Annotated Bibliography: Lord of the Flies
Annotated Bibliography: Lord of the Flies
Editor’s Note: This annotated bibliography was developed in conjunction with my paper, Literature Review: Lord of the Flies, and includes select sources discussing Golding’s novel.
Anderson, David. “Golding's Difficult Christianity.” Bloom's Guides: Lord of the Flies New Edition, edited by Harold Bloom, Infobase Publishing, 2010, pp. 55–58.
Anderson states that Golding’s Lord of the Flies does not simply create a theological message, but creates a theological experience for readers. This theme of theological experience reigns throughout his literary works. It challenges readers to look for new theological solutions. Anderson states that Golding recognizes that Christian Original Sin results from a distancing from God, rather than an incomplete evolutionary development. This distance, or absence from God, results in irrational fear that causes murder, cannibalism, madness, and despair. Anderson believes that it is only when man recognizes their Original Sin that they are capable of saving themselves and others from the dangers that man would otherwise exercise.
Anderson offers an analysis of the overall messages in Lord of the Flies and doesn’t provide specific character or storyline development analysis. He does, however, offer a theological analysis that differs from every other theological analysis I’ve read. He also has solid supporting evidence for his claims.
Anjum, Fatima, et al. “Loss of Civilization and Innocence in ‘Lord of the Flies.’” Language in India, vol. 12, no. 8, Aug. 2012, pp. 123-130.
Anjum claims that Golding’s text represents the innate evil in man when left unchecked by society and surrounding authority figures. She contrasts Golding’s message of man being inherently evil with philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s theory that man is inherently good and only becomes evil when corrupted by society. Anjum uses numerous examples to support her claim that the characters in Lord of the Flies represent good and evil, as well as their degeneration into savagery as their old life in civilization becomes more and more of a distant memory. She argues that society is responsible for keeping man’s behavior civilized and teaching man to act rationally. When society disappears and man is left on his own, the innocence and civility that society worked to indoctrinate into man also disappears.
Anjum is Indian, and I think there are language and interpretation obstacles that made her critical analysis seem unfocused in parts. Overall, I think an English-speaking reader can understand it fairly easily. Her claim is supported by examples in the story as well. Due to the language issues, however, the quality of Anjum’s argument is diminished a bit.
Baker, James R. “Golding and Huxley: The Fables of Demonic Possession.” Twentieth Century Literature, vol. 46, no. 3, 2000, pp. 311–327.
Baker reexamines the idea that Golding should only be considered a pessimist and a Christian moralist based on Lord of the Flies. He claims that Golding’s childhood and early interest in science influenced his writing considerably. Baker initially interviewed Golding with the intention of proving that Greek mythology was his main influence, but walked away from his research with the conclusion that science, and rebelling against this rationalist mentality, was the also a strong influence in Golding’s writing.
Baker presented a well-researched hypothesis that provides a new insight into Golding’s writing. While this scientific influence or rebellion against the rational thought may have been unconscious, Baker’s essay offers a New Criticism type of approach to unearthing meaning within Lord of the Flies.
Baker, James R. “Why It's No Go.” Critical Essays on William Golding, edited by James R. Baker, Boston: G. K. Hall, 1988, pp. 22–31.
Baker believes that critics who have previously analyzed Lord of the Flies have ignored or failed to acknowledge Golding’s interest in Greek literature. Baker believes this interest influenced Golding’s writing more than any other influence because the similarities in storyline and theme are significant. He focuses his analysis on The Bacchae, a Greek myth that tells the story of the fall of democracy and society due to the irrational fear of man. Baker then examines the theological representations of Golding’s characters and the events on the island. He states that the parallels to life on the island and the Garden of Eden are obvious. Unlike so many critics before him, Baker does not view Golding as a Christian moralist; rather, Baker believes the obvious parallels between Lord of the Flies and the story of Genesis are a result of Golding satirizing Christian morals. He states that the Biblical similarities are more accurately aligned with the story of the Biblical Apocalypse.
This essay is a different theological interpretation of Golding’s Lord of the Flies, and Baker includes tangible evidence to support his claims. Although it was originally written in 1963, the unique view of this interpretation, coupled with Baker’s significant credibility earned as a Lord of the Flies critic, I think it’s important to include this essay in my literature review.
Basirat, Sasan, and Fatima Farhoudi. “Lord of the Flies and Implications of Tutelage.” International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, vol. 42, 8 Oct. 2014, pp. 189–199.
