OK, for those of you who have mentioned this blog's slight positive bias, this should restore the average (and then some!). Now, I should probably tell you that I first read this book when I was eight, which may have coloured my opinion of it somewhat, but I hated it. I did try it again later, in the pursuit of fairness - I still hated it.
I know this is not the conventional opinion and I'm sure people will take me aside and explain to me exactly why it is that I "haven't understood the novel". Those people needn't bother. I get it, I really do. I understand that it's an allegory and a commentary on human nature; that doesn't mean I have to like it.
Let me explain why. Firstly, it's just morbid. Human nature may well work like that, it is certainly possible and people do commit atrocities all the time, but that doesn't mean I want to spend hours of my life dwelling on it. I know the message is far more effective if he uses children, but it also makes the whole thing extremely disturbing.
Secondly, I actually disagree with the point of the novel. I don't think that people will revert to their animal natures if left alone. Why should they? You see a similar attitude to the world if you look at Blake or Rousseau (although they obviously hit the opposite end of the spectrum and believe we would all be angels). Why is it that all of these people seem to forget that we are left alone?
After all, the rules constraining us didn't just appear! Humans have been around for about half a million years - organised society has only been around for about 5000 years. People didn't just wander around randomly killing each other, we wouldn't have survived until now if they had!
Ok, rant over. There you have it though, in a nutshell - I think it's unrealistic and needlessly morbid. Well-written, yes, absolutely. If you don't mind the former two, give it a shot. But it's not for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment