"The Giver" by Lois Lowery

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Jonas grew up in a stable society. Everyone had a job. Everyone had a home. Everyone had a food. Everyone was polite and kind to their neighbors. Everyone knew how their life would play out in very ordered segments. A family at 1, a bike at 9, a job for life at 12.

All it cost was the ability to feel love or other strong emotions and any knowledge of the history of their world leading up to that point except for the "Receiver of Memories". Jonas is shocked when he is selected for that job at age 12.

He learns, during his training, of all the things his perfect society has given up to create the stability that it values so highly.

I just finished the book last night. It's intense for a YA work. I liked it. It questions whether stability and peace are worth what it may cost to achieve such goals.

Anyone else read this one and care to discuss?

[polishgenius]

I've only read this once, years ago, so I can't remember any specifics of the problems I had with it, but I remember thinking it was very poor - and being vaguely insulted, as someone at that point in its target audience, that this was somehow seen as an instant classic.

Essentially the impression that stayed with me is of a book that's so concerned on beating on a point that while perhaps important is not exactly filled with nuance that it neglects to give the plot any semblance of sense or plausibility.

And this was before I read 1984 or Brave New World, iirc, though it wouldn't have been too long before.

[Fez]

I remember reading it in grade school, I really didn't like it much. Its so been so long that I can't fully remember why anymore, but I definitely remember not liking it and wishing that the teacher would hurry up with the related assignment so that we could move on to a different book.

At that age I wouldn't have been too concerned with structure, prose, plausibility, etc. I'm fairly certain that I thought it was just heavy-handed in making a point that I easily understood, and that it wasn't much fun to read.

[Kat]

I really liked it when I was 11, and I re-read it recently after finding out there were sequels (3 of them!). I didn't realize how short it was-- it took me about 2 hours to blow through it. In light of having read so many other dystopian YA and adult novels since then, it's not as good, but for what it is, it's pretty good. I tried to start reading the sequel but couldn't get into it. I'll give it another shot soon but it starts with completely different characters and I don't have the patience to figure out who they are yet. Has anyone read the other novels? I want to know how long I have to read for before we meet up with familiar faces from the first book.

[Kaminsod]

I read the first one in Eight Grade, and enjoyed it immensly. The two sequels that followed were enjoyable as well, but lack the certain rough, dystopian charm the original had.

[saltovergray]

It was the first dystopian novel I really read, first in 5th grade at the age of 10, and then in 8th grade for class at the age of 13. I liked it both times, but it's very YA-ish. I don't think if I had read it now I would have enjoyed it as much. Not that anything about it is inherently bad, but it just doesn't hold up to par with other dystopian works (Brave New World and of course 1984) which I've read since.

[Francis Buck]

I had to read it twice in school, once in sixth grade then again when I was maybe a sophomore? I remember liking it, and loving the twist regarding the apple, but I can't say how well it would hold up if I read it today.

[thecryptile]

Anyone else read this one and care to discuss?

Read it for school, it was one of the few assigned books that were SFF. I still have my copy from 6th grade and have reread it a couple times. One of the classic dystopias. It should be thought of in the same vein as Brave New World and 1984. It holds up okay on the adult re-read, but was better the first time around- that's mostly because I remembered all the twists.

The odd thing to me was that my classmates didn't find this totalitarian society nightmarish- many found it to be better than modern American society in some respects. Some even opined that they found such a society desirable! The little Commies! Really freaked me out though. In retrospect, my classmates who envied Jonas' society freak me out way more. Dark days loom for the Republic if such attitudes prevail.

ETA: There's a movie version! Cool.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Thecryptile,

I did wonder if anyone would find the society portrayed appealing?

[KiDisaster]

I had to read it in 7th grade for literature class. I actually liked it quite a bit, most of the other people in my class didn't though but I guess most of them resented having to actually read books in general. Probably my favorite require reading book from high school.

I remember hating the cliffhanger ending though and wanting to know what the hell happened to the kid and the baby :\

[wolverine]

I read it in elementary and it has stuck with me for a very long time. It had a lot of impact on me and was very eye opening. I can't remember specifics on the writing or anything, but I think the fact that I can remember the plot as much as I do shows how powerful it was for me.

[Brendan Moody]

I tried to start reading the sequel but couldn't get into it. I'll give it another shot soon but it starts with completely different characters and I don't have the patience to figure out who they are yet. Has anyone read the other novels? I want to know how long I have to read for before we meet up with familiar faces from the first book.