Basirat and Farhoudi claim that, as so many critics and Golding himself have noted, Golding attempts to show that man is evil through his character and storyline development in Lord of the Flies. They believe, however, that there is more to the story of human savagery than a simple lack of balance between good and evil. They discuss other prominent critics’ claims regarding the degradation of the boys’ island community, but ultimately make the claim that the boys’ savage behavior is a result of a lack of tutelage, which they still so desperately crave. Basirat and Farhoudi examine Freud’s group mentality development and the reasons behind children and adults’ desires to relinquish control of their lives to an authority figure—even if it is an authority figure that has evil intentions. They also examine the resulting communities formed by Ralph and Jack, and how a group-centered leadership approach compares to a tyrannical leader.
Basirat and Farhoudi’s essay is a recent article that applies the two theories that Golding said were not applicable to his test: Marxism and psychoanalysis. Their intersectional approach to Lord of the Flies, however, provides a thorough and credible analysis of the text supported with many textual examples to support their claims.
Chellappan, K. “Vision and Structure in Lord of the Flies: A Semiotic Approach.” Bloom's Modern Critical Interpretations: William Golding's Lord of the Flies, edited by Harold Bloom, Infobase Publishing, New York, 2008, pp. 3–10.
Chellappan discusses the signifier and signified in Golding’s Lord of the Flies, a literary work that she views as a simple, yet profound, tale of becoming an adult that mirrors ancient themes. Chellappan notes that the boys of the island create language in their new situation as much as they create a new situation through language. She discusses the conch as the major sign throughout the novel. Chellappan notes that signification is a human act, so even though the conch has an overt sense of neutrality, it holds different meanings for the different characters. Those different meanings parallel the id, ego, and superego in Jack, Ralph, and Piggy, respectively. She also discusses the signifier of fire and the sea with many of the same Freudian foundations, but relates them to the beastie on the island. Chellappan concludes by stating that the boys make the island both real and unreal through their use of signifiers and the significance they attach to each of them.
Chellappan uses established psychoanalytical foundations to analyze Golding’s text in a message that is similar to other critics, but more thorough in its use of academic psychoanalysis tenets. The examples used to support the thesis are distinct and logical, which makes Chellappan’s essay feel solid and credible.
Crawford, Paul. “Literature of Atrocity.” Politics and History in William Golding: The World Turned Upside Down, University of Missouri Press, 2002, pp. 50-79.
Crawford discusses the history, both social and political, in Britain during the time that Golding wrote Lord of the Flies and The Inheritors. He claims that Golding’s literary work is far more than a statement about the English being complacent in World War II, but rather how their class system works to further divide and exclude “outsiders” from their society. Crawford also makes the claim that the characters in Lord of the Flies represent the horrific violence suffered by the Jewish people at the hands of the Nazis in World War II. He examines other societal issues in Britain during the time Golding wrote Lord of the Flies, and parallels them to the events and boys’ actions on the island, showing how the story’s events are influenced by Marxist ideologies that define authority and class hierarchy, and Western privilege.
Crawford provided a thorough analysis of political history in Britain around the time Golding wrote Lord of the Flies. His historical and political analysis offered additional insight and alternative interpretations regarding Marxist literary theory.
Dickson, L L. The Modern Allegories of William Golding. Tampa: University of South Florida Press, 1990.
Dickson discusses four interpretations and allegories within Lord of the Flies: the theological lens that examines man as inherently evil and full of sin; the psychoanalytical lens that highlights the id, ego, and superego through Jack, Ralph, and Piggy; the archetypal characters that represent scapegoats and the Christ figure; and the Marxism lens that provides an interpretation by examining Jack and Ralph as representative of totalitarianism and democracy. Dickson uses imagery analysis to support his literary interpretations. He also presents interpretive arguments against other literary critics.
Dickson’s analysis is thorough and supported with close reading analysis and historical facts. All of his points are well represented, some of which offer a new interpretation of Golding’s work.
Fitzgerald, John F., and John R Kayser. “Golding's ‘Lord of the Flies’: Pride as Original Sin.” Studies in the Novel, vol. 24, no. 1, 1992, pp. 78–88.
