Tuesday 29 June 2010

Peter on Lord of the Flies, and Wikipedia

Since I've asked you to read it, it seems fair that I should also briefly introduce Lord of the Flies. Being one of the most read classics of modern English literature since it was published in 1954, there are a lot of websites with information on this novel. I thought that some of you might have had a look at the Wikipedia entry on William Golding's famous novel, so I also checked it out a few minutes ago. It isn't very good, being badly written and not very insightful; at least there is a warning at the top of that Wikipedia entry (2010).
However, one interesting piece of information in the Wikipedia entry is that the novel is not only a classic, but has been, like many other classics, very controversial ever since it was published. I'm not sure if it's been banned in as many schools and libraries as Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, but it has certainly upset a lot of people over the past 50 plus years. As we read it over the next 12 days, you might like to think about whether there should be any restrictions on the novel.

More relevant to us is the sentence: "The title of the book, in turn, has itself become a metaphor for a power struggle in a chaotic situation" (¶ 3), which I think it wrong. Even if it's right, the Wikipedia author has given zero support or explanation of that claim. This caught my eye because it is about symbols, which is our current topic in Quest, and also because it states the same sort of idea about the use of symbols in various elements of society that we have been considering in "Symbolic Systems and Meanings" (Hartmann & Blass, 2007, p.12 - 16). Although she probably has a good idea, I think that the Wikipedia author is wrong.

Although certainly not completely useless, this particular Wikipedia entry is a good example of the dangers of getting someone else's idea or opinion and accepting it for no good reason: it does not make you look either intelligent or sensible. And that reminds me of Tum's source, to which I referred in my response to his summary paragraph (Peter, 2010).

When I started writing, the title was simply "Peter on Lord of the Flies", but when I saw what I ended up with, I decided to add and Wikipedia.

Although there were a few other comments, generally a bit more on topic, I'll leave them for now so that you have a chance to share your responses first without any interference from my ideas. I suspect I will have more to say on the novel later, and I'm sure you will have something to say about it here - possibly a great many very different ideas on the topic.
__________
References
Hartmann, P. & Blass, L. (2007). Quest 3 Reading and Writing, (2nd. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lord of the Flies. (2010, June 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 10:04, June 29, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lord_of_the_Flies&oldid=370677858
Note: if you do want to use an article from Wikipedia, always use the "cite this page" tool to automatically create the correct APA style reference list entry. 

Peter. (2010, June 26). Opposing Stephen Law: final comments. Class Blog - AEP at AUA. Retrieved June 29, 2010 from http://peteraep.blogspot.com/2010/06/opposing-stephen-law-final-comments.html

5 comments:

  1. In fact, there are two warnings at the top of the Wikipedia entry for Golding's novel.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oops,
    I noticed on reviewing it that there was a careless typing mistake in one of my recent comments on the morality of eating meat. Because I'm sure you'll realise what it should have been, I didn't comment there. It's relevant here because there is a similar mistake on page 8 of Lord of the Flies: when Ralph and the fat boy are talking about the absence of grownups and the pilot, the fat boy says: "Not in a place with wheels", but that's a mistake made by the publisher. What Golding obviously wrote is "not in a plane with wheels." Place just doesn't make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've just read the whole Wikipedia entry. (I only read the introduction and quickly skimmed it before.) It really is awful all the way through.

    Do you agree that it's awful? Why or why not?
    What can we infer about the writer or writers? How do you know?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Peter,
    Thanks for your information to support our reading.
    That's right, I roughly looked at Wiki before I read your blog. I agree with you that Wiki is not a good choice to read for more deep details. From my experience, I always fail it. What I find is Wiki is like a "text swamp". I cannot catch anything relevant and I feel very confused to read it. I think there are many good referneces out there on internet but let's me share another source that I think it is very helpful for starting this book.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/english_literature/proselordflies/

    enjoy reading it!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks Nid,
    It's a great link. I agree with you that it's much better than Wikipedia. To be fair to Wikipedia, although for very good reasons strongly discouraged as a source by academic institutions, it is generally reliable and informative for a quick introduction to a topic; it's just this particular entry that is truly garbage.

    Have you watched any of the videos on the link you gave us? I've just watched part of the video on the plot summary, which was fun, and will probably be helpful.

    Thanks for telling us about such a useful link.

    ReplyDelete

Before you click the blue "Publish" button for your first comment on a post, check ✔ the "Notify me" box. You want to know when your classmates contribute to a discussion you have joined.

A thoughtful response should normally mean writing for five to ten minutes. After you state your main idea, some details, explanation, examples or other follow up will help your readers.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.