This is a Newbery Award winning coming of age tale. Jonas is an eleven-year-old living in a very tightly controlled community. All tasks are assigned at age 12 by a group of elders. Children are born to breeders and then doled out to families to raise them. It is communistic in a way. All are taken care of. No one need get upset. All are unspeakably polite. It has the misfortune of being so risk-free a world that it has become almost entirely devoid of life. Lively characters like Asher, a happy go lucky peer of Jonas’ has trouble getting things as quickly as others, but he has a boundless capacity for fun. When work is assigned at a ceremony for “twelves” Jonas is singled out for a very unusual job, a singular one in fact. He is to be a Receiver, that is a repository of the community’s memory, not figuratively, but literally. He is assigned to work with an elderly man, the current Receiver and absorb from him his memories. The Receiver is a kindly, caring man, who comes in short order to feel a strong affection for Jonas. The experience is an awakening one for Jonas, though. He learns of things that none of his fellows has ever known. He learns of color in a world that is entirely black and white, literally. The people in the town do not see color. He is also shown war and pain. More than shown. By transferring the memories to Jonas the Receiver gives Jonas the gift of actually feeling. Jonas comes, ultimately to learn that the ways of his community leave much to be desired. He learns that emotion plays a critical role in human existence, and he is shocked when he learns the reality of one of his community’s basic customs, releasing. The Receiver comes to love Jonas and helps him find his way in this new world.

I was reminded very much of M. Night Shamalyan’s The Village.How long can one protect youth from growing, from adulthood, from seeing behind the fictions of society. I was not thrilled with the book. It was a grand case of been there, done that. There were a few surprises, but the familiarity of the story made it boring for me. Yes, people need emotions to live a complete life. No, it is a bad thing to live all of life risk-free. Yeah, and…?

It was written for young readers, who may not be as familiar with the common themes in play here. So, it may be more satisfying and broadening than it is for adults. I would recommend it for kids, but it is a very short trip of little import for grownups.

Plato sans Philosophy

I liked the set-up and the basic concept, but just basing it on Plato's Republic does not make something deeply philosophical. Initially it was fun to trace various elements to Plato and see what Lowry has done with them in her 'community,' but soon it became clear that the book is based on a very dumbed-down version of the Theory of Forms and by applying it to memory (thus making memory inhabit/come form the mysterious ill-defined place the Forms were supposed to). That is not anywhere close to Plato's conception of the Forms and the Cave. For a while I felt that it might be an inversion of Plato where the world decided to live in the Cave -- the worst choice being the only one available to a post-war/oil devastated humanity? In any case, the whole construct around memory was just too far fetched and flimsy and the execution almost lazy.

And it is not just 'memory' I am talking about, even the blandness, the lack of colors, lack of music, the 'sameness' -- these are Lowry's twisted presentations of Plato's very practical appeal against rote poetry. Lowry's core message might be that human beings will always create a dystopia in the quest for a fully controlled utopia, and doing that by adopting the greatest utopia myth yet would have been a good argument, but only if she stuck to the core tenets of it. The whole of Plato's argument was directed towards showcasing the need for philosophy in Athens' public life -- how do you counter that with an example sans philosophy? I accept that man might always reach dystopia searching for utopia, but Lowry's world is a very poor illustration of that depressing possibility.

The Republic was meant to regulate the administrators and the soldiers only, not the whole of the society, the only control espoused was in the letting-go of control over various segments at various ages, at which point they become free agents, unless selected for their aptitude into the administration.

That is a far cry from Lowry's community where only robots are allowed. Even the administrator-rulers are not philosopher-kings, who in The Republic can be assumed to have the wisdom to understand and modify founding laws if they compromise our humanity. Lowry's dystopia is possible only in a community run by robots, and that is a very poor argument for a cause that deserves much better arguments.

Also the book was boring and long-winded, to be really honest... and the plot-twist, if it can be called one, is just a version of Plato's 'return from the light/return to the cave' (an ugly mixing of two separate ideas!)-- but it is never explained why it took so many generations for the 'memories' to produce the first true 'philosopher.' The whole thing doesn't hold much water, logically or philosophically.

"What does 'release' mean in The Giver?", my daughter asked me this morning, when she had just started reading the novel on a strong recommendation from myself and both her older brothers.

"I can't tell you that, it will spoil the reading experience!" I answered. "What do you think of the book so far?"

"Well, the community has many rules."

"Is that good or bad, do you think?"

