LogFAQs > #972233521

My teachers had a curriculum. I actually got accused of cheating in an exam because my understanding of "lord of the flies" perfectly matched the grading rubric of my teacher's guidebook. (After talking with the teacher she realized I didn't)

The book nor the test cared about perfection though. As long as you could understand the broad strokes symbolism it was a pass. The whole point of teaching symbolism is to help kids learn and appreciate the concept of subtext and improve their media literacy. Any teacher dictating absolutes in a discussion about symbolism is probably missing the point.

Like, the way lord of the flies describes the gaping wound caused by the aircraft, and all the small children emerging from that scar. It's obvious the intent here is to liken the children to an infection, and immediately signal to readers that the kid's arrival is immediately harmful to the island and that they are an disease that will kill the body of the island.

So long as a reader can tell that the author is attempting to foreshadow the destruction if the island, and that the author is drawing specific attention to how they've already harmed the island, that's good enough.