I've read them all. Gathering Blue doesn't have any familiar faces at all; it's more a thematically parallel novel, set in a different corner of the post-apocalyptic world, than a sequel. There's a small allusion to The Giver near the end, but that's it. Messenger mixes characters from Gathering Blue with characters from The Giver, with more emphasis on the former, and Son simultaneously follows up on Messenger and offers a new set of connections with The Giver. You'd probably be all right skipping straight to Son if a strong sense of continuity with The Giver is important to you.

I read The Giver shortly after it came out, and loved it. I read it again in eighth grade, and still loved it. Then I read it again a couple years ago when Son was about to released, and still loved it. Of course it's not an enormously sophisticated novel by adult standards: it's aimed at readers Jonas' age or a bit younger, the kind who aren't going to ask picky questions about the science involved, or point out that the Birthmother math is flawed. But as a good story with a solid preteen protagonist that introduces kids to questions about the balance among social order, safety and individual freedom, I think it works pretty well.

[sologdin]

scot--

is it specifically a dystopia of economics, or is the critique limited to political forms, bureaucratic management, and so forth?

[Persicaria]

It's one of those children's book that I read as an adult (also read Peter Pan and Alice). I liked it. I felt like it touched on a lot of interesting and dark concepts. Brave New World is of course my favorite dystopian novel , but I think of it as an interesting primer.

[jons nissa]

Thecryptile,

I did wonder if anyone would find the society portrayed appealing?

i found this book very interesting. i teach it to middle schoolers and think it's perfect for 7th graders. i definitely find the society very appealing. i use almost every part of this book to spark discussion and thought among my students. i tend to really focus on the explanation of what everyone's responsibility is at each year of their life, how they interact with their community and finally, the existence and ultimate cost of "nirvana".

of course i focus on the ending a lot and find my classes are often equally divided about the ending. some love the ambiguousness while others hate and yet others swear the ending is more definite than it seems. either way, it's a great book to share with young people.

as for my own opinion, the community is interesting. it hardly surprises me that many would find it appealing. we are already drifting toward a "group think" existence where being the same is far more encouraged than being unique. the idea of a set career based on your likes and skills (some employment agencies use meyers briggs to help with placements already) coupled with the needs of the community is also easy to understand. i think the only place many would hesitate is the lack of passion. note i didn't say the lack of love. i don't know that we would ever willingly accept that but i'm not sure the people in the giver "willingly" accepted it either. the little the book shares about the pills is not enough to gauge the origins of the now "habitual" act of suppressing natural desire.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,

scot--

is it specifically a dystopia of economics, or is the critique limited to political forms, bureaucratic management, and so forth?

I wouldn't call it dystopian economics. It implies that people are well cared for and generally have everything they need within the community. The Giver himself even told the committiee of elders about starvation when they came to him asking if it was a good idea to increase the population. It does by implication criticise subsuming individual initative and desires into those of the community at large and suggests this community has lost too much in embracing "sameness".

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I don't remember this terribly well, but doesn't it have fairly Jesus-y overtones? The Giver bears the whole weight of human suffering so others don't have to?

I recall liking it very much, fwiw.

[Kat]

I don't remember this terribly well, but doesn't it have fairly Jesus-y overtones? The Giver bears the whole weight of human suffering so others don't have to?

I recall liking it very much, fwiw.

Maybe that was one of the intentions of setting up the position, but I thought the fact that the Giver is the only one who has any sort of memories that invoke actual emotions put it squarely outside the realm of allegory. I thought the whole point was that the community had decided that individualism and emotions were essentially dangerous and could lead to societal collapse. The implication seemed to be that civilization may have collapsed outside of the walls of the community due to war, famine , disease, or all of the above, and that while knowledge (extremely broadly defined) was valuable to keep in a community, it wasn't something that everyone needed access to, but they might need it again later on in case something sinister happened with the planes flying overhead. Basically, humans fucked something up big time, and this group decided to bury their heads in the sand on purpose while setting up a system that served its purpose (harmonious survival) well with safeguards in place to make sure it continued to follow the formula of everyone in their right place. Following the strictly defined rules of this system had the intended or unintended side effect of losing the ability to sense certain things, whether they were in the physical sense (seeing in color, feeling sexually attracted to others) or emotional sense (love).