Debunking Misinterpretations of 'Lord of the Flies'

899 Words2 Pages

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. …show more content…

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

Open Document