Lord of the Flies discussion

How do you explain Shakespeare then? Greatest body of work would probably be a better question. Tolstoy, Dostoyevski, Dickens or Joyce? I keep forgetting we're talking about the English language. We probably should include everybody.

Maybe we can do like an ESPN countdown.

Apparently the phrase 'the best [...]' needs the addition 'in your opinion'.

Lord of the Flies was ... alright in my opinion. I wasn't forced to analyze this book so I guess I get to see it from the point of view it was intended to see it from: as a reader, not as a student.

Best book ever written in my opinion? I don't know. I can tell you I loved Ursula Le Guin's 'The Tombs of Atuan' quite a lot because it has a female main character and deals with several interesting topics. Does that qualify it as the best book ever written in the English language? For me, personally, it does. As for you other readers, I don't know.

What is it with you that there has to be a best book ever written? That's foolishness.

Indeed there can't be; everyone judges in different ways. But it's a good party game.

I see nothing "symbolic" about it, this is plain realism about the human ego and how the self relates to others when there are no binding laws or moral codes to live by. A history novel that takes us as far back as our primal ancestors at the dawn of the earth, where life was mean, nasty and brutish.

Why are we so obsessed with the "best of everything". We read the city magazines and there´s always the ubiquitious article, the best school to send your offspring, the best wine shop, the best hairdresser, the best seafood restaurant....and the nouveau riche and wannabes eat up that stuff and congratulate themselves for how many of those they have frequented. So, once it is decided which novel is the "best ever written in English", then all those who have read it can ball up their fists and rub their chests"?

Why are people getting so uptight about this question. I'm sure anyone who has put forward suggestions would agree that there is no 'best' English novel. It's supposed to be a bit of fun not a definitive answer!

If am to butt in, I'd say; James Joyce's Ulysses is MY best book ever written in the English Language.

Personally I did not love the book. I fully understand the importance of its message in representing the degradation of human society and culture if we are left without standards and rules. Some people read to learn a lesson, and sometimes I do that but, most of the time I read to have fun and relax. I felt the book was a little slow and monotonous until something big happened, and even then it would go right back to being slow. So I don't believe it was a bad book, but it definitely was not the best book ever written in my humble opinion.

Hamlet. And it ain't even close.

Mitch wrote: "Hamlet. And it ain't even close."

"Shakespeare out in front by a mile, and the rest of the field strung out behind trying to close the gap."

There's a lot of truth to that ol' Stoppard play :)

No.

Lord of the Flies, no; but his To The Ends Of The Earth trilogy might be a contender. Still, I'd go for The Razor's Edgeor better still Bright Day.

When I read Lord of the Flies I found it disturbing and confusing. I did not understand the symbolism at all, it was just creepy. I would not call it the best book written in the English language.

East of Eden would get my vote.

Frankenstein.... Interesting choice.

I love the book, and it was extremely groundbreaking, but I agree with those critics who say it's a bit overwritten in parts.

I wouldn't ever attempt to directly compare Romantic-era literature to what's being written today. I taught Frankenstein for three years, and I do greatly appreciate the book. It's worthy of being called a classic. But it is not-- in my opinion-- necessarily always well-written. I remember reading certain passages and thinking, "She's trying too hard here."

Don't get me wrong. I wish I could write something half as brilliant as Frankenstein. I just don't think it's the greatest book our language has to offer.

Wow, what a hard question. There are so many great works out there. Lord of the Flies has always been one of my favorites. It's frightening and powerful. I can see much argument for its being among the best novels written in English. The themes and symbolism are well integrated into the story.

At the turn of the millennium there was a bunch of 'Best Ever' lists floating around most of them skewered towards the interest of publishers or critics. Truth is there are way too many books written to make a honest, objective list even if you narrow the list down to language, country/region or genre. "Lord of the Flies" is certainly a masterpiece IMO and the story of a highly civilized group of school boys decent in savagery and tribal mentality is essential reading. It would make my top 10 books of all time but it's hard to call it the best when Steinbeck wrote the "Grapes of wrath", Melville wrote "Moby Dick", Jane Austen wrote everything she wrote, Kesey wrote "Cuckoos Nest" and Harper Lee wrote "Mockingbird". Don't even get me started on the Victorians classics such as "Jane Eyre", "The mill on the floss" or "great Expectations". As I said there are just too many and where does Poe or Shakespere fit into this discussion. They may not have been novelists but they were master of the English language and great storytellers who have transited time and place?

Jesus, if anohter person LISTS as a "favourite" book, something you had to read in school, I'll choke.

There are soo many brilliant, cool, fast reads. So, many up-to-date good books out there.
It seems the only people who write on these "lord of the flies" thingy are people who ONLY read high-school mandatory books.

There worlds a little bigger than this.

Case 1: Pride and Prejudice- Good book, but by now, you must have found something else.

