Debunking Misinterpretations of 'Lord of the Flies'

On the subject of Lord of The Flies, K. Olsen says “The boys play at controlling sea creatures and each other, and the naval officer who lands on the island to rescue the boys at first interprets their hunt for Ralph as an ordinary children’s game. This introduces an entirely new level of complexity into an already many-layered novel. Is the whole thing a game or not, the natural behavior of humankind (including children) or an imitation of the adult world?...The conch is not a symbol of authority but a boy’s version of a symbol of authority, serving the same purpose as a toy telephone. Until the arrival of the navy, there is no voice at the other end of the line. By the same token, the voting for chief, Ralph’s authority, the hunt, the kill, and the feast each follow the pattern of child’s play, as the boys imitate what their elders might do in similar circumstances. Each chapter reveals a new game or a new stage of the game.” However, this statement is completely erroneous.

Firstly, Olsen states that the conch “is not a symbol of authority but a boy’s version of a symbol of authority”.

Is that not still a symbol of authority? It only controls and is directed at a different audience, but still carries weight as a symbol of sovereignty. Olsen calls the shell a toy telephone, saying it serves the same purpose as one. The purpose of a toy telephone is to entertain, to pretend. The conch is not a plaything, a cheap object bought to ensure the delight of a child. No, the conch was used to keep order, to establish rules and a temporary society until the boys on the island were rescued. Adults only scoff at this because they believe children don’t have the maturity to keep order amongst themselves, and when they do in the book, the adults dismiss it as just a game. But the conch is not a game. It is a symbol of authority to keep order amid the boys on the

island.
Another statement from Olsen is that all that happens on the island follows the “pattern of child’s play.” They go on to say that “the boys imitate what their elders might do in similar circumstances.” The actions Ralph takes at the beginning of the book show responsibility, not child’s play. At first, maybe, when he jumps on the bathing pool and dives in the sand, pretending to be an airplane, but he quickly matures after the discovery of the conch. He does as an adult would do, sure, but he does so because that is the logical thing to do. Call all the others from the island to one spot and figure out what to do until the boys can be rescued. Any reasonable person would take those steps. Then, later in the book, when Jack and his group go almost savage, that isn’t a game. It stops being a game the moment it becomes a threat to the lives of others. It didn’t start as a game - Jack offered up his hunting skills for survival purposes, not to add to a role-play - and it sure didn’t finish as one. Sure, the hunters joked around a little, but that doesn’t make their entire job a game. The actually wanted to get meat for the group. The death of Simon, that in no way was a game. No game ends with murdering an innocent boy. In games, it’s all pretend. Simon’s death was not pretend. Nor Piggy’s. They were real, living boys who were brutally murdered by their fellow schoolboys. Is that a game? Do children regularly kill their classmates in the recess yard? No, which makes the actual act of killing very, very real. The boys are actually losing their sanity on the island. Ralph is actually rising up to keep order. Jack actually wants to hunt to provide food. None of it is a game, it’s very real.
In conclusion, Olsen is very wrong in his belief that both the conch is a plaything, and also that the events on the island were all just a game. They assumed that, because the children are the characters in the situation, everything is false to them, just a game. They didn’t give the children any credit, because they refused to believe they could be mature in their situation. They read the book, yes, but they didn’t read it. All they saw was what they wanted to see - the elements of the text that supported their ideas, and not anything else. Ralph, for example, it very obviously trying to lead the group of schoolboys for the purpose of staying together, safe, and sane. However, K. Olsen interprets this as just another game, a silly way of denying the small chance of rescue. Olsen ignores the glaring faults in their statement because they expect no faults in their statement. Olsen doesn’t believe that children can be mature when they need to be, and therefore sees the display of responsibility as just a form of amusement among the boys, who are desperately trying to push away the smothering fear of their fate in the form of light fun. However, Olsen is wrong, as the boys display completely normal behavior for humans marooned on an island. Order, crumbling into chaos, and the loss of sanity.