“Some” there are just ignorant, if they’re unaware of all the historical precedents for all three of those in the art of other cultures. I can think of Egyptian murals, Sumerian bas-reliefs and Chinese and Japanese hand-scrolls that all predate Bayeux by centuries if not millennia.
ETA : “Some” also really love them their em-dashes 
I also dislike “Lord of the Flies,” which I read a very long time ago. It’s not because of the cruelty the children manifest. I’m not a snowflake–I went to a public high school where gangs were very active. But the way things develop in this story seemed highly unrealistic to me. If teenagers were bullies, sociopaths, or psychopaths, island life would resemble a war camp or prison situation, not mythical behavior or symbolic rituals.
In literary circles, that’s known as “show, don’t tell”. It’s inherent in the spelling “ass-mar” that it’s a sarcastically exaggerated pronunciation of “asthma” and its hostility is emphasised by the “sucks to”
usage (=“who cares”). It’s implicit that Piggy has got used to it, as bullies’ victims often do.
I just read the plot summary on Wiki because it’s been so long. No, I don’t think it was realistic as described. I think it works much better as an allegory. Something closer to Animal Farm maybe - a book I read in seventh grade.
You prompted me to do the same thing, and this was the first paragraph in the Wikipedia Background section, which is funny considering all the people who told us it isn’t meant to be realistic and is just an allegory:
Whether one quote can signal the totality of an author’s intent and whether author’s intent even matters is an argument that has been rehashed over and over on this board. What I will say is that, as a fiction writer myself, what you mean to write and what you write are often two different things. Manuscripts may take on a life of their own. I started a book ten years ago because I thought one scene would be cool to write. Ten years later it’s arguably a deconstruction of the dark romance subgenre. There’s all sorts of stuff in there I didn’t plan.
It’s also notable that according to the Wiki, Golding’s editor made heavy revisions and Golding describes it as nothing like the original manuscript. We can only guess.
No, it’s Ralph who mocks Piggy by saying “Sucks to your ass-mar” as part of a longer conversation. Maybe that was to show that Ralph wasn’t a perfect being, just a normal nice kid who occasionally lashes out when he is tired or anxious or unhappy.
As far as I can remember, Jack never has a conversation with Piggy, even a short one.
Yeah, when I read this book as a thirteen-year-old bullying victim, it felt completely plausible. (I won’t go so far as to say I liked the experience of reading it, but I definitely felt seen.) I still think Golding pretty much nailed adolescent group dynamics, and the fact that real-life groups of kids have been on their own in survival situations without turning into murderous bullies doesn’t invalidate that. (The Tonga kids story is the only one I’m familiar with enough to comment on, but there were only six of them and they already knew each other. It’s not at all the same situation as the novel, which involves a whole plane of kids thrown together by chance, and dynamics that are ripe for sorting into tribes, peer pressure, and scapegoating.)
First use of Asthma/Ass-mar in Chapter 1:
Piggy: “My auntie told me not to run,” he explained, “on account of my asthma.”
Ralph “Ass-mar?”
Piggy: That’s right. Can’t catch my breath. I was the only boy in our school
what had asthma," said the fat boy with a touch of pride. "And I’ve been
wearing specs since I was three.
It must be this, so I agree. [1]
Yet it is never described if the boys ever use the word other than in monotone, like with adverbs such as sardonically, derisively, scoffingly, or even humorously, as the word clearly does not affect Piggy.
[quote="MrDibble, post:41, topic:1027171"] ETA : “Some” also really love them their em-dashes :face_with_raised_eyebrow: [/quote]Almost used one there! I promise to to chill - on emdash 
Footnotes ↩︎
There are two major films prior to this series: 1963 and 1990
While there have been stagings; apparently Spielberg put one on in London’s West End, that cost $14 from Amazon (for the play-script)
So I found 1 screenplay for the 1963 and just for fun. I can credit
https://subslikescript.com/movie/Lord_of_the_Flies-5726 for the 1963
and
Dan’s Script-o-Rama and someone on Reddit for the other two.
And for pointing me in their general direction: Piggy | Lord of the Flies Wiki | Fandom
In the 1963 film, Piggy has Asthma. His asthma is shown visually (he has an inhaler) but not even spoken in the dialogue.
In the 1990 remake, via fandom:
Though his eyesight is poor, Piggy has no trouble breathing and nothing is ever said of him having asthma.
The kids are all Americans in this one.
Maybe the “ass” bit. Or that it was hard for (test) audiences to clearly hear what was being taunted. Dunno. BBC has much more levity than either of the other films and I’d thing it will be included.
Several posts have said that the children’s cruelty is allegory, and maybe connected to social trauma such as WorldWar II cruelty.
But I just had an idea that may be relevant: The cruelty may not just be an allegory, and it may be older than WWII
. There may be a real connection between the children’s behavior on the island and actual cruel behavior by children which was described in detail in a very popular book of the time, and was well known as part of British culture.
I am talking about a famous book called “Tom Brown’s School Days”.
This was a book which was recommended to us 11-12 year olds by my teachers in a British public school in the 1960’s.
And it is a scary, very cruel book.
