Reread this for the class im teaching. Loved it this time around as well. however, having read the Hunger Games series and then The Giver back to back, I find myself rather aware of the fact that the dominant race in these societies is, well, white. And the whole "pale eyes"=special thing in the Given has always rubbed me the wrong way (consider readers of color and consider how often this trope of "pale eyes" or "blue eyes"= special is used in YA literature, and the problem is obvious.). At least that's how it came across to me. I need to marinate on this. My issue is not with the books themselves, it's with the collective and lack of diversity within the collective. In other words, the usual problem.

(I'm thinking: perhaps, if this book had been released earlier than 1993, it would've been read in my school - in a Finnish translation - and so I could say I read this at school.)

In the future, generations after people of a certain country/area embraced the Sameness, a Twelve named Jonas is selected at his Ceremony of Twelve (held in December where also other children up to Twelve received new roles and changes of appearance, and Newchilds are given to their parents) into a surprising, rare role of studying to become a Receiver of Memory - a honored if somewhat lonely kind of position. The study opens him new experiences, some pleasant, some painful, but he also learns a dark secret that ends his peace of mind and makes him question things... and seek to do something.

There are a few things that are dark about this society - so controlled (like telling of dreams in the mornings, telling of (diluted) feelings in the evening, everyone using bikes, that certain things like your spouse, your children, your job are chosen for you; the buttons, the ribbons, the soft toys, the books allowed (very little), volunteeringThe darker sides: what being 'released' is - eugenics-like ridding of inferior twin or fussy one when it comes to babies, execution by injection for the rule-breakers like the pilot from the beginning of the book, and euthanasia for the despairing ones like Rosemary, and of the Old. The pills could also count: sexual suppression, for Newchildren are produced by Birthmothers and so sexual desires are not needed, and there might be some other effects too. Maybe also the ability of the adults to lie through their Sameness-given ignorance of true feelings.

So what's in the world after Sameness:
the good: no war, hunger, pain, private cars, poverty
the bad: but no colors, true feelings, music, teenage rebellion, weather changes, art, museum, birthdays and other celebrations...

And what the Givers job is like: feeling of isolation, pain of keeping the secrets, of memories (from pre-Sameness times, sometimes you can even place them, like the war scenes was from the time of horses and cannons, something like could have been in Waterloo)... but also all those books! And detailed furniture, not just plain and useful like for other members of the community. But the poor current Giver, losing his child like that, and I think that also had an impact on his marriage since his wife left to join the Childless Adults (adults whose children have grown up etc.).

The ending was pretty fine: I can see the reason for the early escape was prompted by danger placed on Gabriel; how vast the land on where Sameness ruled was, and though the ending felt vague, I've spoiled myself a little, so know that what happened there was real to the end. I've seen the film (most of it), but like the book a bit more; it flows easily and though the subject was painful, there was never a point where I had to push myself over a scary bit - I read the book pretty quickly. It left me things to think about, and that's a good sign with a book. :)

I believe I would have liked this more if I had read it when I was younger, but who actually reads when they are younger. It needed something more and I will never understand how The Giver could have explained every great feeling that existed in the past without describing sex. I don't necessarily need sex in a book or on a first date, but at least the possibility should be there.

I think this book deserves the hype and the praises it gets. For a dystopian/utopian novel, this is one that is very unique. The build up of the plot is quite slow but one that won't weigh your interest down. The concept is very interesting and the theme is quite provocative. It's also very short and I read it one sitting.

Lowry's book is a piece of nationalist propaganda, using oversimplification, emotional appeals, and dualistic morality to shut down her readers' minds. More troubling is that it is aimed at children, who don't yet have the critical faculties to defend themselves from such underhanded methods.

Unsurprisingly, Lowry adopts the structure of the monomyth, equating a spiritual journey with a moral one. Her Christ-figure uses literal magic powers to rebel against his society. This rebellion and the morality behind it are presented as 'natural', to contrast with the 'abnormal morality' around him.

Lowry doesn't seem to understand that we get our morality from our culture, it isn't something in-born that we 'lose'. This is the first hint of Lowry's misunderstanding of the human mind. She assumes her own morality is correct, and then builds her story to fit it.

She also makes the character act and think like a modern person would, despite never adequately explaining how he came up with such unusual notions. It's the same trick many historical fiction authors use, leaving us scratching our heads as to why a Fourteenth Century French peasant speaks like a second-wave feminist. I'd suggest that Lowry falls to this fault for the same reason they do: she has no talent for imagining how others might think differently.

Lowry's book ends with the standard nonspecific transgressive spiritual event that marks any overblown monomyth. Since the book is not a progressive presentation of ideas, it does not suggest any conclusion. Instead, the climax is a symbolic faux-death event (symbolic of what, none can say). Confusingly, Lowry later redacts the ending in the sequels, undermining the pseudo-spiritual journey she created.

