2022/08/17

Lord of the Flies - Wikipedia

Lord of the Flies - Wikipedia

Lord of the Flies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Lord of the Flies
LordOfTheFliesBookCover.jpg
The original UK Lord of the Flies book cover
AuthorWilliam Golding
Cover artistAnthony Gross[1]
CountryUnited Kingdom
GenreAllegorical novel
PublisherFaber and Faber
Publication date
17 September 1954
Pages224[2]
ISBN0-571-05686-5 (first edition, paperback)
OCLC47677622

Lord of the Flies is a 1954 novel by the Nobel Prize-winning British author William Golding. The plot concerns a group of British boys who are stranded on an uninhabited island and their disastrous attempts to govern themselves. Themes include the tension between groupthink and individuality, between rational and emotional reactions, and between morality and immorality.

The novel, which was Golding's debut, was generally well received. It was named in the Modern Library 100 Best Novels, reaching number 41 on the editor's list, and 25 on the reader's list. In 2003, it was listed at number 70 on the BBC's The Big Read poll, and in 2005 Time magazine named it as one of the 100 best English-language novels published between 1923 and 2005, and included it in its list of the 100 Best Young-Adult Books of All Time. Popular reading in schools, especially in the English-speaking world, Lord of the Flies was ranked third in the nation's favourite books from school in a 2016 UK poll.

Background

Published in 1954, Lord of the Flies was Golding's first novel. The idea came about after Golding read what he deemed to be an unrealistic depiction of stranded children in youth novels like The Coral Island: a Tale of the Pacific Ocean (1857) by R. M. Ballantyne, which includes themes of the civilising effect of Christianity and the importance of hierarchy and leadership. Golding asked his wife, Ann, if it would "be a good idea if I wrote a book about children on an island, children who behave in the way children really would behave?"[3] As a result, the novel contains various references to The Coral Island, such as the rescuing naval officer's description of the boys' initial attempts at civilised cooperation as "a jolly good show, like the Coral Island".[4] Golding's three central characters (Ralph, Piggy, and Jack) have also been interpreted as caricatures of Ballantyne's Coral Island protagonists.[5]

The manuscript was rejected by many publishers before finally being accepted by London-based Faber & Faber; an initial rejection by the professional reader, Miss Perkins, at Faber labelled the book an "Absurd and uninteresting fantasy about the explosion of an atomic bomb on the colonies and a group of children who land in the jungle near New Guinea. Rubbish and dull. Pointless".[6] However, Charles Monteith decided to take on the manuscript[7] and worked with Golding to complete several fairly major edits, including the removal of the entire first section of the novel, which had previously described an evacuation from nuclear war.[6] As well as this, the character of Simon was heavily redacted by Monteith, including the removal of his interaction with a mysterious lone figure who is never identified but implied to be God.[8] Monteith himself was concerned about these changes, completing "tentative emendations", and warning against "turning Simon into a prig".[6] Ultimately, Golding made all of Monteith's recommended edits and wrote back in his final letter to his editor that "I've lost any kind of objectivity I ever had over this novel and can hardly bear to look at it."[9] These manuscripts and typescripts are now available from the Special Collections Archives at the University of Exeter library for further study and research.[10] The collection includes the original 1952 "Manuscript Notebook" (originally a Bishop Wordsworth's School notebook) containing copious edits and strikethroughs.

With the changes made by Monteith and despite the initial slow rate of sale (about three thousand copies of the first print sold slowly), the book soon went on to become a best-seller, with more than ten million copies sold as of 2015.[7] It has been adapted to film twice in English, in 1963 by Peter Brook and 1990 by Harry Hook, and once in Filipino by Lupita A. Concio (1975).

The book begins with the boys' arrival on the island after their plane has been shot down during what seems to be part of a nuclear World War III.[11] Some of the marooned characters are ordinary students, while others arrive as a musical choir under an established leader. With the exception of Sam, Eric, and the choirboys, they appear never to have encountered each other before. The book portrays their descent into savagery; left to themselves on a paradisiacal island, far from modern civilization, the well-educated boys regress to a primitive state.

Plot

In the midst of a wartime evacuation, a British aeroplane crashes on or near an isolated island in a remote region of the Pacific Ocean. The only survivors are boys in their middle childhood or preadolescence. Two boys named Ralph and Piggy find a conch, which Ralph uses as a horn to convene the survivors to one area. Ralph immediately commands authority over the other boys using the conch, and is elected their "chief". He establishes three primary policies: to have fun, to survive, and to constantly maintain a smoke signal that could alert passing ships of their presence. Ralph and two other boys named Jack and Simon use Piggy's glasses to create the signal fire.

The semblance of order quickly deteriorates as the majority of the boys turn idle and develop paranoia towards an imaginary monster they call the "beast", which they all slowly begin to believe exists on the island. Ralph fails to convince the boys that no beast exists, while Jack gains popularity by declaring that he will personally hunt and kill the beast. At one point, Jack summons many of the boys to hunt down a wild pig, drawing away those assigned to maintain the signal fire. The extinguished smoke signal fails to attract a ship passing by the island. Ralph angrily confronts Jack about his failure to maintain the signal, but he is rebuffed by the other boys. A disillusioned Ralph considers relinquishing his position as leader, but is persuaded not to do so by Piggy.

One night, an aerial battle occurs near the island while the boys sleep, during which a fighter pilot ejects from his plane and dies in the descent. His body drifts down to the island in his parachute and get tangled in a tree. Twin boys Sam and Eric see the corpse of the fighter pilot and mistake it for the beast. When Ralph, Jack, and another boy named Roger investigate the corpse, they flee, incorrectly believing the beast is real. Jack calls an assembly and tries to turn the others against Ralph, but initially receives no support. Jack storms off alone to form his own tribe, with the other boys gradually joining him.

Simon often ventures out into the island's forest to be alone. One day while he is there, Jack and his followers erect an offering to the beast nearby: a pig's head, mounted on a sharpened stick and swarming with scavenging flies. Simon conducts an imaginary dialogue with the head, which he dubs the "Lord of the Flies". The head tells Simon that there is no beast on the island, and predicts that the other boys will turn on him. That night, Ralph and Piggy visit Jack's tribe, discovering that they have begun painting their faces and engaging in primitive ritual dances. Simon discovers that the "beast" is the dead parachutist, and rushes down to tell Jack's tribe. The frenzied boys mistake Simon for the beast, attack him, and beat him to death. Ralph and Piggy participate in the melee, and become deeply disturbed by Jack's violence.

Jack and his rebel band decide to steal Piggy’s glasses, the only means the boys have of starting a fire. They raid Ralph's camp, confiscate the glasses, and return to their abode on an outcropping called Castle Rock. Deserted by most of his supporters, Ralph journeys to Castle Rock with Piggy, Sam, and Eric in order to confront Jack and retrieve the glasses. The boys reject Ralph, with Roger killing Piggy and shattering the conch. Ralph manages to escape, but Sam and Eric are tortured by Roger until they agree to join Jack's tribe.

