Niemeyer's contrasts "Lord of the Flies" and "The Coral Island." Though the settings are similar, and even the names are the same, the two novels are dramatically different. Niemeyer suggests that "The Coral Island" is not merely optimistic, but simplistic and, therefore, unrealistic. Golding's novel is pessimistic, complex, and far more believable.
In terms of following a literary tradition, Golding does so, but with a dark twist. Instead of a south seas adventure where goodness and virtue triumph over evil, on Golding's island the Beast holds sway.
There is no single explicitly spelled out thesis in the essay. Instead, there is a linked and progressive argument that might be summarized as follows:
By comparing Lord of the Flies to The Coral Island, we can see how Golding's novel fits in to a larger literary tradition, and that its allegory is more emotionally and conceptually realistic than other supposedly factual works.