"I don't know, some rules are good, but some seem a bit too much. Like not being allowed to choose your profession."

We went on to talk about rules serving to protect human beings from chaos (like traffic rules, for example, or rules that protect the freedom and well-being of all people acting in a shared space), and rules serving to control thoughts and actions (like oppressive dogma).

Later, when I arrived at school, I changed an introductory lesson plan for my mentor class to include a discussion on the validity of certain rules (like school rules, for example), and the importance of distinguishing them from oppressive ones. Reading and talking about books with my children has a major effect on my professional choices.

In the evening, my daughter came back into my room, looking sad and bewildered. She had figured out what "release"stands for, and she was confused. This is her first encounter with dystopian fiction, and she was shocked by the power of euphemisms (without knowing the term itself). My middle son joined the discussion and reprimanded me for telling his sister what the word means.

"I figured it out myself!" she said, and he nodded approvingly.

"We spent several lessons discussing release in class", he added, and started talking about the ethical dilemma of the book: how much did the characters know of the sinister undercurrents of the community? Since they were deliberately held outside history and memory, and were taught limited facts, how much understanding could they possibly have gained?

"Jonas' dad was a nice man!" My kids insisted. And still he released the baby.

"Rosemary released herself, and I don't think she was a failure at all, she just couldn't bear all those feelings without anyone to share. It is horrible if you are alone!" My daughter is adamant.

I listened to my children, communicating their thoughts, reflecting on a society so scared of passionate emotions and painful memories that they have abolished them, and I felt grateful that we aren't there just yet. We still read books, talk about them, communicate our worries, reflect on the good and bad aspects of highly regulated societies, and we all see the different colours in the world. We may not like them, and we may be scared of both colours and sounds and emotions that we aren't familiar with, but we have not turned into complacent, numb non-thinkers like the people in the world of The Giver. We still care enough to have all those scary feelings: fear, anger, frustration, passionate love and longing.

Let us keep reading and talking and communicating with the next generation to prevent our world from becoming careless and resistant to human emotions. Let us practice the skill of giving and receiving knowledge of the world and help each other carry the pain it brings, so that joy is not lost along with sorrow.

The Giver is a perfect novel to introduce the great questions of our time to a young and curious audience!

For such a popular and loved book, The Giver is pretty disappointing. It's not necessarily an entirely bad novel (or rather novella, as it's under 200 pages), but I can't understand why it was so well received - winning several awards, and finding its way to school reading lists for sixth graders in America. Is it really this enlightening to be a "warning in narrative form", as branded by The Washington Post?

The Giver begins with the introduction of the eleven year old protagonist, Jonas, who lives in a New and Improved Society - after endless wars and conflicts humanity finally arrived at a model of society which is based around ultimate safety and content of its population. In the community which Jonas inhabits there are no personal choices - everything is picked for its citizens by a special committee of elders. Citizens will be selected for roles in the community based on their talents and skills, and will be assigned spouses to perfectly match their characters and temperaments. Everyone works for the community, and in return the community provides everyone with what previous societies never could - perfect safety and satisfaction for all, with everyone's needs covered. The community controls where its citizens work and what clothes they wear, but also regulates the weather and the colors they see. The society is highly conformist, as no one questions its law and order and everyone takes the obligatory medication.

This is not a bad idea for story per se, but it has been done before - and better. I was surprised to see it compared to 1984 - the - the benchmark for all dystopian fiction - with arguments made that such stories have been told before, but not for children. I don't agree with it for several reasons:
- it poses that children have to be exposed to dystopian fiction, but not books such as 1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451 etc. because they would not appreciate/understand/be interested in these books, which are too difficult for children to follow and comprehend.
- if classic dystopian literature is seen as too brutal/vulgar/horrifying to be shown to children, does it automatically follow that they have to be exposed to a watered down and simplified version of it? How are we supposed to teach the horrors of the world to children if we don't tell them about the actual horrors? This is ironic - by withholding these books from younger readers aren't we acting like the community managers from this novel, who knew best what their citizens like and should do?
If we insist on holding their hand, when are we supposed to let go?

I first read 1984 as a young teenager, and it left a lasting impression on me, which is not what The Giver would have done. George Orwell has crafted a complex - but not impossible - society, with plenty of detailed background to compliment it. Winston Smith is a real protagonist that most of us can sympathize with or even relate to, and the novel is full of memorable phrases and imagery. Most importantly of all, 1984 is a very story-driven experience: from the opening line with the striking clocks on a bright cold day in April we're in this world, hook, line and sinker - and we believe in it.