Ralph secretly confronts Sam and Eric, who warn him that Jack plans to hunt him like a pig and behead him. The following morning, Jack's tribe sets fire to the forest, with Ralph narrowly escaping his hunters. Following a long chase, most of the island is consumed in flames. With the hunters closely behind him, Ralph trips and falls in front of a British naval officer whose party has landed to investigate the fire. Ralph bursts into tears over the deaths of Simon and Piggy. Jack and the other boys, filthy and unkempt, also revert to their true ages and erupt into sobs. The officer expresses his disappointment at seeing British boys exhibiting such feral, warlike behaviour.

Themes

At an allegorical level, the central theme is the conflicting human impulses toward civilisation and social organisation—living by rules, peacefully and in harmony—and toward the will to power. Themes include the tension between groupthink and individuality, between rational and emotional reactions, and between morality and immorality. How these play out and how different people feel their influence form a major subtext of Lord of the Flies, with the central themes addressed in an essay by American literary critic Harold Bloom.[12] The name "Lord of the Flies" is a literal translation of Beelzebub, from 2 Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16.

Reception

The book, originally entitled Strangers from Within, was initially rejected by an in-house reader, Miss Perkins, at London based publishers Faber and Faber as "Rubbish & dull. Pointless".[7] The title was considered "too abstract and too explicit". Following a further review, the book was eventually published as Lord of the Flies.[13][14]

A turning point occurred when E. M. Forster chose Lord of the Flies as his "outstanding novel of the year."[7] Other reviews described it as "not only a first-rate adventure but a parable of our times".[7] In February 1960, Floyd C. Gale of Galaxy Science Fiction rated Lord of the Flies five stars out of five, stating that "Golding paints a truly terrifying picture of the decay of a minuscule society ... Well on its way to becoming a modern classic".[15]

"Lord of the Flies presents a view of humanity unimaginable before the horrors of Nazi Europe, and then plunges into speculations about mankind in the state of nature. Bleak and specific, but universal, fusing rage and grief, Lord of the Flies is both a novel of the 1950s, and for all time."

Robert McCrumThe Guardian.[7]

In his book Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and WrongMarc D. Hauser says the following about Golding's Lord of the Flies: "This riveting fiction, standard reading in most intro courses to English literature, should be standard reading in biology, economics, psychology, and philosophy."[16]

Its stances on the already controversial subjects of human nature and individual welfare versus the common good earned it position 68 on the American Library Association's list of the 100 most frequently challenged books of 1990–1999.[17] The book has been criticized as "cynical" and portraying humanity exclusively as "selfish creatures". It has been linked with "Tragedy of the commons" by Garrett Hardin and books by Ayn Rand, and countered by "Management of the Commons" by Elinor Ostrom. Parallels have been drawn between the "Lord of the Flies" and an actual incident from 1965 when a group of schoolboys who sailed a fishing boat from Tonga were hit by a storm and marooned on the uninhabited island of ʻAta, considered dead by their relatives in Nuku‘alofa. The group not only managed to survive for over 15 months but "had set up a small commune with food garden, hollowed-out tree trunks to store rainwater, a gymnasium with curious weights, a badminton court, chicken pens and a permanent fire, all from handiwork, an old knife blade and much determination". As a result, when ship captain Peter Warner found them, they were in good health and spirits. Dutch historian Rutger Bregman, writing about this situation said that Golding's portrayal was unrealistic.[18]

  • It was awarded a place on both lists of Modern Library 100 Best Novels, reaching number 41 on the editor's list, and 25 on the reader's list.[19]
  • In 2003, the novel was listed at number 70 on the BBC's survey The Big Read.[20]
  • In 2005, the novel was chosen by Time magazine as one of the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to 2005.[21] Time also included the novel in its list of the 100 Best Young-Adult Books of All Time.[22]

Popular in schools, especially in the English-speaking world, a 2016 UK poll saw Lord of the Flies ranked third in the nation's favourite books from school, behind George Orwell’s Animal Farm and Charles Dickens’ Great Expectations.[23]

On 5 November 2019, BBC News listed Lord of the Flies on its list of the 100 most inspiring novels.[24]

In other media

Film

There have been three film adaptations based on the book:

A fourth adaptation, to feature an all-female cast, was announced by Warner Bros. in August 2017,[25][26] but was subsequently abandoned. In July 2019, director Luca Guadagnino was said to be in negotiations for a conventionally cast version.[27][28] Ladyworld, an all-female adaptation, was released in 2018.

Stage

Nigel Williams adapted the text for the stage. It was debuted by the Royal Shakespeare Company in July 1996. The Pilot Theatre Company has toured it extensively in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

In October 2014 it was announced that the 2011 production[29][failed verification] of Lord of the Flies would return to conclude the 2015 season at the Regent's Park Open Air Theatre ahead of a major UK tour. The production was to be directed by the Artistic Director Timothy Sheader who won the 2014 Whatsonstage.com Awards Best Play Revival for To Kill a Mockingbird.

Kansas-based Orange Mouse Theatricals and Mathew Klickstein produced a topical, gender-bending adaptation called Ladies of the Fly that was co-written by a group of young girls (ages 8–16) based on both the original text and their own lives.[30] The production was performed by the girls themselves as an immersive live-action show in August 2018.

Radio

In June 2013, BBC Radio 4 Extra broadcast a dramatisation by Judith Adams in four 30-minute episodes directed by Sasha Yevtushenko.[31] The cast included Ruth Wilson as "The Narrator", Finn Bennett as "Ralph", Richard Linnel as "Jack", Caspar Hilton-Hilley as "Piggy" and Jack Caine as "Simon".

  1. Fire on the Mountain
  2. Painted Faces
  3. Beast from the Air
  4. Gift for Darkness

Influence

Many writers have borrowed plot elements from Lord of the Flies. By the early 1960s, it was required reading in many schools and colleges.[32]

Literature

Author Stephen King uses the name Castle Rock, from the mountain fort in Lord of the Flies, as a fictional town that has appeared in a number of his novels.[33] The book itself appears prominently in his novels Hearts in Atlantis (1999), Misery (1987), and Cujo (1981).[34]

King wrote an introduction for a new edition of Lord of the Flies (2011) to mark the centenary of William Golding's birth in 1911.[35]

King's fictional town of Castle Rock inspired the name of Rob Reiner's production company, Castle Rock Entertainment, which produced the film Lord of the Flies (1990).[35]

Music

Iron Maiden wrote a song inspired by the book, included in their 1995 album The X Factor.[36]

The Filipino indie pop/alternative rock outfit The Camerawalls include a song entitled "Lord of the Flies" on their 2008 album Pocket Guide to the Otherworld.[37]

Editions

  • Golding, William (1958) [1954]. Lord of the Flies (Print ed.). Boston: Faber & Faber.