It’s a classic novel written in the age of Charles Dickens, about school boys of the time, and reflecting the values of those days. The boys are vicious to each other, with extreme hazing and physical abuse (even torture) being accepted as valuable tools for building character.
This is just an idea that occurred to me a few minutes ago. It’s has been 6 decades since I read either book, so I may be making a fool of myself. I have no idea if anybody has ever drawn a connection between Lord of the Flies and Tom Brown’s Schooldays.
But kids sure can be cruel to each other.
And upper-class British kids of the 1950’s grew up in a world where cruel bullying and severe hazing had been built into the school system for a century.. (part of a concept called “fagging”, where younger boys worked as servants , almost slaves, for older boys.)
Interesting context. That’s terrible.
There was a reality show Boys and Girls Alone that put kids in charge of themselves. The boys group in particular quickly degenerated into bullying and chaos, there were no major injuries though they were being observed and adults would intervene if safety was at risk (and presumably the kids knew that)
40 years ago I had to study Lord of the Flies fore my English Lit “O-Level” (the English external exams at 16 of the time now replaced by GCSEs), the syllabus consisted of a novel, a play and a a number of poems which varied by year (my play was The Crucible which was unusual in that most year it was a Shakespear play and most of the previous novels were also from pre 1900)
Certainly it is. Where on earth did you get that idea/ My Favorite book- and film series- is LotR.
Somehow you have taken upon yourself to argue with me over a personal opinion. I dislike Lord of the Flies. I also dislike hot peppers, modern slaver film, and the trump administration. Do you want to try and change my opinion of those? Why do I have to justify my opinion? You are getting out of hand here.
If you say that, people may try and change your opinion. Apparently, you MUST love this book. No other opinion is allowed.
Let’s just set aside the “pure” so we’re left with Fantasy, which still includes Narnia, LotR, and almost every Twilight Zone.
Let’s first try to define Fantasy - a broad and versatile concept. It’s first a story with magic and mythical elements, “daydreaming” or constructed ideas or scenarios that diverge from consensus reality.
So that would clearly cover Narnia and LotR. The Honeymooners TV show (Fiction) might be slightly hyperbolic over literal, yet quite believable. I’m at a loss to think of a Twilight Zone where nothing supernatural, fantastic, or not following the laws of physics occurs. To call it fantasy misses many other elements that are mixed in science fiction, horror, suspense, psychological drama, and yes, fantasy.
So LotF has a group of children evacuating a warzone. The plane crashes near an island in the Pacific. The pilot and none of the adults survived, unfortunately.
We’re okay so far on plausibility (versus fantasy)?
The older boys help the younger ones get to shore. I forget the success rate, yet we’re already having a day not replete with miracles, so let’s say not everyone. The old boys are heartened that help is on the way and, being British, share their pride that this will all work out well.
If the book ends there or a week later, like the much smaller group of Tonga maroonees, there’s not much there, there.
British schools, especially, have a hierarchy fairly well set. I believe in the 1990 remake, the (American) group is young Marines or such, already ranked and regimented.
Relationships sour, friends become enemies and you have a little war on a little island.
Fantasy? Ok…
That things do not go quite as well as they could would be no surprise to anyone who’s read/seen Serling’s “The Monsters are Due On Maple Street.”
Prologue: >
ALIEN #1: Understand the procedure now? Just stop a few of their machines and radios and telephones and lawn mowers… throw them into darkness for a few hours, and then you just sit back and watch the pattern.
ALIEN #2: And this pattern is always the same?
ALIEN #1: With few variations. They pick the most dangerous enemy they can find… and it’s themselves . All we need do is sit back… and watch.
ALIEN #2: Then I take it this place… this Maple Street … is not an exception.
So- you like Lord of the Flies? I do not. See- perfectly valid opposing opinions.
Moderating:
Hey, the topic of the thread is The Lord of the Flies. Not “what is fantasy”. Nor DrDeth’s reading preferences.
Thanks.
Not a book that was very formative. I read Serling’s Screenplay for “The Monsters…” and saw the show before reading this one. I believe one of the remakes removes the Alien Prologue and much of the Cold War fears of the original.
Yet I reckon I can say, “I once agreed with DocD!”
This is the purpose of a discussion board, isn’t it?
Also, it is my belief that not all opinions are equal. This is the reason why I mentioned the fact that I read the book a very long time ago. I only remember it vaguely. And I may have not been educated enough to appreciate certain aspects. Someone who is more familiar with the story and especially a literary professional may express a more educated opinion than mine.
But the most important thing is that a cinematic production is a distinct work of art. It may be based on a script derived from a book, but it will involve completely different techniques and the creative effort of various talented people, which will result in generating a unique animal. Given the professionalism that BBC often shows, I tend to believe that their Lord of the Flies will be worth watching (although I may never watch it myself).
As dim of a view I have of humanity in general, I, and I believe Piaget, agree with you. (Piaget logged a lot of hours studying how children organize themselves and interact in various activities without adult guidance.) Here during recess, the kids divide themselves into groups depending on what activity interests them, and then they run themselves. Recess monitors basically just stand around.