the conscious few to pick up the peaces. Piggy, represents societies brains, he is not glamorous, he is rational and smart, but he needs a front man like Ralph to convey his message to the people. I would say that the big plot hole in this book, is the fact that a few of the kids are just initial psycho as soon as the plane crashes, like jack and his henchmen are messed up no doubt about it. I don't think that leaving women out was a sexist move, tho it was a lazy one. its probably because Golding wasn't teaching Girls and he was not one, so he did not really understand them, nor did he try.

Lord of the flies was absolutely my favorite book ever

One I read that humans and naturally cruel, they selfishly cry to attract their mother's attention, avoiding parents to procreate more children that could steal the necessary attention (food/shelter). And when studying the world a toddler might easily tear the butterfly to understand how "it works"... Cruelty as hate comes easier to us, but I believe love is more perseverant

John, I very much enjoy your Crash Course literature videos, and I would love to see you dissect a Hemingway novel, preferably the Sun Also Rises or A Farewell to Arms. Thanks

anyone watching this the night before the English lit exam tomorrow? GCSEs?

And for God's sake, do not say that you prefer Atlas Shrugged over The Lord of the Flies.

I think Lord of The Flies is a great example of how death of the author can save a story. In the book itself, it clearly shows people can maintain their goodness even despite savagery abounding around them, even to the extent of giving their lives for it. That while people are corruptible, they don't have to be inherently evil. Unfortunately, the author himself felt quite the opposite.

brief ,concise and precise . Thankx a lot .

I wouldn't say it is entirely false; but it isn't entirely true either. I don't believe all people are good, but I certainly don't believe all people are inherently evil.

Wasn't a Simpson's episode loosely based on this book?

My high school English teacher spun it as a psychological allegory, with Ralph acting as Freud's Ego, Piggy the Superego, and Jack as the Id.

Speaking as someone who had an English teacher sophomore year of high school who had no idea how to manage a classroom and was also out in the Mobiles so essentially unsupervised can confirm: kids on an island would absolutely go the way of LOTF