See also

References

  1. ^ "Bound books – a set on Flickr". 22 November 2007. Archived from the original on 25 October 2014. Retrieved 10 September 2012.
  2. ^ Amazon, "Lord of the Flies: Amazon.ca" Archived 20 May 2021 at the Wayback MachineAmazon
  3. ^ Presley, Nicola. "Lord of the Flies and The Coral Island." William Golding Official Site, 30th Jun 2017, https://william-golding.co.uk/lord-flies-coral-island Archived 23 January 2021 at the Wayback Machine. Accessed 9th Feb 2021.
  4. ^ Reiff, Raychel Haugrud (2010), William Golding: Lord of the Flies, Marshall Cavendish, p. 93, ISBN 978-0-7614-4700-9
  5. ^ Singh, Minnie (1997), "The Government of Boys: Golding's Lord of the Flies and Ballantyne's Coral Island", Children's Literature25: 205–213, doi:10.1353/chl.0.0478
  6. Jump up to:a b c Monteith, Charles. "Strangers from Within." William Golding: The Man and His Books, edited by John Carey, Farrar Straus & Giroux, 1987.
  7. Jump up to:a b c d e f "The 100 best novels: No 74 – Lord of the Flies by William Golding (1954)"The GuardianArchived from the original on 12 June 2020. Retrieved 25 June 2020.
  8. ^ Kendall, Tim. Email, University of Exeter, received 5th Feb 2021.
  9. ^ Williams, Phoebe (6 June 2019). "New BBC programme sheds light on the story behind the publication of Lord of the Flies"Faber & Faber Official SiteArchived from the original on 1 May 2021. Retrieved 14 February 2021.
  10. ^ "EUL MS 429 - William Golding, Literary Archive"Archives Catalogue. University of Exeter. Retrieved 6 October 2021The collection represents the literary papers of William Golding and consists of notebooks, manuscript and typescript drafts of Golding's novels up to 1989.
  11. ^ Weiskel, Portia Williams, ed. (2010). "Peter Edgerly Firchow Examines the Implausible Beginning and Ending of Lord of the Flies"William Golding's Lord of the Flies. Bloom's Guides. Infobase. ISBN 9781438135397Archived from the original on 11 June 2020. Retrieved 14 August 2017.
  12. ^ Bloom, Harold. "Major themes in Lord of the Flies" (PDF)Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 December 2019. Retrieved 11 December 2019.
  13. ^ Symons, Julian (26 September 1986). "Golding's way"The GuardianISSN 0261-3077Archived from the original on 6 October 2019. Retrieved 28 April 2019.
  14. ^ Faber, Toby (28 April 2019). "Lord of the Flies? 'Rubbish'. Animal Farm? Too risky – Faber's secrets revealed"The ObserverISSN 0029-7712Archived from the original on 28 April 2019. Retrieved 28 April 2019.
  15. ^ Gale, Floyd C. (February 1960). "Galaxy's 5 Star Shelf"Galaxy Science Fiction. pp. 164–168.
  16. ^ Marc D. Hauser (2006). Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. page 252.
  17. ^ "100 most frequently challenged books: 1990–1999"American Library Association. 2009. Archived from the original on 15 May 2010. Retrieved 16 August 2009.
  18. ^ Bregman, Rutger (9 May 2020). "The real Lord of the Flies: what happened when six boys were shipwrecked for 15 months"The GuardianISSN 0261-3077Archived from the original on 9 May 2020. Retrieved 9 May 2020.
  19. ^ Kyrie O'Connor (1 February 2011). "Top 100 Novels: Let the Fighting Begin". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 30 July 2012. Retrieved 12 December 2019.
  20. ^ "The Big Read – Top 100 Books"BBC. April 2003. Archived from the original on 28 October 2012. Retrieved 18 October 2012.
  21. ^ Grossman, Lev; Lacayo, Richard (6 October 2005). "ALL-TIME 100 Novels. Lord of the Flies (1955), by William Golding"TimeISSN 0040-781XArchived from the original on 10 December 2012. Retrieved 10 December 2012.
  22. ^ "100 Best Young-Adult Books"TimeArchived from the original on 22 January 2020. Retrieved 11 December 2019.
  23. ^ "George Orwell's Animal Farm tops list of the nation's favourite books from school"The IndependentArchived from the original on 11 December 2019. Retrieved 11 December 2019.
  24. ^ "100 'most inspiring' novels revealed by BBC Arts"BBC News. 5 November 2019. Archived from the original on 3 November 2020. Retrieved 10 November 2019The reveal kickstarts the BBC's year-long celebration of literature.
  25. ^ Fleming, Mike, Jr (30 August 2017). "Scott McGehee & David Siegel Plan Female-Centric 'Lord of the Flies' At Warner Bros"DeadlineArchived from the original on 6 March 2018. Retrieved 11 April 2018.
  26. ^ France, Lisa Respers (1 September 2017). "'Lord of the Flies' all-girl remake sparks backlash". Entertainment. CNNArchived from the original on 7 November 2017. Retrieved 11 April 2018.
  27. ^ Kroll, Justin (29 July 2019). "Luca Guadagnino in Talks to Direct 'Lord of the Flies' Adaptation (EXCLUSIVE)"VarietyArchived from the original on 30 July 2019. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
  28. ^ Lattanzio, Ryan (25 April 2020). "Luca Guadagnino Taps 'A Monster Calls' Author to Write 'Lord of the Flies' Adaptation"IndieWireArchived from the original on 24 September 2020. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
  29. ^ "Lord of the Flies, Open Air Theatre, Regent's Park, review"The TelegraphArchived from the original on 30 May 2011. Retrieved 26 May 2011.
  30. ^ "Orange Mouse Theatricals to stage re-imagined 'Lord of the Flies' with an all-female twist"LJWorld.com.
  31. ^ "William Golding – Lord of the Flies"BBC Radio 4Archived from the original on 20 June 2013.
  32. ^ Ojalvo, Holly Epstein; Doyne, Shannon (5 August 2010). "Teaching 'The Lord of the Flies' With The New York Times"The New York TimesArchived from the original on 8 January 2018. Retrieved 6 May 2018.
  33. ^ Beahm, George (1992). The Stephen King story (Revised ed.). Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel. p. 120ISBN 0-8362-8004-0Castle Rock, which King in turn had got from Golding's Lord of the Flies.
  34. ^ Liukkonen, Petri. "Stephen King"Books and Writers (kirjasto.sci.fi). Finland: Kuusankoski Public Library. Archived from the original on 23 March 2007.
  35. Jump up to:a b King, Stephen (2011). "Introduction by Stephen King". Faber and Faber. Archived from the original on 24 July 2012. Retrieved 12 October 2011.
  36. ^ "CALA (-) LAND"ilcala.blogspot.comArchived from the original on 13 October 2016. Retrieved 6 May 2018.
  37. ^ "Indie band The Camerawalls releases debut album"Archived from the original on 10 June 2020. Retrieved 10 May 2020.

