This marks the third and final installment of posts about AP Literature summer work! As mentioned previously, The Grapes of Wrath was assigned for June and Frankenstein was assigned for the first half of July. Neither book was popular. Grapes was too long, too boring, too depressing; meanwhile, Frankenstein was filled with hard-to-discern, practically archaic writing. The third book, however, was considered the goldilocks: not too long, not too high of a reading level, and not too uninteresting. As a matter of fact, I think it’s safe to say this was the novel I was most excited to read. I’m talking about…

While novel specifics haven’t been addressed in my last two posts, knowing the basic plot of Lord of the Flies is crucial to understand my analysis. I’ve thus written a brief summary of the most salient plot points, and it is viewable here.

In short, Lord of the Flies is the dark tale of a group of schoolboy’s descent into mad savagery. It’s certainly an enrapturing read, with a delightful twist ending–but, this is AP Literature! We’re not here to be entertained, we’re here to rhetorically analyze! An important question is thus posed: what does Flies mean? What is it trying to tell us?

…

Great question.

From what I’ve seen, most experts can agree Ralph’s conch and Piggy’s glasses (their ability to create fire) symbolize authority and power, respectively—and the plot is one huge metaphor! This is a good start, but… most agreements stop there.

Perhaps you may think it means this…

• “This novel illustrates the steps of a common revolution! The leaders (Ralph) are locked in a power struggle with and eventually are overthrown (the breaking of the conch) by the revolutionaries (Jack), as the nation’s problems (the beast) are pinned on a scapegoat (Simon) and the questioning intellectuals (Piggy) are silenced!”

Or instead, that…

• “No, this is clearly a metaphor for puberty and maturing into an adult!  A young boy (Ralph) must grapple with his growing emotions, problems, and innate urges (arguably Jack and the beast)–but eventually triumph, even if he may question and abandon tradition (Piggy) and fully lose his innocence (Simon) in the process!

Or maybe, just maybe, something else…

• “You’re all wrong! this is a metaphor for the human psyche! The ego (Ralph), helped on by reason (Piggy) must fight to keep the id (Jack) and inner evil (the beast) in check, or one’s moral conscience (Simon) will be drowned away.

Attempting to discover the true meaning of Golding’s novel last July left me with more questions than answers–with so many opinions, how can I find the facts?

I don’t believe I ever did. Instead, I learned yet another important lesson: just like any other form, writing is art. And just like art (the moment it leaves the head of the artist) everything is up for interpretation–and everyone’s interpretation can be valid.

We’ll never know exactly what was running through Golding’s head, and that’s what’s fascinating. Perhaps he agreed with one, some, all, or none of the interpretations above. All we know is what we personally make of it, and what we can personally take away from it. This is all that matters.