Talk:Lord of the Flies

there seems like there should be so much more potential for this. If no one minds I think I am going to scrap this and do a major re-write. --Isra1337 11:59, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I did the rewrite. Hope people enjoy. --Isra1337 11:47, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Well, I certainly do. - Mandaliet 18:18, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Yeah....forgot to say I enjoyed it to. Great work. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Picture

Closely following my rewrite a picture was added. I really don't get what is funny or even relavent about the picture. Does anyone want to explain it before I remove the image from the page?

The Article is "Lord of the Flies". The image is from the film "The Fly". Flies...... Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Ah. Got it. (looks back as the joke flies over his head) Thanks. --Isra1337 12:12, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and since you responded insanely fast on this page, you can ignore the identicle question I asked on your talk page. --Isra1337 12:13, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

No worries. Its been a long, long week. :) -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Characters Section

'Ralph is democracy, Simon is religion, Piggy is intellectualism, Jack is the military, Sam n' Eric are the voting public....' These are standard interpretations of the novel's characters. I'm going to restore an edit reverted by User:Isra1337 to bring these in line with a lie-o-pedia. Alksub 17:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT an encyclopedia of lies. It is an uncyclopedia of HUMOR. Lies ultimately aren't funny, and we have to delete so much crap here because people don't understand that. Satire comes from sticking close enough to the truth. When you changed those labels you completely destroyed the satirical elements: i.e. the examples represent the failures of those ideas, not the reasons why the characters are supposed to represent those things. If you want to make an entry that is full of nonsense, I suggest you start your own. Dick Hertz ---Rev. Isra (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Spork?

Were any parts of this article sporked from, I don't know, Wikipedia, or SparkNotes, or maybe my World Lit class this year? P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 15:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia was consulted. Mainly my rage at high school classes long gone. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem...

I find that this article too closely resembles the actual book, except the opposite. There are parts that seem to just be the opposite of what was written. Take the second line for example, it talks about the "innately civilized nature of british schoolchildren." This is literally two letters short of the truth. If you trade "civilized" for "UNcivilized" it would seem to be an accurate book review. Examples of such things continue on throughout the article. While this keeps it content free, it is neither orignal nor funny to a person who has actually read this book. Granted, it may be difficult, but I think we can do better. Also, I found some stuff that borders on being actual content of the book....yikes! (more like actual content of the book in a good 80% of those places, This thing needs a rewrite)

I love it. --EMC ^[TALK] 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

uh huh, the opposite of this book is Coral Island, so should we try to base this off of that?

Good essay posted on Facebook

This group has a humorous essay about Lord of the Flies: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2236080581 --75.85.108.54 20:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious

This is fuckin' brilliant.