External links

===

Lord of the Flies (1963 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Lord of the Flies
Lordofthefliesposters.jpg
Theatrical release poster
Directed byPeter Brook
Written byPeter Brook
Based onLord of the Flies
by William Golding
Produced byLewis M. Allen
Starring
CinematographyTom Hollyman
Edited by
Music byRaymond Leppard
Production
companies
  • Lord of the Flies Company
  • Allen-Hodgdon Productions
  • Two Arts
Distributed byBritish Lion Film Corporation
Release dates
  • 12 May 1963 (Cannes)
  • 23 July 1964 (United Kingdom)
Running time
92 minutes
CountryUnited Kingdom
LanguageEnglish
Budget$250,000 (£80,000)[1]

Lord of the Flies is a 1963 British drama film based on William Golding's 1954 novel of the same name about 30 schoolboys who are marooned on an island where the behaviour of the majority degenerates into savagery. It was written and directed by Peter Brook and produced by Lewis M. Allen. The film was in production for much of 1961, though the film did not premiere until 1963, and was not released in the United Kingdom until 1964. Golding himself supported the film. When Kenneth Tynan was a script editor for Ealing Studios he commissioned a script of Lord of the Flies from Nigel Kneale, but Ealing Studios closed in 1959 before it could be produced.

The novel was adapted into a movie for a second time in 1990; the 1963 film is generally considered more faithful to the novel than the 1990 adaptation.

Plot[edit]

A group of schoolboys is evacuated from England following the outbreak of an unidentified war. Their aircraft is shot down by briefly-glimpsed fighter planes and ditches near a remote island.

The main character, Ralph, is seen walking through a tropical forest. He meets a chubby, bespectacled, intelligent boy who reveals his school nickname was Piggy, but asks that Ralph not repeat that. The two go to the beach where they find a conch shell, which Ralph blows to rally the other survivors. As they emerge from the jungle, it becomes clear that no adults have escaped the crash. Singing is then heard and a small column of school choir boys, wearing dark cloaks and hats and led by a boy named Jack Merridew, walk towards Ralph and Piggy.

The boys decide to appoint a chief. The vote goes to Ralph, not Jack. Initially, Ralph is able to steer the boys (all of whom are aged between about six and fourteen) towards a reasonably civilised and co-operative society. The choir boys make wooden spears, creating the appearance that they are warriors within the group. Crucially, Jack has a knife. Ralph, Jack, and a choir boy named Simon go off to explore, and find out they are indeed on a deserted island. The boys have another assembly where Ralph tells the boys to make a fire.

The boys build shelters and start a signal fire using Piggy's spectacles. With no rescue in sight, the increasingly authoritarian and violence-prone Jack starts hunting and eventually finds a pig. Meanwhile, the fire, for which he and his "hunters" are responsible, goes out, losing the boys' chance of being spotted from a passing aeroplane. Piggy chastises Jack, and Jack strikes him in retaliation, knocking his glasses off, and breaking one lens. Ralph is furious with Jack. Soon some of the boys begin to talk of a beast that comes from the water. The next day, twins Sam and Eric see something land on the mountain, and they tell the boys it's another beast. All the boys except Piggy and the littluns go searching for it. Ralph, Jack, and another boy named Roger continue on to the top of the mountain and see something move. The boys all run away. The next day, Jack, obsessed with this imagined threat, leaves the group to start a new tribe, one without rules, where the boys play and hunt all day. Soon, more follow until only a few, including Piggy, are left with Ralph.

Events reach a crisis when Simon finds a sow's head impaled on a stick, left by Jack as an offering to the beast. He becomes hypnotized by the head, which has flies swarming all around it. Simon then climbs the mountain and sees that what the other boys thought was a beast is actually the dead body of a parachutist. Simon runs to Jack's camp in an attempt to tell them the truth, but the frenzied boys in the darkness mistake him for the beast, and beat him to death. Piggy defends the group's actions with a series of rationalisations and denials. The hunters raid the old group's camp and steal Piggy's glasses. Ralph goes to talk to the new group using the still-present power of the conch to get their attention. However, when Piggy takes the conch, they are not silent (as their rules require) but instead jeer. Roger pushes a boulder off a cliff which falls on Piggy, killing him and crushing the conch. Piggy's body falls into the ocean and gets washed away.

Ralph hides in the jungle. Jack and his hunters set fires to smoke him out, and Ralph staggers across the smoke-covered island. Stumbling onto the beach, Ralph falls at the feet of a naval officer who stares in shock at the painted and spear-carrying savages that the boys have become, before turning to his accompanying landing party. One of the youngest boys tries to tell the officer his name, but cannot remember it. The last scene shows Ralph sobbing as flames spread across the island.

Cast[edit]

  • James Aubrey as Ralph
  • Tom Chapin as Jack
  • Hugh Edwards as Piggy
  • Roger Elwin as Roger
  • Tom Gaman as Simon
  • David Surtees as Sam
  • Simon Surtees as Eric
  • Nicholas Hammond as Robert
  • Roger Allan as Piers
  • Kent Fletcher as Percival
  • Richard Horne as Lance
  • Timothy Horne as Leslie
  • Andrew Horne as Matthew
  • Peter Davy as Peter
  • David Brunjes as Donald
  • Christopher Harris as Bill
  • Alan Heaps as Neville
  • Jonathan Heaps as Howard
  • Burnes Hollyman as Douglas
  • Peter Ksiezopolski as Francis
  • Anthony Mcall-Judson as Maurice
  • Malcolm Rodker as Harold
  • David St. Clair as George
  • Rene Sanfiorenzo Jr. as Charles
  • Jeremy Scuse as Rowland
  • John Stableford as Digby
  • Nicholas Valkenburg as Rupert
  • Patrick Valkenburg as Robin
  • Edward Valencia as Frederick
  • David Walsh as Percy
  • John Walsh as Michael
  • Jeremy Willis as Henry
  • Erik Jordan as Head Clapper Boy

Theme[edit]

As with Golding's book, the pessimistic theme of the film is that fear, hate and violence are inherent in the human condition – even when innocent children are placed in seemingly idyllic isolation. The realisation of this is seen as being the cause of Ralph's distress in the closing shots.[2]

Charles Silver, curator in the Department of Film at MoMA, wrote that the film is "about anarchy and how that thin veneer we wear of what we refer to as 'civilization' is threatened by the attractive clarion call of bestiality and its accompanying hatred".[3]

Production[edit]