Though some call this book 'Dystopian', it's closer to the truth to say Lowry borrows elements from the Dystopian authors, attempting to combine the spiritual uplift of the monomyth with the political and social deconstruction of the Dystopia. What she doesn't recognize is that the faith of the one conflicts with the cynicism of the other. She draws on ideas and images from many other authors: Bradbury, Huxley, Orwell, Burgess, but doesn't improve upon them.

These authors created novels that reflected the world around them. They based them on the political events of the times, presented with realism and careful psychology. Though they presented the struggle between the individual and the society, they portrayed morality as grey, and suffering as the result of individual human faults, not political systems. Lowry doesn't realize that the best way to critique Fascism or Communism is not to present it as 'evil', but to simply present it as it was.

But Lowry's world is not based in reality, it is symbolic and hyperbolic. Instead of writing about how poverty makes the world seem small and dull, she has the characters magically unable to experience life. Instead of an impersonal government, she presents a sort of evil hippy commune.

The only political system it resembles is a school, which is a neat little trick to get the kids interested. The idea that 'school=unfeeling totalitarian hell' is not an uncommon one, but it's one I'm surprised teachers would support. The book also suggests a creche, but lacking similarity to any real-world system, it doesn't work as a political criticism.

Lowry creates this artificial world to suit her purposes, but it is not a symbolic exercise like 'Animal Farm'. We understand that the pigs of animal farm are symbolic, because there are no talking pigs. Lowry's world is more insidious, since its oversimplification is hidden. She builds an artificial world to support the dualist morality that she's pushing. She presents the same knee-jerk fears about euthanasia and abortion that people use against Women's Rights or Health Care.

Worse than these Straw Man arguments is the fact that she never deals with the economic causes of totalitarianism. Tyrants don't just rise up and take control by their own force of will, they come into power because of the socioeconomic situations that surround them. Lean times produce strong, fascist leaders while profitable times produce permissive, liberal societies.

Strong, centralized leadership simply doesn't self-propagate in cultures where everyone is clothed, fed, and housed. The Holocaust was socially about some ideal of 'change' and 'purity', but it was economically about the transmission of wealth from Jews, Poles, and Catholics to Germans (and more specifically, to those Germans who had elected the new ruling party).

The atrocities of war are, for the most part, committed by normal people on other normal people. By presenting the power structure as 'amoral' and 'inhuman', Lowry ignores the fact that people will willingly cause others to suffer. Painting the enemy as 'evil' and 'alien' is just an unsophisticated propagandist method.

She contrasts her 'evil' with the idealized 'goodness' of emotion, beauty, and freedom. This is nothing more than the American dream of 'specialness' that Mr. Rogers was pushing for so many years. We are all special, we are all good, we all deserve love and happiness. Sure, it sounds good, but what does it mean?

Where does this 'specialness' come from? If it is just the 'sanctity of human life', then it's not really special, because it's all-encompassing. If all of us are special, then none of us are. There's nothing wrong with valuing life, but when Lowry presents one mode of life as valuable and another as reprehensible, she ceases to actually value humanity as a whole. Instead, she values a small, idealized chunk of humanity. 'People are good, except the ones I don't like' is not a moral basis, nor is it a good message to send to kids.

If the specialness is only based on fitting in with a certain moral and social guideline, then Lowry isn't praising individuality, she's praising herd behavior. The protagonist is only 'special' because he has magic powers. His specialness is not a part of his character, it is an emotional appeal.

The idea of being a special individual is another piece of propaganda, and its one kids are especially prone to, because kids aren't special: they are carefully controlled and powerless. Giving a character special powers and abilities and then using that character to feed a party line to children is not merely disingenuous, it's disturbing.

There is also a darker side to universal specialness: giving a child a sense of importance without anything to back it up creates egotism and instability. Adults noticed that children with skills and friends had high self-esteems, but instead of teaching their children social skills and knowledge, they misunderstood the causal relationship and tried to give them self-worth first.

Unfortunately, the moment unsupported self-worth is challenged, the child finds they have nothing to fall back on. Their entitlement didn't come from their skills or experiences, and so they have nothing to bolster that sense of worth. Instead, any doubt sends them down a spiral of emotional instability.

A single book like this wouldn't be the cause of such a state in a child, but it does act as part of the social structure built to give a sense of worth without a solid base for that worth. People like to believe they are special, kids especially so, but being a remarkable person is not a result of belief but of actions. If the book had informed them, then it would leave them better off, but giving them a conclusion based on emotional appeals does nothing to build confidence or character.

Many people have told me this book is good because it appeals to children, but children often fall for propaganda. Children develop deep relationships with pop stars, breakfast cereals, and Japanese monsters. This does not make them good role models for children.

