Scan barcode
isabella_r_frey's review against another edition
challenging
dark
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
2.5
marshamudpuddle's review against another edition
challenging
sad
5.0
The most extraordinary feat of literary imagination, of empathy, of creation through language. And so deeply, hauntingly sad.
thewholeplot's review against another edition
5.0
Why did we read Lord of the Flies when this book exist?! Golding had an amazing imagination to write a comprehensive book with the characters having minimal language.
bomzara's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
1rebeccapearson's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
adamjcalhoun's review against another edition
2.0
Everyone says that you can't say you like an author if you have only read one of their books. I loved Lord of the Flies, so I figured I should read William Golding's other critically acclaimed novel ("his best writing!" reads the blurb). It is unfortunate, then, that this book is SO BORING. Like constant eye-glossing boring - and I don't usually mind boring writing.
The story is one of Neanderthals meets humans; or at least, the 1950s conception of neanderthals meet humans. Except that these Neanderthals are telepathic. And of course they are loving, unwilling to kill animals, and worship a mother-goddess. And are idiots. OK, so let's just view this book as an exercise in cognitive difference.
I suppose this book won such plaudits because of its style; for this I must salute the critics who are able to force their way through it and enjoy it. It does do a decent job of portraying a more sensory-focused world-view, but I'd rather be reading Flowers for Algernon than this. But the book contains lots of symbolism! That's good, right? If you like unnecessary symbolism, this book could be for you. No wonder the mid-century critics loved it.
The story is one of Neanderthals meets humans; or at least, the 1950s conception of neanderthals meet humans. Except that these Neanderthals are telepathic. And of course they are loving, unwilling to kill animals, and worship a mother-goddess. And are idiots. OK, so let's just view this book as an exercise in cognitive difference.
I suppose this book won such plaudits because of its style; for this I must salute the critics who are able to force their way through it and enjoy it. It does do a decent job of portraying a more sensory-focused world-view, but I'd rather be reading Flowers for Algernon than this. But the book contains lots of symbolism! That's good, right? If you like unnecessary symbolism, this book could be for you. No wonder the mid-century critics loved it.
edgeworth's review against another edition
2.0
The quote at the beginning makes it clear that this is a book about Neanderthals, which is a shame, because it would probably be a more interesting book if the reader was left to figure that out themselves. Nonetheless, we have a story told from the point of view of Lok, a member of "the people," which is to say a small family of Neanderthals somewhere in the paleolithic era.
The popular image of Neanderthals (or any cavemen) is as thuggish brutes, but Golding depicts them as sweet-natured and pacifistic; they don't hunt, and while at one point they take meat from a sabre-toothed tiger's fresh kill, they feel guilty about it. They aren't very bright and seem to communicate through a form of low-grade telepathy, sharing "pictures." Their simple and relatively happy way of life is thrown into turmoil when some of their number start disappearing, and they realise that their local area has a new group of people in it - not Neanderthals, but much smarter and more ruthless homo sapiens.
So as with Lord of the Flies, The Inheritors is an allegorical story about humankind's deeper brutality. The difference is that while Lord of the Flies' surface story is quite interesting to follow, The Inheritors is a semi-experimental work of fiction which is very focused on the physical, of living Lok's day-to-day experience as a sequence of actions, with a limited capacity for remembering the past or imagining the future. (The final chapter is told from the point of view of one of the humans, and it's startling how simultaneously normal and different it is after 200 pages of Neanderthal thinking.) This bored me. The book is more interesting in the second half as the humans arrive and you try to deduce exactly what they're up to, but overall I still found this to be one of those books that's more interesting as an idea (or a Wikipedia synopsis) than as an actual reading experience.
The popular image of Neanderthals (or any cavemen) is as thuggish brutes, but Golding depicts them as sweet-natured and pacifistic; they don't hunt, and while at one point they take meat from a sabre-toothed tiger's fresh kill, they feel guilty about it. They aren't very bright and seem to communicate through a form of low-grade telepathy, sharing "pictures." Their simple and relatively happy way of life is thrown into turmoil when some of their number start disappearing, and they realise that their local area has a new group of people in it - not Neanderthals, but much smarter and more ruthless homo sapiens.
So as with Lord of the Flies, The Inheritors is an allegorical story about humankind's deeper brutality. The difference is that while Lord of the Flies' surface story is quite interesting to follow, The Inheritors is a semi-experimental work of fiction which is very focused on the physical, of living Lok's day-to-day experience as a sequence of actions, with a limited capacity for remembering the past or imagining the future. (The final chapter is told from the point of view of one of the humans, and it's startling how simultaneously normal and different it is after 200 pages of Neanderthal thinking.) This bored me. The book is more interesting in the second half as the humans arrive and you try to deduce exactly what they're up to, but overall I still found this to be one of those books that's more interesting as an idea (or a Wikipedia synopsis) than as an actual reading experience.
oakeenchild's review against another edition
2.0
No idea whether I hate it or love it. I was surprised then bored and then surprised again. 2 stars because I am simply indecisive.
emmalouix's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.5