LogFAQs > #972235126

Uta posted...

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.

dude i did not get the symbolic part of lord of the flies. just thought it was a goofy book about kids killing each other. still enjoyed it but i'm definitely missing something lol

i really suck at interpreting literature fiction. like even my 15-year-old sister has better media literacy skills than me and will make me feel like an idiot. i sort of regret using english/lit class as my daydream class but i was soo stressed out back then.