am i a hunter , or am i not ?

Of course i understand!!

I actually redesigned my book Ralph design just because I liked Winston's portrayal of Ralph in the show so much ^^

Es el mejor

tldr jimon oregano

back like the flash for this. ok so lets look at the main themes and writing process behind lotf and why it feels weird (at least to me idk) in comparison to the book.

jack thorne considers lotf to be a joint piece with adolescence. this series is known for critiquing how young boys fall into the manosphere (andrew tate type stuff) and the consequences (i have Qualms with how thats handled). at its core, its about masculinity and youth. these concepts are carried over to bbc's lord of the flies.

according to the esquire article (above) one of the "main interpretations" of the book is that humans are all "savage" at their core and need the structures of society to stay in line. golding supposedly intended this as a critique to coral island and based the boys off of who he taught in his classroom. and he pitted them against each other. lmao.

jack thorne believes he is doing the opposite of this interpretation via the "nature vs. nurture" narrative. he pins the ways the characters are from their parents and 1950s british upbringing. this interpretation is fine? its not revolutionary, for my english unit "nature vs. nurture" was a major topic. these 2 interpretations are presented as 2 opposing topics but thats not possible because Everything is Connected.

because that point is missed, it impacts the quality of the writing. theres no intersectionality. a big part of lotf is the cultural anthropological lens that golding attempts to explore and has yet to be explored in modern adaptations. in other words, the cultural background of england in the 1950s is the priority and still framed as superior in something supposedly a critique of that culture.

thorne acknowledges this in the interview but never in the series. the irl version of lotf turned out fine because according to him, the time frame and societal structure allowed for a more positive outcome on the island. 1950s british culture is the reason the boys are the way they are, but that is never shown. all thats seen are the consequences of living in that kind of space.

the colonialism and racism and white supremacist ideology are the backing behind the way 1950s british boys treat gender roles, their role in a civilization, etc. but these points are omitted for a type of "sub story" about masculinity and gender roles. you cant make a pizza without dough. bbc lotf is all sauce no dough. a lot of seasoning you dont really need but sure its fine whatever like jimon oregano. im getting off track

the esquire article using the phrasing "the bad code... that leads to all out war... is not embedded in the boys DNA." i do not know what the intention behind this sentence is. but that is real close to bioessentialism (belief that genetics determines personality/character traits) and we all know where that leads.

anyways my main point which took way too many words to get to is that lotf is criticizing toxic masculinity culture without acknowledging the eurocentric racist ideology it comes from and the eurocentric racist ideology lord of the flies the book is fundamentally also based on

Frankly I've been a fan of your analysis ever since I entered the fandom.

I've also noticed that many people have very different takes of what each boy represents and the symbolism of each character.

But I'm interested to know what's your take on what each boy represents and their symbolism.

hi ari!! sorry it took me so long to answer! this post is going to be kind of bullshit because im not as hyperfixated as i used to be, literally.

i think my opinions on what the boys represent is kind of basic but some of them are a little far fetched. ive spoken about it before of my opinions on the religious symbolism (which spans from the idea that simon is jesus) but i dont know enough about religion to fully expand this idea. however, i think in this case piggy/roger would be abel/cain and jack would be judas.

in a political sense, i find that the idea of ralph and jack representing a two party system is kind of,, nationalist american bullshit because it doesnt have to be that way. but i think jack and ralph more so represent tyranny/ a simplified version of leadership while ralph represents the true complexity that comes with trying to put someone in a leadership position. a lot of ralphs character revolves around his inability to properly lead and his failure in regards to jack, who thinks hes doing everything right.

people frequently speak about a good vs. evil conversation here, and i do see what they mean. im personally of the opinion that simon did nothing wrong and i feel like people grasp for straws to hold him accountable for.. something. i think simon, piggy, and the mulberry boy represent that the people in our society who fall are oftentimes the ones who have better intentions and less power. the book heavily emphasizes that jack and roger only lead because they're evil enough to.

heres a list of some themes i think the boys represent:

simon - purity, piety, disability, goodness, prophecy, i think simon is meant to be the one who was right all along. hes a real tragedy

piggy - obviously intelligence but also disability, i see him as a form of ignorance at times too and tunnel vision.

ralph - leadership, animalistic tendencies, prey, selflessness.

jack - predator, leadership, also animalistic tendencies, selfishness, jack also leans towards a more manipulative style of leadership than roger

roger - henchmen type guy. hes "the most evil one" but hes also the most controlled and thoughtful of his actions, he and piggy both represent children who rely on leadership heavily.

im lowk interested in writing a fic about how he attempts to manage life while hiding his issues. bonus points if he's trying to reconnect with jack and all his psychosis gets worse.