Feeding 'specialness' to kids along with a political message is no better than the fascist youth programs Lowry intends to criticize. The obsession with individuality is just another form of elitism. It's ironic that people in America most often describe themselves as individuals when pointing out the things they do to align themselves with groups.

But banding together in a community is not a bad thing. For Lowry and other 'Red Scare' children, any mention of 'communal' can turn into a witch hunt, but we all give up some personal rights and some individuality in order to live in relatively safe, structured societies. There are benefits to governmental social controls and there are drawbacks, and it's up to us to walk the line between the two. Anarchy and Totalitarianism never actually exist for long: we are social animals.

It's not difficult to understand why Lowry is so popular, especially amongst educators. The message she gives aligns perfectly with what they were taught as kids, from Red Scare reactionism to the hippy-dippy 'unique snowflake' mantra. These ideas aren't entirely misguided, either. It's good to recognize the benefits of difference and the dangers of allowing other to control our lives.

If a reader believes that fascism and socialism are inherently wrong and that their own individuality is their greatest asset, they will likely sympathize with Lowry's work. However, this doesn't make the book honest, nor beneficial. One of the hardest things we can do as readers is disagree with the methods of authors we agree with ideologically.

It makes us feel good to find authors who agree with us, but this is when we should be at our most skeptical. Searching the world for self-justification is not a worthwhile goal, it simply turns you into another short-sighted, argumentative know-it-all. 'Yes men' never progress.

Lowry is toeing the party line. She does not base her book around difficult questions, like the Dystopian authors, but around easy answers. She doesn't force the reader to decide for themselves what is best, she makes it clear what she wants us to think. Her book is didactic, which means that it instructs the reader what to believe.

Even if her conclusions about Individuality vs. Community are correct, she doesn't present arguments, she only presents conclusions. Like rote memorization or indoctrination, she teaches nothing about the politics, social order, economics, or psychology of totalitarianism or individuality. The reader is not left with an understanding, just an opinion.

The baseless 'individuality' of the book lets the reader imagine that they are rebels--that they are bucking the system even as they fall into lock-step. By letting the reader think they are already free-thinking, Lowry tricks them into forgetting their skepticism.

She is happy to paint a simple world of black and white, and this is likely the world she sees. I doubt she is purposefully creating an insidious text, she just can't see past her own opinions. She writes this book with a point to make, and makes it using emotional appeals and symbolism. She doesn't back it up with arguments because she doesn't seem to have developed her opinions from cogent arguments.

In the end, she doesn't show us that the structure of this society is wrong, she says nothing poignant about individuality vs. community; instead, she relies on threats to the life of an innocent infant. Yet nowhere does she provide an argument for why communal living or the sacrifice of freedoms for safety must necessarily lead to infanticide.

In politics, making extreme claims about the opposing side is called mud-slinging, it is an underhanded and dishonest tactic. It works. Arguing intelligently is difficult, accusing is easy, so that's what Lowry does.

She is another child of WWII and the Cold War who hasn't learned her lesson. She quickly condemns the flaws of others while failing to search out her own. Even after the Holocaust, there are many racist, nationalist, violent Jews; conflict rarely breeds a new understanding.

America condemned the faceless communal life of the Second World, and yet America created The Projects. We critiqued strong governmental controls, but we still have the bank bailout, socialized medicine, socialized schooling, and socialized charity. America condemned the Gulags and Work Camps, and yet we imprison one out of every hundred citizens; far more than Stalin ever did. Some are killed, all are dehumanized.

As a little sci fi adventure, the book isn't terrible. It's really the pretension that goes along with it. Lowry cobbles together religious symbolism and Dystopic tropes and then tries to present it as something as complex and thoughtful as the authors she copied. Copying isn't a crime, but copying poorly is.

Like Dan Brown or Michael Crichton, she creates a political pamphlet of her own ideals, slaps a pretense of authority on it, and then waits for the money and awards to roll in--and they did. Many people I've discussed this book with have pointed to those awards as the surest sign of this book's eminent worth.

Award committees are bureaucratic organizations. Their decisions are based on political machinations. This book is a little piece of Nationalism, and so it was lauded by the political machine that Lowry supports. The left hand helps the right. If awards are the surest sign of worth, then Titanic is a better movie than Citizen Kane.

What surprises me is how many of those who brought up the award as their argument were teachers. If a politically-charged administrative committee is the best way to teach children, then why do you take umbrage when the principal tells you that bigger class sizes (and fewer benefits) are fine? Listen to him: doesn't he have award plaques?

The other argument is usually that 'kids like it'. I usually respond that kids also like candy, so why not teach that? Some people also get angry at me for analyzing a book written for children:

"Of course it's not a great book, it's for kids! If you want a good book, go read Ulysses!"

I prefer to give children good books rather than pieces of political propaganda (even if they agreed with me). Children can be as skeptical, quick-witted, and thoughtful as adults if you give them the chance, so I see no excuse for feeding them anything less.

