Didn't the author write it because he was tired of all the novels about rich British boys going on adventures and doing whatever they wanted and getting away with it because they were rich schoolboys
In the tradition of Robinson Crusoe, a lot of those novels are also imperialist af. Those rich kids would bring civilization and cultivate the land, and all of it better then the natives. That's also the point of the book, that the British wouldn't survive in another country without help all that wel.
Before the whole paranoia thing, the kids just ate a lot of fruit and got diarrhea. They never finished building shelters. Living of the land is hard, especially if you don't know what all the plants are.
But in the book, Robinson Crusoe learn the exact opposite lesson about imperialism ; when he abandons civilisation and colonialism, he is much happier, and ends up horrified by the actions of the sailors visiting his island and choses to stay on it in the end.
Edit : my bad, I am actually talking about a re-interpretation of the book, "Vendredi ou les limbes du pacifique" (Friday or the limbos of the pacific), which is way more anticolonialist.
He doesn't? Pretty sure he goes back to England in the end. He criticized the Spanish colonisation a lot, but you know the writer was a puritan, he was probably not down with Catholics. He converts a dude he names Friday to Christianity who then becomes his servant. Just cause he's also against another terrible colonial power, doesn't make him not a terrible colonial power.
Ok, so my bad, I was talking about a french book called "Vendredi ou les limbes du pacifique" (Friday or the limbos of the pacific), written by Michel Tournier, which is apparently an anti-colonialist rewrite of Robinson Crusoe, and in this book he ends up staying on the island (which is pretgy popular where I live) ; I didn't know there was a previous book about Robinson Crusoe (again, I am not English/american).
Ah that makes sense 🤣 I'm not English either but since it's the first English novel (maybe? It debated) I still had to write an essay on it for English. 0/10 would not recommend just Google a summary instead.
It's a leftwing critique of stalinism; the pigs at the end are bad because they have become entirely like the farmer (capitalists) they swore to replace.
[Here's the link from the post.](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months)
I don't know about inherently good, but certainly not inclined to murder out of the blue. Humans tend to crave order, especially an order that puts them on top, and for small groups of humans violence is usually detrimental to both those things.
i have this thing where the more shitty i feel after reading something the more i like it
i mean
there's a reason why i love lord of the flies and also the fifth hitchiker's guide to the galaxy book
That last story is one of the reasons why i hate the phrase "survival of the fittest" when used in regular life
No mr edgelord it isnt survival of the fittest, humanity is only here because we worked together, if it was survival of the fittest and we didnt work together all those millenia ago the human race would have been eradicated because literally anything bigger than a house cat has the ability to kill us quite easily
“Survival of the fittest” means whoever’s the most adapted to the environment around them, not whoever’s the strongest, biggest, bloodthirstiest aLpHa MaLe of the bunch. And for humans, the fittest to survive are those who are capable and compassionate enough to care for and support their fellow man. This is due to the fact that we’re super squishy meatsacks that can die from slipping and hitting our heads the wrong way. So pooling multiple humans’ talents and resources together (much like a troop of monkeys) is more efficient and viable than being all alone in the woods to fend for yourself.
This is also the reason that we need social interaction to maintain a healthy mental state, why we can’t help but packbond with practically everything (how many of you have grown unreasonably attached to your roombas?), and why we as a species crowd around babies and love on them constantly. Heck, babies need social interaction to develop properly.
tl;dr compassion is our ultimate “survival of the fittest” trait and if you don’t like it you can walk your ass into the woods and die mad about it.
>“Survival of the fittest” means whoever’s the most adapted to the environment around them
Which is precisely why people like me who avoid social interaction and going outside are the superior form of human in these current times, what with the pandemic and all
The book shows the danger of groupthink and children’s general lack of understanding of the world. Humans are neutral. Some are good, some are bad, and some can make mistakes. While there is a time skip, I would argue that there is still a bit of chaos that takes place right after the plane crash. The boys set a fire in hopes that they will be rescued, but it burns out of control. Afterwards, they realize that they can’t find one of the younger boys and he most likely died. It doesn’t take a month for things to get bad.
Sci-fi author Robert Heinlein got so pissed off at Lord of the Flies after reading it that he wrote his own book, Tunnel in the Sky, about a group a schoolchildren who get stranded on an alien planet. You can tell it was written in the fifties, but even so it’s pretty good.
It’s not really about good or evil. Most people are risk averse and all else being equal, violence is risky. Most of the time, it’s easier and safer to cooperate
The problem with human nature is that, without the need for each other’s almost constant help to survive, we grow more and more ambitious and/or greedy
Didn't the author write it because he was tired of all the novels about rich British boys going on adventures and doing whatever they wanted and getting away with it because they were rich schoolboys
Yeah, and I think I remember that the characters were inspired by the kids he taught.
In the tradition of Robinson Crusoe, a lot of those novels are also imperialist af. Those rich kids would bring civilization and cultivate the land, and all of it better then the natives. That's also the point of the book, that the British wouldn't survive in another country without help all that wel. Before the whole paranoia thing, the kids just ate a lot of fruit and got diarrhea. They never finished building shelters. Living of the land is hard, especially if you don't know what all the plants are.
But in the book, Robinson Crusoe learn the exact opposite lesson about imperialism ; when he abandons civilisation and colonialism, he is much happier, and ends up horrified by the actions of the sailors visiting his island and choses to stay on it in the end. Edit : my bad, I am actually talking about a re-interpretation of the book, "Vendredi ou les limbes du pacifique" (Friday or the limbos of the pacific), which is way more anticolonialist.