This isn't a case with The Giver - we receive only the bare bones of a world, with little to focus on, and the things we do see are confusing and don't make sense. Discussed in spoilers below:
In the beginning of the book we see a fighter jet, yet we are told that the community has no memory or even idea of what warfare is like - later shown by Jonas's shock to these memories when they're given to him by The Giver. So why would the community maintain military jets and possibly other weaponry and train pilots in using them? We see Jonas's father develop great affection for and attachment to the young baby, Gabe, going so far as to take him to his own house and watch his development, and then completely disregard both and kill the child, "releasing" him and throwing him away like a piece of trash. This does not make actual sense - surely some level of attachment between people would prevail even in a society which knew nothing of love, and some citizens would rebel against these releases - even if only for purely selfish reasons, as those exposed to the truth about the act would immediately understand what their own release would mean.
Perhaps the most puzzling question is the one concerning The Giver himself - why is there any real need for a person who holds all the memories of the former way of life? If these memories and experiences have been proven to be not necessary for all citizens of the community, why is there even a necessity of keeping a person who holds them - and maintaining a ritual of transferring them for generations to a selected individual who would become a new holder? Why does it have to be a person, and not a collection of records? But most importantly, why do these experiences and memories have to be held at all in a society which is based on completely revamping civilization? This doesn't make any actual sense, an is required only for an obvious rebellion against the community.

The book ends on an ambiguous note, allowing readers to draw their own conclusion as to what actually happened. This means that there are no wrong answers - and no consequence for wrong judgement. I've read that the ending is just the beginning to a real closure which is presented in the book's sequels, but I'm not sure I want to read all four - as the story of The Giver is unsurprising and obvious, offering no new insights or rewards for sticking through it. This isn't a terrible book, but I believe that both children and adults deserve much better.

Jonas is an 11-year-old boy living in what he believes is an idyllic community. Crime is low, and everyone is assigned jobs that they love. When Jonas turns 12, he will finally learn what role he is to fulfill in the community.

When I was a child, I read The Giver, and I loved it. As an adult, I read The Giver and loved it even more.

Where do I begin with this one? First, as a dystopian novel, this book rocks. It doesn’t speak down to you or drone on and on about minute details. As someone who isn’t a teenager anymore, it was nice to get the way back machine fired up and think back to milestone birthdays, when I looked forward to embarking on the next step of life like when I could finally obtain my driver’s license. Now, I just look forward to getting another year older and having a reason to justify shipping in a gluten-free cake from New York (Seriously, Milk Bar in NYC….amazing!).

The Giver touches on some deep topics. How does society treat those that don’t conform? Should society live in blissful ignorance? What does society give up when it pressures everyone to be the same?

The ending of the book is ambiguous; however, in the text that I had, the author clarified the ending on the next page, spelling out exactly what happened on the last page of the book.

2025 Reading Schedule
JantA Town Like Alice
FebtBirdsong
MartCaptain Corelli's Mandolin - Louis De Berniere
AprtWar and Peace
MaytThe Woman in White
JuntAtonement
JultThe Shadow of the Wind
AugtJude the Obscure
SeptUlysses
OcttVanity Fair
NovtA Fine Balance
DectGerminal

Connect With Me!
Blog Twitter BookTube Insta My Bookstore at Pango

The worst part of holding the memories is not the pain. It’s the loneliness of it. Memories need to be shared.

Both of my kids read The Giver in school when they were in the 7th grade. Both liked it, and want to see the movie, so I thought I’d read it before we go. On the positive side: it’s short, and I read the copy my older son annotated, so it was fun being reminded of how his mind worked at that age. And I’m all for dystopian fiction—even one that I might describe as being a Golden Book version, or lil’ Johnny’s first dystopian novel—as a way to discuss issues in our society.

But for a book so well regarded, I was left flat. The Giver is much too short. There’s almost no description of the Community, or the past that caused them to make the choices they’ve made. There is almost no characterization aside from Jonas and the Giver. The third most significant person, Jonas’s father, ultimately acts in a way so inconsistent with his previously established character that it lacks believability. The ending was disappointing on multiple levels. It was supposed to be ambiguous (though I thought it was pretty clear how it ended), but I have since learned that there’s a sequel that definitively resolves the alleged ambiguity (amusingly, the exact opposite of the way I had thought it ended). Lastly, it’s a book that could only be written by someone with first world problems. I’m pretty sure that someone who lived in a war-torn country would have a very different, far more nuanced opinion on resolving these questions of trading personal freedom for safety and security. A bit disappointing.

n

Stuck at home? Got some time on your hands? Want to start a long series? But you don't want a dud?