Filming[edit]

The parents of the boys chosen as actors were reported to have been provided copies of the novel, from which a commentary had been physically removed; those pages included describing the culmination of the hunt of a wild sow as an "Oedipal wedding night". Brook noted that "time was short; we were lent the children by unexpectedly eager parents just for the duration of the summer holidays".[4]

The film was shot entirely in Puerto Rico at AguadillaEl Yunque and on the island of Vieques.[5] The boys in the cast were all non-professional, had mostly not read the book, and actual scripting was minimal; scenes were filmed by explaining them to the boys, who then acted them out, with some of the dialogue improvised.[3][6] Life magazine journalist Robert Wallace visited them there and observed one of them amusing himself by feeding live lizards into the blades of a rotating fan. Wallace commented: "One could almost hear William Golding, 4,000 miles away in England, chuckling into his beard."[6]

The 60 hours of film from the 1961 shoot was edited down to 4 hours, according to editor Gerald Feil. This was further edited to a 100-minute feature that was shown at the 1963 Cannes Film Festival (9 to 22 May), but the cuts necessitated that new audio transitions and some dialog changes be dubbed into the film more than a year after shooting. The voice of James Aubrey, who played Ralph, had dropped three octaves and was electronically manipulated to better approximate his earlier voice, but it is still significantly different. Tom Chapin, who played Jack, had lost his English accent and another boy's voice was used to dub his parts. The U.S. distributor insisted the film be further edited to 90 minutes, so one fire scene and scenes developing the character of Ralph were cut.

In 1996, Peter Brook organised a reunion for the cast members for a documentary film titled Time Flies. Brook was "curious to know what the years had done to his cast, and what effect the isolated months of filming had had on their lives".[7] Although none seemed damaged by their time working on the film, Simon Surtees, one of a pair of twin brothers who played Sam and Eric, "put his finger unerringly on the ethical dilemma. The problem is that most of us are not trained artists, so I now believe Peter runs the risk of abandoning us to our fate, just as he did in 1961, when he plucked us from our schools and our homes, put us on the island, then cast us back to live our lives as if nothing would ever change."[7]

Tom Gaman, who played Simon in Brook's film, remembered that "although I didn't think much about it at the time, in hindsight my death scene scares me. It was night, the spears – those wooden stakes – were quite real. We were excited, brandishing flaming sticks around a bonfire on the beach in a real storm. I really did emerge from the bushes into the centre of a raging crowd, screamed in terror, was stabbed by boys with sharpened sticks, and staggered to the water."[8]

Song[edit]

The song, heard throughout the film, of the boys singing is Kyrie Eleison which, translated from Greek, means "Lord, have mercy". It is an expression used in a prayer of the Christian liturgy.

Reception[edit]

Critical response[edit]

Rotten Tomatoes reported that 91% of critics have given the film a positive review based on 22 reviews, with an average rating of 8.19/10.[9] On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 67 out of 100 based on 9 critic reviews, indicating "generally favorable reviews".[10]

PopMatters journalist J.C. Maçek III wrote "The true surprise in Lord of the Flies is how little these child actors actually feel like 'child actors'. With few exceptions, the acting rarely seems to be forced or flat. This practiced, well-honed craft aids Brook's vision of a fly on the wall approach that pulls the viewer into each scene."[11]

Bosley Crowther wrote in The New York Times that "the picture made from it by the writer-director Peter Brook is a curiously flat and fragmentary visualization of the original. It is loosely and jerkily constructed, in its first and middle phases, at least, and it has a strangely perfunctory, almost listless flow of narrative in most of its scenes".[12]

Accolades[edit]

Peter Brook was nominated for the Golden Palm at the 1963 Cannes Film Festival.[13]

The film was named one of the Top Ten Films of the year in 1963 by the National Board of Review.[14]

Home media[edit]

The Criterion Collection released it on DVD and Blu-ray Disc in America and Canada. In 2000 Janus Films also released the DVD in the UK.

See also[edit]

  • Survival film, about the film genre, with a list of related films

References[edit]

  1. ^ De la Mare, Richard; Hatton, Maurice (29 November 1962). "Peter Brook film director". The Guardian. p. 6.
  2. ^ Robert Wallace, Life Magazine 25 October 1963
  3. Jump up to:a b Silver, Charles (12 November 2013). "Peter Brook's Lord of the Flies"MoMA. Retrieved 6 June 2016.
  4. ^ Brook, Peter (1998). Threads of time : a memoir (Paperback. ed.). London: Methuen Drama. p. 129. ISBN 0413733009.
  5. ^ Carrasquilo, José (2016). "When Lord of the Flies Came to Vieques"Vieques Insider. Retrieved 21 April 2019.
  6. Jump up to:a b Michael, Brooke. "Lord of the Flies (1963)"www.screenonline.org.uk. Retrieved 20 July 2015.
  7. Jump up to:a b Hollindale, Peter. "A History of Savages"www.tes.co.uk. Archived from the original on 12 March 2016. Retrieved 20 July 2015.
  8. ^ Gaman, Tom. "Flies"www.forestdata.com. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 20 July 2015.
  9. ^ "Lord of the Flies (1963)"Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  10. ^ "Lord of the Flies (1963) Reviews"Metacritic. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  11. ^ Maçek III, J.C. (6 September 2013). "Have Mercy: 'Lord of the Flies'"PopMatters.
  12. ^ Crowther, Bosley. "Lord of the Flies (1963) Screen: Agitating Fable of Wild Boys:Savagery Is Depicted in 'Lord of the Flies'"www.nytimes.com. Retrieved 20 July 2015.
  13. ^ "Festival de Cannes: Lord of the Flies"festival-cannes.com. Retrieved 27 February 2009.
  14. ^ "1963 Award Winners"Nationalboardofreview.org. Retrieved 20 July 2015.

External links[edit]

2022/08/16

No Excuses: Existentialism And The Meaning Of Life by Robert C. Solomon | Goodreads


No Excuses: Existentialism And The Meaning Of Life by Robert C. Solomon | Goodreads

Want to Read
Buy on Kobo


Rate this book

No Excuses: Existentialism And The Meaning Of Life


Robert C. Solomon

4.09
789 ratings84 reviews



PhilosophyNonfictionAudiobookHistoryPsychologyReligion20th CenturyUnfinished
...more



12 pages, Audio CD

First published January 1, 1995

Robert C. Solomon78 books146 followers

Follow



Robert C. Solomon (September 14, 1942 – January 2, 2007) was a professor of continental philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin.

Early life

Solomon was born in Detroit, Michigan. His father was a lawyer, and his mother an artist. After earning a B.A. (1963) at the University of Pennsylvania, he moved to the University of Michigan to study medicine, switching to philosophy for an M.A. (1965) and Ph.D. (1967).