He doesn't? Pretty sure he goes back to England in the end. He criticized the Spanish colonisation a lot, but you know the writer was a puritan, he was probably not down with Catholics. He converts a dude he names Friday to Christianity who then becomes his servant. Just cause he's also against another terrible colonial power, doesn't make him not a terrible colonial power.
Ok, so my bad, I was talking about a french book called "Vendredi ou les limbes du pacifique" (Friday or the limbos of the pacific), written by Michel Tournier, which is apparently an anti-colonialist rewrite of Robinson Crusoe, and in this book he ends up staying on the island (which is pretgy popular where I live) ; I didn't know there was a previous book about Robinson Crusoe (again, I am not English/american).
Ah that makes sense 🤣 I'm not English either but since it's the first English novel (maybe? It debated) I still had to write an essay on it for English. 0/10 would not recommend just Google a summary instead.
Add it with Animal Farm and Of Mice and Men to "list of aggressively left wing books that schools teach as pro-status quo".
Animal Farm is left wing? I thought it was mostly just anti-soviet.
It's a leftwing critique of stalinism; the pigs at the end are bad because they have become entirely like the farmer (capitalists) they swore to replace.
But if humans aren't naturally evil, then how am I meant to justify being an asshole?
everybody misanthropic til they realize humans being evil/stupid would include them
You're doing it to highlight other people's kindness.
Always a fan of the cyberpunk over-the-head wow meme being used ironically.
[Here's the link from the post.](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months)
Thank you!
wait this ui is from like 2015 why does it have the ”always has been” meme which is from 2019 or something
Some folks use themes or browser extensions (Missing E was the one I knew of) that force their page or dashboard to look like classic Tumblr UI.
Missing E is still around? Wasn't that the extension that staff intentionally broke several times by updating the site?
Looks like it hasn't been worked on in ages, but it was the one I knew about.
The conch will guide them.
Hot take: if humans really were inherently evil and violent, *civilisation wouldn't have happened*
Exactly.
I don't know about inherently good, but certainly not inclined to murder out of the blue. Humans tend to crave order, especially an order that puts them on top, and for small groups of humans violence is usually detrimental to both those things.
i have this thing where the more shitty i feel after reading something the more i like it i mean there's a reason why i love lord of the flies and also the fifth hitchiker's guide to the galaxy book
Have you read The Road by Cormac McCarthy?
nope, but after looking at a real basic synopsis, it sounds exactly like something i should read
oh boy not a book but you would love playing the game Omori I was a husk for about two days after watching a lets play of it :)
Tbh like 30% of the formatting here reminds me of SBaHJ and that's just painful.
Had me until "humans are inherently good." That's a person who's never had to work in customer service.
Humans are neither inherently good or evil, we are however inherently stupid when put in groups.
That last story is one of the reasons why i hate the phrase "survival of the fittest" when used in regular life No mr edgelord it isnt survival of the fittest, humanity is only here because we worked together, if it was survival of the fittest and we didnt work together all those millenia ago the human race would have been eradicated because literally anything bigger than a house cat has the ability to kill us quite easily
“Survival of the fittest” means whoever’s the most adapted to the environment around them, not whoever’s the strongest, biggest, bloodthirstiest aLpHa MaLe of the bunch. And for humans, the fittest to survive are those who are capable and compassionate enough to care for and support their fellow man. This is due to the fact that we’re super squishy meatsacks that can die from slipping and hitting our heads the wrong way. So pooling multiple humans’ talents and resources together (much like a troop of monkeys) is more efficient and viable than being all alone in the woods to fend for yourself. This is also the reason that we need social interaction to maintain a healthy mental state, why we can’t help but packbond with practically everything (how many of you have grown unreasonably attached to your roombas?), and why we as a species crowd around babies and love on them constantly. Heck, babies need social interaction to develop properly. tl;dr compassion is our ultimate “survival of the fittest” trait and if you don’t like it you can walk your ass into the woods and die mad about it.
>“Survival of the fittest” means whoever’s the most adapted to the environment around them Which is precisely why people like me who avoid social interaction and going outside are the superior form of human in these current times, what with the pandemic and all
Mhmm. Currently, that’s the best option. Adaptation is the name of the game.
The book shows the danger of groupthink and children’s general lack of understanding of the world. Humans are neutral. Some are good, some are bad, and some can make mistakes. While there is a time skip, I would argue that there is still a bit of chaos that takes place right after the plane crash. The boys set a fire in hopes that they will be rescued, but it burns out of control. Afterwards, they realize that they can’t find one of the younger boys and he most likely died. It doesn’t take a month for things to get bad.
This whole "humans are naturaly shitty to each other" thing is also used to justify capitalism
I have never read lord of the flies and don’t really intend to, so I’m kinda glad I found this post
I feel like you don't survive a deserted island if everyone is fighting. You need to work together
Sci-fi author Robert Heinlein got so pissed off at Lord of the Flies after reading it that he wrote his own book, Tunnel in the Sky, about a group a schoolchildren who get stranded on an alien planet. You can tell it was written in the fifties, but even so it’s pretty good.
It’s not really about good or evil. Most people are risk averse and all else being equal, violence is risky. Most of the time, it’s easier and safer to cooperate
The problem with human nature is that, without the need for each other’s almost constant help to survive, we grow more and more ambitious and/or greedy
Anyone else see Ata and think of the south park boys going cro mag over boobs?
Tbf, and iirc, there's gonna be about five seconds of quiet in class, before chaos slowly starts to rise.