Then I have some suggestions for you!

Check out thisn   booktube videon all about which series are worth your time (and which ones aren't)!

Thanks for watching and happy reading!

n  Check Out the Written Review!n

Man oh man, for a children's book...Lowry certainly didn't pull any punches.

Jonas lives in a perfectly perfect world.

Every family has one mother, one father, one girl and one boy.

Families always get along, the parents never disagree, no one has any secrets.

Everyone contributes to society equally.

No one is ever outraged, angry, sad.

n  The life where nothing was ever unexpected. Or inconvenient. Or unusual. The life without colour, pain or past.n

However what appears perfect on the surface hides a far darker truth. There isn't any negativity in their world but also, there isn't any true happiness or love.

All emotions are suppressed, children are taken from "birth mothers," and defected individuals are "released." His society is alive but not living.

Jonas is ready to undergo the ceremony of twelves (during which are children born in the same year 'age' to the next level).

He will be assigned his role in society but when he is supposed to accept his new job, he's given the title of Receiver.

Something he's never even heard of. No one really knows what the Receiver does other than the Giver.

Soon Jonas learns that the Giver holds the collected memories of the societies long since past and passes it along to the next generation.

Jonas is faced with startling realities that he would've never considered - how beautiful color is, how heartbreaking loss is, and how incredibly wonderful love can make a person feel.

n  The worst part of holding the memories is not the pain. It's the loneliness of it. Memories need to be shared.n

And soon, he comes to a decision. One that would irrevocably shift his small world.

n  Of course they needed to care. It was the meaning of everything.n

I first read this one in fifth grade and whew. It was a doozie.

Reread it this year and I'm starting to wonder if kids would like English class a lot more if any of the books were a bit more cheerful....

That being said, reading this one as an adult completely changed my perspective.

I remember liking it, in a slightly apathetic way, in fifth grade.

Now, I'm wholly invested in the plot, the characters and the world. What an incredible dystopia!

Audiobook Comments
Very well-read by Ron Rifkin. He wasn't a stunning narrator but definitely an enjoyable one. Though, it was a bit disconcerting to hear a grown man's voice for 12-year-old Jonas.

YouTube | Blog | Instagram | Twitter | Facebook | Snapchat @miranda_reads

Another book I wouldn’t have read if not for becoming a teacher. This is a dystopia based on Plato’s Republic and I’m particularly fond of such dystopias. It is much the same as the film The Matrix in its own way (same philosophical roots) except this one focuses more on the dark side of Plato’s vision – where as the Matrix focuses much more on the obligations of the Philosopher Kings (those who know) to fix things.

It really surprises me that so many people write books that so clearly refer back to Plato’s allegory of the cave from The Republic. The main ideas being that you are the only person that comes to learn ‘the truth’ by being dragged very painfully out of a cave where you have spent your life in virtual darkness watching shadows on a screen. When you are first shown ‘reality’ the light is so bright it burns your eyes to near white blindness and the shapes and colours nearly blow your mind. But eventually you get over the pain (and there is always pain in learning) and come to see the world as it is. And then it is time to go back to where you came from and tell the people around you what you have learnt.

And do you know what? If what you have learnt is important enough they are going to think you are nuts. Thus it is with the world, thus it will always be.

Unlike some of the books I’ve read this year for young adults this one is actually really well written and about themes that I think are important and worth thinking about. Yes, yes, it is Brave New World re-written – but that’s fine too. A quick read but with lots of substance and it is always time to look at the infinitely dark side of Plato’s vision splendid.

Reread just in time for the new movie!

I've been meaning to come back to The Giver and write a better review for some time now and the soon-to-be-released movie seemed like as good an excuse as any. My rating remains the same even though it's been several years (and many badly-written YA dystopias) since I last picked this up. I still think it's a good book, with an interesting concept and sophisticated writing... but I was never 100% sold.

For one thing, the protagonist and narrator has just turned twelve years old. While I'm glad that authors are writing thought-provoking books for younger children, there is a lack of depth in the narrative which was necessary in order for it to be a realistic portrait of a child's mind. The society and themes explored by the novel might have been more effective through the eyes of someone older, in my opinion.