He held several teaching positions at such schools as Princeton University, the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Pittsburgh. From 1972 until his death, except for two years at the University of California at Riverside in the mid-1980s, he taught at University of Texas at Austin, serving as Quincy Lee Centennial Professor of Philosophy and Business. He was a member of the University of Texas Academy of Distinguished Teachers. Solomon was also a member of the inaugural class of Academic Advisors at the Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics.

His interests were in 19th-century German philosophy--especially Hegel and Nietzsche--and 20th-century Continental philosophy--especially Sartre and phenomenology, as well as ethics and the philosophy of emotions. Solomon published more than 40 books on philosophy, and was also a published songwriter. He made a cameo appearance in Richard Linklater's film Waking Life (2001), where he discussed the continuing relevance of existentialism in a postmodern world. He developed a cognitivist theory of the emotions, according to which emotions, like beliefs, were susceptible to rational appraisal and revision. Solomon was particularly interested in the idea of "love," arguing against the notion that romantic love is an inherent state of being, and maintaining, instead, that it is instead a construct of Western culture, popularized and propagated in such a way that it has achieved the status of a universal in the eyes of many. Love for Solomon is not a universal, static quality, but an emotion, subject to the same vicissitudes as other emotions like anger or sadness.

Solomon received numerous teaching awards at the University of Texas at Austin, and was a frequent lecturer in the highly regarded Plan II Honors Program. Solomon was known for his lectures on Nietzsche and other Existentialist philosophers. Solomon described in one lecture a very personal experience he had while a medical student at the University of Michigan. He recounted how he stumbled as if by chance into a crowded lecture hall. He was rather unhappy in his medical studies at the time, and was perhaps seeking something different that day. He got precisely that. The professor, Frithjof Bergmann, was lecturing that day on something that Solomon had not yet been acquainted with. The professor spoke of how Nietzsche's idea asks the fundamental question: "If given the opportunity to live your life over and over again ad infinitum, forced to go through all of the pain and the grief of existence, would you be overcome with despair? Or would you fall to your knees in gratitude?"

Solomon died on January 2, 2007 at Zurich airport. His wife, philosopher Kathleen Higgins, with whom he co-authored several of his books, is Professor of Philosophy at University of Texas at Austin.
More



Readers also enjoyedItems 1 to 4 of 19



Will to Power: The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche
Kathleen Marie Higgins
4.03
611


The Great Ideas of Philosophy
Daniel N. Robinson
4.05
814


The Meaning of Life - Perspectives from the World's Great Intellectual Traditions
Jay L. Garfield
4.4
363


The History of Ancient Egypt
Bob Brier
4.51
1,548

See all

Ratings & Reviews

My Review

Sejin
3 reviews

Want to Read.


Rate this bookWrite a Review

Friends & Following
No one you know has read this book. Recommend it to a friend!

Community Reviews

4.09
789 ratings84 reviews
5 stars

303 (38%)
4 stars

295 (37%)
3 stars

155 (19%)
2 stars

29 (3%)
1 star

7 (<1%)
Search review text

Filters

Displaying 1 - 10 of 84 reviews


Ivy-Mabel Fling
371 reviews32 followers

Follow
November 25, 2018
Another excellent course but a lot of it is quite philosophical. I found parts of it difficult to get my head round (but when I have listened to ten more professors on the same subjects, I will no doubt understand better!)

22 likes
1 comment
Like
Comment



SJ Loria
434 reviews71 followers

Follow
March 26, 2014
Existentialism

A fantastic lecture series, where the professor explains existentialism with passion and vigor. One of the best lecture series I’ve ever listened to. Period.

Basic points of Existentialism
1. Embrace personal responsibility – Sounds so simple when explained, but here’s the idea. You make choices. You are responsible for these choices. It’s a virtue ethics approach, as opposed to rule systems, motivation theories, or consequential ethics. What matters is the action. You chose it, you are responsible for it.
2. Live life passionately – Existentialists held very little faith in the possibility of an afterlife. Therefore if this is your one shot at life, make the most of it. There is the metaphor Kierkegaard makes of riding a wild horse vs. passively falling asleep in a wagon being pulled by a horse. Existentialists believe you should hop on the horse and ride. It is through passionate commitment that we give our lives meaning. Passionate commitment, say yes to life, commit to it with passion. It’s invigorating.
3. No belief in the afterlife – Neitche hated what he called the “otherworldly.” Existentialists thought that actions should be weighed and justified according to this world, and without relying on any others. This has to do with debating people who are religious, and in historical context this line of reasoning makes a lot more sense.

Other fun facts, I don’t think Camus’ The Stranger is enjoyable without understanding Existentialism. Nietzsche also isn’t as terrible of an atheist as his reputation would have you believe. I thought the lecture on Hesse’s Siddhartha wasn’t quite as strong as it could have been. I think the Kierkegaard section is the strongest, excellent lecture series overall.

Quotes
It is through passionate commitment that we give our lives meaning
People clamor for freedom of speech, to make up for the freedom of thought which they lack.


12 likes
Like
Comment



Gary Beauregard Bottomley
903 reviews501 followers

Follow
July 25, 2015
I don't like existentialism philosophy, but I liked this lecture series. It allowed me to understand other philosophers through the lens of Existentialism, and I got to understand Kant, Schopenhauer, and learn learn more about Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Heidegger. I liked the hour and a half he devoted to Heidegger so much, I ended up buying "Being and Time" from Amazon.

I would strongly recommend watching the BBC production of the play "Huis Clos" ("In Camera", or also called "No Exit") freely available on YouTube before or after listening to this lecture. I did and am glad for the understanding it brought. The heart of this lecture series is really Jean-Paul Sartre and a lot of what he thinks is within this highly watchable and freely available play.

Even if you think Existentialism is passe (a word the lecturer uses), and you don't particularly like Existentialism this lecture has more than enough to keep you entertained. As with almost all of these Great Course series, I don't know of anything else where I get as much value for my one credit, and because of this series I'm violating one of my rules and plan on reading a difficult book because this series has piqued my interest that much in Heidegger.

8 likes
Like
Comment



Todd
96 reviews59 followers

Follow
April 8, 2021
In these lectures, Robert Solomon provides a very nice exegesis of several main existentialist authors. The lectures start with Camus, as the most popular and easiest to understand author in the tradition; Solomon then backtracks to take on in order Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre. In a sense, it pairs very well with Irrational Man: A Study in Existential Philosophy by William Barrett. This survey is meatier than many in that it engages with the philosophies of several major existentialist authors, where many books deal more with the lives of the authors. It's well done and Solomon shows his command and ease discussing the ideas and doctrines of often difficult philosophers. The biggest weakness is probably Solomon's emphasis on personal responsibility at the expense of the society and structures serving as the environment for the individual and freedom in the grand sense. You would want to have some prior familiarity with existentialism and be ready to think philosophically, after all this is a philosophy survey.
philosophy
8 likes
Like
Comment



Andy
1,226 reviews420 followers

Follow
August 30, 2015
This was a bizarre presentation of the material. It's not that what the professor talked about was wrong or uninteresting, but in opposition to the title, it seemed he was making a lot of excuses to dwell in trivia and avoid talking about the meaning of life.

