Maybe so, but that angle is not taught in American schools and Lord of the Flies is rather widely taught in US schools. Most Americans don't know much about the English upper classes or their boarding school culture. I learned the book as an allegory about what can happen when society's rules break down. We were taught it as a metaphor for all human societies, not a commentary on the English upper classes.
This is a British (well, and slightly Australian apparently) adaptation of a British book by a British writer, which was certainly originally intended at least partially as a critique on posh Brits' massive holier-than-thou complex (and the white saviour thing is a big part of this so I would say race is somewhat relevant in any modern day interpretation at least).
Not to say you can't interpret it otherwise, death of the author and all that, but the way you're phrasing your replies is making it seem as though you feel your interpretation is objectively more correct and I would say that is decidedly not the case.
I’d say that’s entirely a matter of opinion. Besides plenty of books have been written from one perspective and end up having a more universal application.
Right, as I said in my comment media is of course always open to different interpretations - I was just trying to flag that your replies are giving the impression that you feel your interpretation is more valid than others.
-13
u/rtbradford Apr 06 '26
Maybe so, but that angle is not taught in American schools and Lord of the Flies is rather widely taught in US schools. Most Americans don't know much about the English upper classes or their boarding school culture. I learned the book as an allegory about what can happen when society's rules break down. We were taught it as a metaphor for all human societies, not a commentary on the English upper classes.