Explain why this book is valuable without resorting to: "Muh human depravity"

This book kicked ass. The description of the forest sounds as a "parody of laughter" still gives me the goosebumps

I loved all of the descriptions in the writing. One of the best books I've read. OP can suck my dick.

stumped

what is this about? is it like stephen king?

why the fuck you read books if you don't like them? Why the fuck a book have to have an immediately demonstrable value to you? Do you even fucking like reading or do you just want it to magically get you to stop fucking your entire life up?

Seems fair to me. A book isn't good because the theme is strong.

It's good because it has poetic descriptions of place which are still direct enough for anyone to understand (see laughing user upthread), because it effectively contrasts the thought processes and character of different characters (remember the boy chucking rocks near a crying kid?), because it satirizes cold war era cultural positions and because it features one of the classic trippy breakdown sequences in modern literature.

Literally the only people who don't rate it are contrarians and highschool grudgeholders who had it as a set text.

Like sex, it's value lies in doing the thing itself; or reading the book for the sake of reading the book. Its value doesn't rely on anything.

Lemme take a run at why it is important to me:

I went to an extremely niggeriferic school. Administration had no choice but to let wiley packs of nogs beat down whites. 'Round about this time my pappy died and my mammy really wasn't into it. I become a behavior problem immediately in these waters, then mandated to see therapist for some crimes. Good old guy. Suggested I read 'Lord of the Flies' (Lord of the Flies is Beelzebub, BTW). I think he was trying to subtly imply pic related, as well as he could without getting himself in trouble by stating the obvious.

Attached: Monkey Jungle.jpg (1280x720, 44K)

>why the fuck you read books if you don't like them?
Uh how can you know you don't like a book before reading it?

i don't think it was as much about repressed darwinism as to wondering why we have societies to begin with. why the repressed darwinism is represented by children. and if it's darwinism at all...but more juvenile hedonism clashing with what holds societies together?

I think it's less human depravity and more the idea that humans are extremely malleable. Depending on their circumstances or their desires they can be brought to accept or adopt values that in other situations would be considered ridiculous. This is not a one directional downward spiral, although that's the angle that the book tends to take, but is a reminder in general that our societal norms are not built on solid ground, and that any lack of vigilance in maintaining them will cause them to crumble.

>something something social commentary, something something nazism, something something evil is within us
It may have been a good book back when it was written, but now that popular culture is overflowing with the same themes it's just too straightforward and pontificating to be valuable. Yeah humans are easily turned towards evil, everyone knows this for 70 years already.
The only intelligent post in this godforsaken thread.

that's exactly my point. It's a tired theme

holy shit, literally haven't looked at the book since maybe 9th grade fucking years ago and I recognized that line

i thought it was well written except for the ending; Ralph should have died in the burning bush, and no one can convince me otherwise

>well-written
>elegant
>open to a wide range of readings
>historical insight
>brilliant metaphors