He goes out of his way to cover writers tangentially related to Existentialism (Kafka, Dostoevsky, etc.), and he tends to focus more on literary angles of novels, and on philosophical jargon than on real-world implications.

For example, for Camus, he talks about symbolism and writing technique in The Stranger and The Fall, etc. , but he doesn't really get into The Rebel and the meat of Camus's copious non-fiction that deals with how to live in a world full of evil. The lecture series wasn't boring, but I think unfortunately that in the end it confuses more than clarifies.



5 likes
Like
Comment



Dorum
227 reviews

Follow
May 17, 2020
This is a series of lectures by TTC. I watched the video lectures and review them here.

After watching all of them, I realized that I have already read What Nietzsche Really Said by the same author. That book is in my opinion one of the best introductions to Nietzsche. It allows one to avoid many of the pitfalls that one can encounter with that philosopher.

As expected, this lecture series is itself very good. The presenter is explaining in a very clear and concise language, some very intricate ideas of this current.

The authors discussed are (in the order of apparition): Camus, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Sartre. The lectures are 30 minutes each, and each provides an introduction to some of the key concepts. As such, it should be a really easy introduction, but by no means an extensive or comprehensive introduction.

The depth and quality of the lecture varies. Camus for instance, is pretty deeply presented. There are a lot of insights to be gleamed from his presentation of 3 of his works (The Stranger, The Plague and The Fall). However, his only philosophical work, The Myth of Sisyphus gets only a very weak presentation. Only generalities are explained.

Kierkegaard is also quite poorly explained. What disturbs me is that while Camus is presented work by work, Kierkegaard is somehow amalgamated, and very imprecise.

Nietzsche is again less properly explained, but the main themes of his philosophy are present. I have no doubt that professor Solomon IS able to explain all of them in much more detail, but I don't quite get why he didn't do a work by work analysis as in the case of Camus. It might be because the "theme by theme" analysis is not so easy for Camus as it is for the others.

Dostoyevski gets only cursory treatment. The only novels discussed are "Notes from The Underground", "The Idiot" & "The Brothers Karamazov". The interpretation given to the events is somewhat rushed. Why he excluded "Crime And Punishment" will be forever a mystery to this reviewer.

However, considering that Dostoyevski, Kafka and Hesse are all treated in the same lecture, I guess we can give him a break. What I really cannot understand is how comes he describes the end of "The Grand Inquisitor" completely wrong. Jesus walks away at the end!! He says that Jesus actually gets crucified a second hand, which doesn't happen!

Heidegger and Sartre are quite well explained. Especially Heidegger who is notoriously difficult, is nevertheless distilled in a way that is accessible to the non-professional.

For this reason, I need to say that the content is more often good, rather than bad. It is a bit on the commercial side of things but it is the better part of that side.

Also, I really like his voice. It is so relaxing, and soothing.

4 likes
Like
Comment



Hmd Book
34 reviews16 followers

Follow
April 15, 2016
رابرت سالومون با صدای عمیق و شمرده به واکاوی افکار و کتاب‌های چهره‌های برجسته اگزیستانسیالیسم می‌پردازد. درس با «بیگانه» آلبر کامو آغاز می‌شود هر چند او پیشگام اگزیستانسیالیسم نبود؛ اما بیگانه او مردی را توصیف می‌کند که در مراسم تدفین مادرش نمی‌تواند اشک بریزد. علاوه بر بیگانه که به تفصیل در دو درس ۳۰ دقیقه‌ای برای روشن کردن موضوع درس بحث می‌شود، اثر دیگر کامو، در مورد «افسانه سیزیف» صحبت می‌شود که قهرمان آن تا ابد محکوم است تا سنگی را از تپه‌ای بالا برد، آن را رها کند و دوباره سنگ را بالا برد و رها کند-تا ابد. سیزیف نماد انسان محکوم به زندگی بیهوده است. «طاعون» و «سقوط» در درس دیگر بحث می‌شود، به ویژه که «طاعون» نماد انسانی است که با همه تلاش خود قادر به درمان طاعون زندگی نیست.
پس از این آغاز طوفانی از کامو، سولومون به سراغ پدر اگزیستانسیالیسم می‌رود: سورن کیرکگارد. دغدغه و بینش او (بر خلاف آیندگان از جمله کامو و سارتر) مسیحیت بود- به عبارت دقیق تر چطور می‌توان مسیحی «شد».
با توجه به اینکه (تا جایی که اطلاع دارم) تنها ترس و لرز او در مورد تعلیق اخلاق در بازه‌ای که ابراهیم فرزندش را به کشتارگاه می‌برد در ایران چاپ شده است، سه درس‌ موجود در این مجموعه و صحبت در مورد کتاب‌های کیرکگارد برای آشنایی بیشتر با او و این که چرا بنیان‌گذار اگزیسنانسیالیسم است بسیار روشنگر است.
نیهیلیسم نیچه که بر خلاف کیرکگارد پاسخی متفاوت و ضد دینی به مساله زندگی است در چهار درس بعدی مورد بررسی قرار می‌گیرد- این که «خدا مرده است» در اندیشه نیچه و در آن کانتکست زمانی از روشنگری و اعتقادات مردم به چه معناست‌. پیش از آنکه در ادامه هایدگر و سارتر به عنوان مشهورترین چهره‌های اگزیستانسیالیسم بحث شوند، یک درس سی دقیقه‌ای به داستایوسکی و رمان‌هایش به اختصار می‌پردازد و این که چگونه تِم برادران کارامازوف از زبان ایوانِ روشنفکر و در انتهای داستان در بستر بیماری این است که «اگر خدا نباشد همه چیز مجاز می‌شود.»- رویکردی متفاوت به نیهیلیسم مورد توجه نیچه.
بحث اصیل (آوتنتیش) بودن در تفکر فلسفی پیچیده هایدگر، علاوه بر مفاهیم دیگر او همچون داس مان، زورگه و ... بسیار مختصر و مفید بحث می‌شود.
بحث انتهایی مربوط به سارتر و مسئولیت پذیری در کانتکست زمانی جنگ جهانی دوم است. اندیشه و کتاب‌های سارتر در شش درس سی دقیقه‌ای به زیبایی بحث می‌شود که شاید برای تفسیر کتاب‌های او که بعضا به فارسی هم موجودند مفیدند، از جمله رمان «تهوع» او که داستان مردی است که وقتی سنگریزه ها را (دن��ا) را لمس می‌کند، احساس تهوع می‌کند.
اگر سارتر و کامو با داستان‌های متفاوت و سیاه خود برای ما آشنا باشند، این مجموعه نشان می‌دهد آبشخور فکری این دو چگونه در کیرکگارد و هایدگر ریشه دارد. به ویژه که سارتر رسما اعلام کرده بود که تحت تاثیر هستی‌شناسی هایدگر کتاب «بودن و هیچی» Being and nothingness را نوشته است.
More video-lectures
3 likes
Like
Comment