Fitzgerald and Kayser state that Golding’s Lord of the Flies includes a central theme of man’s irrational fear. They acknowledge the similarities between the events and characters on Golding’s island and the people and events in the Garden of Eden. Fitzgerald and Kayser then claim that Golding’s thematic approach to his writing is not to be reduced to those two parallels. They discuss Golding’s interest in Egyptian mythology, many of which have Biblical similarities, and analyze the numerous similarities between Egyptian mythical characters, stories, and events that unfold on the island in Lord of the Flies. They discuss the concept of scientific humanism, and how it precludes the boys, with the exception of Simon, from seeing their individual inherent evil. Fitzgerald and Kayser conclude by stating that mankind will continue to allow their evil to freefall until they are capable of recognizing it in themselves and putting an end to it.
Although this article focuses on the similarities between Egyptian mythology and Lord of the Flies as much as the Biblical similarities, the authors tie in the Egyptian mythology similarities to the Bible quite frequently. Therefore, even though they do not provide a blatant comparison to the Bible throughout their article, there are both direct and indirect Biblical comparisons to Lord of the Flies. Additionally, they provide detailed a Biblical analysis to support their claims.
George, Jose, and R.L.N. Raju. “Personal Accountability to Evil in William Golding's Lord of the Flies.” Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 6, no. 6, Nov. 2015, pp. 174-178.
George and Raju focus on the idea that man is inherently evil, as stated by Golding, and apply that theory to Golding’s Lord of the Flies. At a time when war was prevalent throughout the world, George and Raju note that Golding was vocal about his disdain for humankind and their inability to avoid war and the atrocities committed during war. They further attempt to define Golding’s thoughts and feelings beyond what was documented in Golding’s speeches and essays, and show how Golding integrated those proposed feelings into Lord of the Flies. They provide numerous examples of the theological themes of good versus evil, as well as the ease with which man’s inherent evil or sinful nature comes to light when left unmonitored by society and the imposition of rules and order. George and Raju also discuss the theological theme of the Christ figure, as represented by Simon.
This essay was published recently and includes a foundational analysis of the theological theme in Lord of the Flies. George and Raju’s inclusion of proposed authorial intent seems a bit outdated, but they do work to provide textual evidence to support their claims and bring credibility to them.
Golding, William. “Lord of the Flies as Fable.” Readings on Lord of the Flies, Greenhaven Press, 1997, pp. 40–46.
Golding’s essay was originally part of a speech given in 1962, in which he discusses his then intentions with writing Lord of the Flies. He discusses his belief at the time that man is inherently evil. He wanted to send a message to the leaders of Britain that the horrific events that happened in Germany could happen anywhere, and they should not believe themselves to be above such events materializing in their country. He acknowledges that many interpretations of his work have been published, and that he has no control of his literary work once it is published, but he is steadfast in his intent with his writing.
I think this is an important essay to include in my literature review because it is Golding’s first-hand and conscious articulation of what he intended when he wrote Lord of the Flies. I think interpretations that differ from his intentions are still quite possible because Golding could have unconsciously included elements that were possibly in direct contrast to his stated beliefs (e.g., anti-psychological and anti-Marx).
Gulbin, Suzanne. “Parallels and Contrasts in ‘Lord of the Flies’ and ‘Animal Farm.’” The English Journal, vol. 55, no. 1, Jan. 1966.
Gulbin discusses the similarities and differences between Animal Farm and Lord of the Flies. She focuses on the storyline and character development and overlying Marxist and political themes of both literary works. Due to the vast amount of similarities in character and story development between the two literary pieces, Gulbin hypothesizes that Orwell influenced Golding’s writing. However, Gulbin points out one stark difference in the authors’ ultimate message to readers: rather than leaving readers with a message of powerlessness that includes a sense of hopelessness, as Orwell did in Animal Farm, Golding leaves readers with a message designed to inspire them to act out against the state of the world, which, at the time, was on the brink of nuclear war.
Although this article analyzes Lord of the Flies using Marxism theory, it was published in 1966, which is more than 30 years ago. Additional research may have since been published to support or dispel her hypothesis of Orwell’s influence on Golding’s writing; however, I did not find any other critical analyses that addressed this particular subject.
Kruger, Arnold. “A New Look at the Character of Simon.” Bloom's Guides: Lord of the Flies New Edition, edited by Harold Bloom, Infobase Publishing, 2010, pp. 60-62.