In the story, citizens of this society are united by a "sameness" that fosters peace, cooperation and general well-being. Everyone is equal and everything is chosen for you... your spouse, your occupation, even the children you receive. As the novel opens, it appears to be a utopian world. But things are not all as they first seem. When Jonas is selected to be the Receiver of Memory, his mind is opened to the dark secrets of the society he was born into. He learns that harmony has a price and it might just be more than he's willing to pay.

This book gradually explores and perhaps challenges the notion that ignorance is bliss. How much is it worth to live peaceful - if empty - lives? I like the idea of it far more than I like the novel itself. The strength of the novel is not in the plot, writing or characters... but in the wandering thoughts you are left with and the strange sense of unease it imparts.

I understand why readers of Matched felt compelled to compare the two - the functioning of the societies is almost identical and the MCs experience some similar dilemmas, though Matched is far more romantic. I suppose it is further evidence of how influential this little book has been on the genre. The concepts are, for me, definitely stronger than the characters. And the ambiguous ending pleased me in the way it was crafted, rather than causing me to fret over Jonas' fate.

Upon finishing this book, not 20 minutes ago, I'm left with several thoughts:
1. This book should be required reading for everyone with the emotional maturity to handle it! (I believe that blindly labeling The Giver as a children's book is neither realistic nor necessarily wise, in some instances. Parents would be well advised to thoroughly screen it before offering it to an emotionally sensitive child to read.)

2. Very few things leave me mentally stuttering as I struggle to put my thoughts into words, but, somehow, The Giver has done just that. It will take me a while to be able to make sense of, not the story, but my response to it.

3. The Giver is a deftly crafted work, both stunningly beautiful and deeply disturbing... Finding myself being imperceptibly lulled by the peace, order, safety and serenity of Jonas's world; being awakened by the sickening thud of reality's steel-toed boot in the gut, leaving both him and me breathless and disoriented in the aftermath. This story is haunting and powerful. It's a raw portrayal of the presumed moral sacrifices that man would have to make in order to create and maintain a Utopian society, and the acceptable naivety of the horrors that would accompany it.
Perhaps what is most frightening to me is the way I so easily assumed, at first, that Jonas saw the world as I do.. that the words were being used in the way I understood them. The realization that his newly deposited knowledge gives him is almost terrifying, definitely unnerving. The depth of my emotional response still has me reeling!

4. This is NOT a happy-ending, feel-good read... although I suppose it could be for those who read books without truly experiencing them, but I don't know how to do that, so for me it was a painful experience. I'm glad I read it, as it's made me think about things in a way I wouldn't have otherwise, and I appreciate that. I don't know that I would have read it had I known how real Jonas's and the Giver's pain would be to me.

i have read this so many times throughout my life, that i have lost count. this is definitely the first book that introduced me to a dystopian world and it has become my standard for judging all others.

i think if i picked this up for the first time now, im not sure i would love it as much as i do. with an objective view, i can understand how it might feel outdated with some loose ends. but this will always have a place in my heart for helping me imagine a world and reality outside of my own.

where i originally was drawn to a world where colour does not exist, i grew up to understand the deeper themes of individuality, loneliness, memory and wisdom.

this is a classic story from my childhood that will continue on with me through life.

↠ 5 stars

Why I chose to read this book:
1. I read Lois Lowry's book Number the Stars a few years ago and learned a lot about how Denmark was affected during WWII. Btw, this book falls under a completely different genre;
2. I have heard about this book over the years and wanted to see why it was required reading in some schools; and,
3. February 2023 is my "Books for Young and Old Alike" Month.

Praises:
1. such an interesting premise for a utopian/dystopian novel! Several times I had to stop in order to absorb what I just read - scenes would just blow me away!
2. many questions that I had were answered satisfactorily; however, I did wonder how children were conceived, but since this book was written with a younger audience in mind, it's understandable why this topic wasn't explicitly covered; and,
3. the ending warmed my heart.

Overall Thoughts:
This so-called "perfect world" was quite chilling, and at times, heartbreaking! But sometimes I wonder - what if we didn't have free will? Wouldn't it be wonderful if we all followed the rules of morality and behaved ourselves? We may get a sense of warmth and security, but at what cost? The loss of individuality and of free choice?

Recommendation?
I had no idea at all what this book was about, so I am very glad I trusted Lowry and took the time to read it. Extremely thought-provoking!