It was good at first..and now, do you have a new favorite?

Jed wrote: "Jesus, if anohter person LISTS as a "favourite" book, something you had to read in school, I'll choke.

There are soo many brilliant, cool, fast reads. So, many up-to-date good books out there.
It ..."

Why does it matter whether you had to read it in school or not? If you loved it you loved it. Where you found out about it is irrelevant. I don't like most "classics", but I do like LOTF. And I have no problem with people who do like classics, it's just different tastes.

The fact that I have read and loved other books - regardless of how old they are - doesn't take away my appreciation for LOTF.

Cause that's like saying, you don't read much.
Those are the bare essential books.
For everybook I read, there's been 100's of "better" books that came out.
An analogy would be:
It's like growing up in a household where the only music is the beatles. Now, am not saying the Beatles are bad. But after a certain age, you should have new favorite groups, other favorite songs.
I repeat there's nothing wrong with liking "Hey Jude", but there are a million more ballads from many groups, from many other decades.
"Hey Jude", no matter how good it is, gets tiring.
I find it sterile to continue liking ONLY those books.

@RaptorSaur :ok, granted LOTR, you didn't have to read it in school, and no one went into the details and new-vocab that Tolkien did.
I'll give you a pass for that one.
But seriously, people ONLY citing these contemporary classics...

Jed wrote: "Cause that's like saying, you don't read much.
Those are the bare essential books.
For everybook I read, there's been 100's of "better" books that came out.
An analogy would be:
It's like growing..."

Where did I say anything about liking ONLY those books? I read a new book roughly once a week, just as I watch new films as often as I can. However I still appreciate the brilliance of some that I read/watched years or even decades ago. I count them among my favourites.

Jed wrote: "@RaptorSaur :ok, granted LOTR, you didn't have to read it in school, and no one went into the details and new-vocab that Tolkien did.
I'll give you a pass for that one.
But seriously, people ONLY c..."

LOTF = Lord of the Flies :)

Another couple of examples of books/series that I read in my childhood that I still love now and count among the best books I've ever read: The Foundation Trilogy, His Dark Materials, Ender's Game and so on. I've also read books in the last year or even months that I like equally. To me it's just irrelevant.

Ok. Wait, I'm in my 30's. It's that I'm an avid reader, and all these titles I've heard off since school and for the past 15 years. To me, it's getting real sterile.
But lord of the Flies...To Kill a mocking bird,etc..are really boring to me.
They are good book to get "kids" into reading, but that's it. They show the teens that "hey a book isn't always boring", but that's it.

Or ITs like saying you LOVE Steven Spielberg's movies.

And again, they're not bad..but they are the "classics". There are other books out there..AND NO I don't mean "Robert Zemeckis"

I definitely do not agree. I hated the book.

How to define 'best?' I think we need a book we would recommend to others as an example of how a book should be written so this would not necessarily be one's own favourite.Anyone else see the 'Countryfile' photographic competition? Twelve pictures to be chosen out of thousands and they all look very different. The same thing happens with books. I wouldn't rate 'Lord of the Flies' in my top ten but I would put 'Treasure Island ' in the mix. The hardest thing would be to rate realism against fantasy.Maybe if we said-most memorable, instead of'best?'

Jed wrote: "Ok. Wait, I'm in my 30's. It's that I'm an avid reader, and all these titles I've heard off since school and for the past 15 years. To me, it's getting real sterile.
But lord of the Flies...To Kil..."

Yeah, but many other people do not find them boring. It's fine to say you don't like older books, but thinking that it's stupid to like older books is just your opinion. Others don't feel the same way.

I don't re-read books I've already read very often (once every few years at most), but I don't slowly reduce my ratings for all books I've read in the past as time goes on, because they're not any worse now than they were then.

Going back to your music analogy, have you ever loved a song/album, not listened to it for years and years, then heard it again and loved it just as much as you did the first time you heard it? I find that the best books entertain me when I re-read them years later.

Jed people have their own opinions and if they still love to read the same book years later I'm not sure it can be disregarded just because they first read it in school.

I didn't read To Kill a Mockingbird in school, I read it years later and it's in my all time favourites. I also have books in my favourites list which I will read over and over again but wouldn't put forward as one of the greatest of all time. I'm not sure your logic is making any sense to me. You use music as an analogy. I love classical music and believe it will be played for years to come. Many will laugh at the concept of classical music and call it outdated without realising that many of the riffs and licks used in contemporary music are taken directly from classical.

The analogy I try to make is that many contemporary books are inspired by the books you seem to be dismissing. Let's not forget, most authors tend to be avid readers themselves.

Jed people have their own opinions and if they still love to read the same book years later I'm not sure it can be disregarded just because they first read it in school.