Kruger acknowledges that most theological critics interpret Simon as an allegorical figure to Christ or a saint due to his saintly and sacrificial actions or his death at the hands of his fellow schoolmates. Anderson argues that Simon does not represent Christ, but rather, he represents Simon Peter, one of Christ’s apostles. Anderson supports his claim with a number of passages and events from the Bible that closely resemble events from Lord of the Flies. He also argues that Simon’s appearance and personality mirror Simon Peter. Anderson’s final supporting evidence is the death of Simon Peter, which was similar to Simon’s death, and how the last words of both Simons were in reference to “the man on the hill.” Anderson then insinuates that the fallen pilot in Lord of the Flies, and not Simon, represents Christ.
Kruger’s evidence to support his claims is likely disputed by other theological critics (that’s my hypothesis; I have no evidence to show that other critics directly dispute Kruger’s claims), but his interpretation of Simon utilized fairly detailed Biblical knowledge to support his claims. Kruger’s claims also differed from so many other theological critics’ interpretations that I thought this new and lone interpretation was important to include.
Levitt, Leon. “Trust the Tale: A Second Reading of ‘Lord of the Flies.’” The English Journal, vol. 58, no. 4, Apr. 1969, pp. 521–533.
Levitt acknowledges that most critics who tackle the theme of evil in Lord of the Flies adopt the idea that man is inherently evil. Levitt, however, takes a new approach to analyzing Lord of the Flies, and relies on a close reading of the text. Through his close reading, he claims that, unlike the many critics before him, the evil that is exhibited by the characters in Golding’s text is a direct result of Western culture imposing their ideology on children, rather than an inherent evil found in the individual man. He does not believe that the issue with the boys revolves around an innocence that is lost on the island because that innocence never truly existed due to the Western ideologies imposed upon the boys from the start of their lives. He compares the characteristics of the boys on the island to those of the general population of the Western world. He then singles out Simon and Piggy as examples of vulnerable population segments that are susceptible to the colonizing ways of Western culture, and ones who will not survive the powerful force of the Western culture. Levitt concludes by stating that he believes Golding was consciously aware of his intended message that Western culture is evil, rather than the individual man.
This article was published in 1969, so it is slightly older; however, Kruger’s interpretation of evil’s origins in Lord of the Flies contrasts so distinctly from so many other theological critics that Levitt’s essay remains a solid contender in the gamut of theological interpretations.
Lipschutz, Ronnie D. “States & Regulations.” Political Economy, Capitalism, and Popular Culture, Rowman & Littlefield, 2009, pp. 99-118.
Lipschutz examines Lord of the Flies through a political lens and focuses on Marxist literary theory. Through this lens, Lipschutz shows that the breakdown in of society on the island did not occur due to a lack of authoritative leadership in the form of adults; rather, the breakdown occurred because of the British class system and ideological division of labor that was already instilled in the boys prior to their arrival on the island. Lipschutz discusses important British historical events that led to class creation and division of labor, as well as the current day class system that is perpetuated in Britain’s school system. He also discusses the parallels of events in the story to social events that happened and continue in Britain.
Lipschutz’ analysis is one of the most thorough Marxist literary analyses that I found. His background in politics, social issues, and history are clearly evidenced in this chapter. He provides numerous supporting points to his claims—which I’m guessing was done, in part, to combat Golding’s claims that Marxist theory was not applicable to Lord of the Flies—in an impressive attempt to create a persuasive argument.
Piven, J.S. “Civilizing Massacre: Lord of the Flies as Parable of the Invention of Enemies, Violence, and Sacrifice.” Free Associations: Psychoanalysis and Culture, Media, Groups Politics, vol. 61, May 2011.
Piven believes that Lord of the Flies is more complex than the typical interpretation of it representing the idea that man is evil. He provides an interpretation of Lord of the Flies using multiple literary lenses: sociological, psychoanalytical, historical, and theological. His analysis is largely sociological and psychoanalytical and attempts to provide explanation for the extreme cruelty and violence that overtakes the group of boys, rather than just a few boys on the island. Dickson also discusses the how all four theories, and evidence supporting those theories, intersect to add to the complexity of this literature that is so commonly viewed as simplistic.
Piven offers an in-depth look into why the boys on the island became so violent. He connects the social, psychological, historical, and theological theories as he examines why human nature allows itself to become the violent being that it so profusely proclaims to abhor. The intersection of theories that Dickson provides is impressive in its uniqueness and completeness.
