Partly. But again, in the author's own words, he "wrote a book about children on an island, children who behave in the way children really would behave". Even his motivation was that Coral Island was "unrealistic". You'd think that would earn the book at least a little asterisk. Meanwhile Animal Farm is obviously intended to be allegorical by using animals as protagonists.

While I disagree, one could argue that Lord of the Flies deserves to be so highly regarded despite being so wrong about children. But can one really argue that, when a highly regarded and extremely well known work, that is ostensibly about children, gets shown to be completely factually wrong on children, the appropriate amount of self-reflection for the literary world, that had heaped (and continues to heap) so much praise on it, is zero?

> gets shown to be completely factually wrong on children

I'm not sure I understand this. Who/what has shown Golding's classic novel to be "completely factually wrong"? How did you establish this? Is there a reference you could steer me towards?

I'd really be interested in exploring the background of where this idea comes from-- my curiosity piqued: Is Lord Of The Flies a misrepresentation of childhood savagery? Is there no such thing? What is it that you are contending here, and where did you get this idea?

TIA!