I didn't read To Kill a Mockingbird in school, I read it years later and it's in my all time favourites. I also have books in my favourites list which I will read over and over again but wouldn't put forward as one of the greatest of all time. I'm not sure your logic is making any sense to me. You use music as an analogy. I love classical music and believe it will be played for years to come. Many will laugh at the concept of classical music and call it outdated without realising that many of the riffs and licks used in contemporary music are taken directly from classical.

The analogy I try to make is that many contemporary books are inspired by the books you seem to be dismissing. Let's not forget, most authors tend to be avid readers themselves.

I didn't say, those books are boring, OK. I see you are well read and so is Nicola. So, that's cool.

But, when I browse through people's profiles in social networks in the section of favorite books: I always see the ones you had to read in school, which leads me to think people don't read that much.

That's what I'm trying to say.

Now, if you've read a lot then when you say you love "To kill a mockinbrid" or "LOFT" then it has a new depth to it. I take it more seriously.

Usually, I'm always on the look-out for new books to read "good books". And everytime I ask someone to recommend a book: I ALMOST always get the "classics" and "Stephen King", almost always. It's a frustration.

Jed wrote: "I didn't say, those books are boring, OK. I see you are well read and so is Nicola. So, that's cool.

But, when I browse through people's profiles in social networks in the section of favorite book..."

Yeah, that's more because most people these days don't read than anything else though, it doesn't mean that the books they have read should be looked down upon imo :)

I'm the same, always want new books. I generally don't ask for recommendations though, simply because everyone has different tastes, and because a lot of people list classics and stuff just to sound educated and cultured even if they don't like them... :/

Perhaps they're busier reading than updating their social network profiles. I don't think I have a fraction of the books I've read on there simply because it would take too long.

The people on here have sought out a place to find, share and discuss books. I pretty much assumed all of them read as much as they can.

Putting aside the 'best' argument, LOTF was probably the most powerful, memorable and enjoyable books I read as a pre-teen. I haven't read it again, and would like to someday to compare with some of my other favorites.

My personal favorites in no particular order:
1984 - Orwell
Brave New World - Huxley
The Sun Also Rises - Hemington
Grapes of Wrath - Steinbeck
For Whom the Bell Tolls - Hem
Blood Meridian - McCarthy
Fahrenheit 451 - Bradbury
Fight Club - Palahniuk

I read 4 chapters of Ulysses and put it down. I just can't get into that writing style as I read for enjoyment. Faulkner has also not resonated with me, although I did recently finish The Sound and the Fury.

I can talk about which book I admire the most. Or which book I enjoyed the best. Or the book that I envied. Or the book that had the most profound impact on me (at a given point). But I don't know how to talk about which is best.

The string suggests at least four ways of identifying the best book, each of which has its limitations.

1. I get to say which is best. Or "everyone is entitled to an opinion."

2. Its based on a consensus of readers.

3. Its based on a consensus of special readers (experts).

4. Its based on a set of standards, apparently established by consensus of readers or experts.

5. For completeness, I might mention that no one here seems to want to argue that there is an absolute, unchanging set of standards against with the greatness of a book can be measured. So this group, apparently, is not a group of Platonists.

It is not difficult to find fault with each of the forgoing methods. But I am most comfortable with 4 as long as we acknowledge that the standards will evolve with new generations.

Robert wrote: "I read a while ago that some critic made the statement that "Lord of the Flies" was the best book ever written in the English language. I stopped when I read that statement, because it's a powerful..."
Well i would say ''The old man and the sea'' by Ernest Hemingway i think the descriptions are much more on point and there are many interesting themes hidden within the book

Lord of the Flies surely cannot be the best book ever written, but its near the top of my all time best reads. It shows the dark side of human nature. Life without order can be pretty brutal.

Best for what?
Entertaining your mind and expanding your inner world to infinite confines?
Lear how to cook?
Learn new skills?
Better understand history and our past?

Almost every recommendation are well know, mainstream books, i believe some of the best books are not mainstream or well known.

Read Howard Bloom "Global Brain", or Theodore Zeldin "An intimate history of humanity", you will enjoy yourself learning, and that's my personal objective when i go into long reads.

Permit me a moment of glibness: I haven't written it yet.

Seriously. "Best" is always subjective.

Three come immediately to mind.

Joyce's Ulysses for the magic he weaves with words.
Hemingway's The Old Man and The Sea for the glorious simplicity pf the narration.

Nabokov's Pale Fire where English becomes so wonderfully playful.

Perhaps a best in different genres would be more appropriate.
Generational taste may also be relevant.

Plays, poetry, translations, non fiction?

Michael wrote: "Permit me a moment of glibness: I haven't written it yet.

Seriously. "Best" is always subjective.

Three come immediately to mind.

Joyce's Ulysses for the magic he weaves with words.
Hemingway's..."

I'll give you Ulysses (though I personally prefer Dubliners), but Hemingway had a dozen books better than The Old Man and the Sea.