Rosenfield, Claire. “Men of a Smaller Growth: A Psychological Analysis of William Golding's ‘Lord of the Flies.’” Literature and Psychology, vol. 11.4, 1961, pp. 93–101. Autumn.
Rosenfield discusses how Golding’s Lord of the Flies parallels Freudian theory throughout the storyline. From Piggy representing the ego or the adult and civilized world filled with rational rules and order, to no child being innocent, to public ceremonies of sacrifice, Freud’s theories are alive in Golding’s characters. She analyzes characters and event in the book to support her claims that without a repressive authority figure, such as the boys’ parents, the boys on the island leave behind their old societal rules and begin to form new ones that are based in savagery. She believes that Golding’s text provides more than the basic message of man is evil or no child is ever innocent; rather, Rosenfield believes Golding’s text represents the idea that a world run by men who choose war is irrational and primitive, and it only serves to foster an environment that encourages children to become similarly irrational and primitive adults.
Although this essay was published in 1961, it serves as one of the most influential psychoanalytical critiques of Golding’s text. Rosenfield provided a solid argument with multiple textual references to support her claims, as well as a solid foundation of applicable psychoanalytical tenets.
Spitz, David. “Power and Authority: An Interpretation of Golding's ‘Lord of the Flies.’” The Antioch Review, vol. 30, no. 1, 1970, pp. 21–33.
Spitz examines the roles of power and authority in Lord of the Flies through theological and political lenses. Spitz shows the parallels between Biblical figures and events and the story of the boys on the island. While he recognizes that many critics believe Golding proved his case that man is inherently evil, Spitz states that quite the opposite is true. Through a Marxist analysis that examines ideologies in all people, Spitz believes that it is impossible to prove an inherent evil does exist in mankind because no man is a blank slate unsocialized to their society’s ideologies.
Spitz’s article offers an intriguing examination and interpretation of the intersectional convergence of theological and Marxist literary theories of the story. Spitz’s argument is linear and well developed, offering a credible alternative to other critics’ political and theological analyses.
Sugimura, Yasunori. “Golding as a Psychological Novelist.” Kawauchi Review, vol. 5, Mar. 2006.
Sugimura focuses on the theoretical beliefs of psychological scholars such as Jacques Lacan, Julia Kristeva, and Jacques Derrida, among others, and applies those theories to Golding’s literary works. He states at the beginning of his essay that even though Golding made direct statements against Freud and psychology as reductionist, Sugimura believes that the theories and philosophies of Lacan, Kristeva, and Derrida can easily be applied to Golding’s literary work. Although Sugimura includes references to several of Golding’s literary works, he puts most of his focus on Lord of the Flies and begins by noting that according to Kristeva, any society that eradicates the semiotic will collapse because of the reciprocal violence inflicted on the aggressor as on the victim of the aggressor. He goes on to explain that this reciprocal violence is a result of the aggressor regressing to the mirror stage. Sugimura discusses Lacan’s concept of the infant’s desire for the womb and societal law creating a signification of symbolic order, which is witnessed with the island conch. He also notes Derrida’s différance concept and its application to the binaries presented in Golding’s literature.
Sugimura’s essay was published fairly recently and provides an analysis using the theories and tenets of leading psychological scholars. He worked to provide solid evidence that a psychoanalytical analysis of Lord of the Flies is, indeed, appropriate and should not be considered taboo, regardless of Golding’s statements to the contrary.
Van Vuuren, Marijke. “Good Grief: Lord of the Flies as a Post-War Rewriting of Salvation History.” Literator, vol. 25, no. 2, Aug. 2004, pp. 1–26.
Van Vuuren claims that Golding’s Lord of the Flies covers the entire Christian history, starting with creation, and going through the Fall, the problem of evil, the failure of law, the hope of salvation, and the mission of a Messiah figure and his return. She examines the parallels between Biblical imagery, people, and events and that of the island of boys, including the idea that the island represents both Heaven and Hell, man is inherently evil, Simon as the Christ-figure, and the symbolism of fire and water. Van Vuuren believes that Golding’s literary representation of creation and the Fall are a result of his time spent in the war and the atrocities he witnessed.
Van Vuuren offers a detailed analysis of Lord of the Flies and the Biblical representations and parallels that she believes are inherent within the story. Her chronicling of the story in a Biblical timeline format is a unique interpretation that many critics have not articulated.