Amirography
198 reviews122 followers

Follow
October 11, 2016
A great book. One of the most fluent reads. I loved it. Yet I didn't love Existentialism. It raises some great questions and ideas, yet it is a bit bitter and I cannot find any good reason for that.
The good thing about it was that I understood that I have to read more of Nietzsche works, and don't waste much time on Sartra any more.
philosophy
3 likes
Like
Comment



Joseph L.
228 reviews1 follower

Follow
January 18, 2021
Watch a detailed review along with my favorite ideas and takeaways at:
https://youtu.be/Q7b7k_ey_yg

2 likes
Like
Comment



Olga
383 reviews61 followers

Follow
September 28, 2020
Приятный курс лекций, чтобы освежить в памяти философские идеи. В начале лектор подаёт прям очень разжёванно и гладко всё, начиная с «Постороннего» Камю — собственно за использование худлита как опорного материала уже как минимум одна звезда.
А вот когда начинается часть о феноменологии Гуссерля и Хайдеггера - *эмодзи с криком Ван Гога, три раза*
Собственно их приткнули в серединку, видимо это хардкорная часть для тру philosophy lovers.

Кончается всё довольно гладко Сартром, на мой взгляд опять же достаточно доступно и удобоваримо, как и в начале с Камю.
Важная пометка —Сартра, Камю (выборочно), Ницше, Кьеркегора и опять же выборочно Хайдеггера я читала очень, очень давно. В университетском курсе были все, кроме Ницше (загадочно, почему?). Впрочем, кто же не читал Ницше.
Поэтому думаю если найти подборку ключевых отрывков из работ авторов, и перечитать их по ходу прослушивания, понимать курс станет значительно проще.

Собственно, автором так и задумано — к аудио идет 100-страничный буклет с кратким содержанием теории, рекомендованным чтением и вопросами полегче и посложней. В идеале перед каждой лекцией нужно читать указанную главу в источнике, но я в общем считаю себя молодцом уже хотя бы за прослушивание аудио)

Примеры вопросов попроще в конце лекции о «Мифе о Сизифе» и абсурдизме:
- What is “the absurd”? Camus gives us several possible ways of living
in the face of “the absurd.” What are they? Do you think that they are
equally meritorious? What is “philosophical suicide”?

И посложней:
- Camus, who considered himself a political moderate and a humanist,
states that “to abolish conscious revolt is to elude the problem.”
Elsewhere, he emphasizes the need for “metaphysical revolt.” Who or
what is Camus, an avowed atheist, revolting against?
- Would “the absurd” simply disappear in the face of irrefutable evidence
that God exists?

Ну и как уже можно догадаться, о смысле жизни лектор не даст однозначного ответа, несмотря на завлекающий заголовок (а как хотелось бы...).
В общем и целом, однозначно рекомендую, профессор Соломон — человек явно увлечённый темой, и слушать его приятно. Хотя мне и приходилось некоторые лекции по паре раз прогонять для полного понимания.
favorites non-fiction philosophy religion

Overall    5 out of 5 stars
Performance    5 out of 5 stars
Story    5 out of 5 stars
Profile Image for Mitchell
Mitchell
20-02-2017
Outstanding
Great introduction to existentialism and a good summary and interpretation of key texts. Solomon covers different concepts within existentialism including freedom and responsibility, and continually points out its relevance to one's everyday experience. It is a broad survey of ways about how to think about ourselves and our place in the world which, if you found this as Intersting as I did, will have you thinking for hours after listening. I thoroughly enjoyed this, particularly the coverage of Camus, Dostoevsky and Nietzsche. It has inspired me to read some of the key texts discussed. The presentation is clear and very followable despite the complexity of some of the ideas, some lectures will require a bit more concentration than others. If you are interested in philosophy at all, having some sort of life-crisis or want to have some good discussion material for debating friends on the big questions, I would really recommend this course.
Was this review helpful for you?

Helpful
  Report this
8 people found this helpful

Overall    4 out of 5 stars
Performance    3 out of 5 stars
Story    5 out of 5 stars
Profile Image for Billy Bathgate
Billy Bathgate
24-08-2020
A good intro to Existentialism
I approached this course as an atheist, with a spotty/amateur understanding of existentialism.

It definitely gave me a clearer picture, and did, IMHO, the best job one could reasonably expect of a course that covers so much material - from Keirkegaard to Sartre. I feel that I have a cleared understanding of the basic tenets of existentialism.

One reservation I do have is that the lecturer has what seems to be a christian bias, which shows through subtly. I understand that it is hard to lecture in philosophy without having your own personal favorites - philosophy ain't an exact science. Certainly, also, the bias here pales in comparison to a certain Lobster dominance hierarchy theorist.

Atheist, or theist, this is a 'survey course' that will, I believe, will answer some questions you might have had, but give rise to even more questions - which is exactly what philosophy is supposed to do.

Recording was clear throughout.

Was this review helpful for you?

Helpful
  Report this
Overall    5 out of 5 stars
Performance    5 out of 5 stars
Story    5 out of 5 stars
Profile Image for Stephen van Schalkwyk
Stephen van Schalkwyk
01-04-2019
Great overview
For an amateur, ‘No Excuses’ has been an excellent resource to understand the key ideas Existentialism contributes to thinking.

Was this review helpful for you?

Helpful
  Report this
Overall    5 out of 5 stars
Performance    5 out of 5 stars
Story    5 out of 5 stars
Profile Image for Roddi
Roddi
02-11-2018
interesting
well presented and very interesting talks on this subject. what else do you need. brilliant!

Was this review helpful for you?

Helpful
  Report this
Overall    5 out of 5 stars
Performance    5 out of 5 stars
Story    5 out of 5 stars
Profile Image for Amazon Customer
Amazon Customer
03-09-2018
Essential
This is a great series of lectures by a professor who knows his subject well.

Essentials are well explained and the men who made them are put into context.

Was this review helpful for you?

Helpful
  Report this
Overall    1 out of 5 stars
Performance    2 out of 5 stars
Profile Image for Sam
Sam
05-11-2018
Existentialism.
The reading was fine, and I don't know if this is apoor rating of the lectures or of existentialism itself, but it just seemed to be a mix of trite observations masquerading as profundity.
Gave up around lecture eleven.

Was this review helpful for you?

Helpful
  Report this
2 people found this helpful