Kids aren't stupid, they just lack knowledge, and that's a fine distinction. It's easy for adults to take advantage of their naivete, their emotionality, and their sense of worth. Just because it's easier for the teacher doesn't mean it's better for the child.

When we show children something that is over-simplified, presenting an idealized, crudely moralizing world, we aren't preparing them for the actual world. If you give a child a meaningless answer to repeat, he will repeat it, but he won't understand why.

Why not give the child a book that presents many complex ideas, but no rote answers, and let them make up their own minds? If they don't learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff and form their own opinions early, in a safe, nurturing environment, what chance will they have on their own as adults?

In all the discussions and research regarding this book, I have come across very little analysis. It's especially surprising for a book with such a strong following, but there aren't many explanations of why the book is supposed to be useful or important.

This lack of argument makes sense from a political standpoint, since there is no reason to analyze the worth of propaganda: its worth is that it agrees with society and indoctrinates readers. Analyzing it would defeat the purpose; political diatribes do not stand up to thoughtful attention.

Perhaps someday someone will create a thoughtful, textual analysis of this book that will point out its merits, its structure and its complexity. I've gradually come to doubt it. I never expected when I wrote my original review of this book that it would garner this much attention.

I still welcome comments and thoughts, but if your comment looks roughly like this:

"You should read this book again, but this time, like it more. You think you're smart but you aren't. You're mean. Lowry is great. This book won awards and kids like it. It's meant for kids anyways, why would you analyze what its about? I bet you never even read the sequels. Go read 'Moby Dick' because you are full of yourself."

I've heard that one before. If you do want to comment though, you might check out this article; I find it helps me with presenting my ideas.

¿Qué estaría la humanidad dispuesta a pagar por la utopía… por la sociedad perfecta?

En una comunidad futurista se han eliminado varios de los problemas que aquejan a la humanidad, no hay guerra, ni hambre, el dolor físico es extraño y el dolor emocional desconocido, pero lo tétrico de este libro, como una verdadera buena distopia, es que cada “solución” elimina algo de la humanidad, principalmente han eliminado las decisiones personales, porque una decisión siempre tiene la opción de estar errada, entonces en este mundo un grupo de personas, los más viejos y sabios deciden por los demás todo, el trabajo que se debe desempeñar, el número de hijos que se debe tener, la edad apropiada para realizar cualquier cosa, incluso la pareja que se debe tener.

Si las decisiones son peligrosas, las emociones, las emociones fuertes como el amor, lo son mucho más, entonces también deben eliminarse, y también se eliminaran todas las diferencias que se puedan, raza, credo, cultura, las diferencias son el principio de la guerra por lo tanto, la igualdad será la paz ¿no? Aquí es donde se pone terrorífico, porque esta no es una idea nueva, muchos dictadores fascistas han tenido ideas similares ¿y si en el futuro alguno lo logra?

n  Jonásn será nuestro protagonista que se está preparando para desempeñar un trabajo de gran honor recordar, recordar que en el pasado hubo guerras, hubo hambre, hubo discordia, el dolor físico y el dolor emocional abundaban; recordar para que no se repitan los errores del pasado, él es el único que debe llevar esa terrible carga porque la población no conoce nada del pasado ni desean hacerlo, por que los recuerdos también pueden ser dolorosos, pero en el pasado no solo habían cosas malas, también habían cosas buenas, habían colores, había música, habían decisiones, habían emociones, había amor, de allí nace el conflicto interno de Jonas.

Esta es una de esas lecturas recomendadas para la reflexión, que me recuerda algo a un Mundo Feliz de Aldous Huxley o a 1984 de George Orwell, historias que todo el mundo debería leer por las ideas que tienen de cómo podría ser el futuro de la humanidad, bastante realistas y a veces terroríficas.

P.D. La razón por la que le coloco 3 estrellas tiene que ver con el final,  es un final abierto y viene a desenredarse un poco en el tercer libro, pero aun allí, no se da respuesta a todo

* 4.5/5 stars.
I had to withdraw 0.5 stars, because I wish it would've been longer to leave a bit more room for character development and explanations.
Nevertheless, I'd recommend this to any younger reader who wants to dive into the dystopian genre! What a wonderful book!
--- read for the #5books7days challenge

مـاذا لــو كــان الإنسان مســـيرا وليس مـخــيرا؟

وماذا لو كانت هناك مساواة كاملة مطلقة؟
لا أختلاف أديان، ولا لون بشرة مختلف عن الأخر..بل لا ألوان علي الإطلاق
بالطبع فلا عنصرية هنا..لا أحكام مسبقة
نعم..قد يكون هناك عدل مطلق، مجتمع منظم يسير كالساعة
لا يمكنك مخالفة القانون اكثر من مرة وإلا فسيتم اخراجك من ذلك المجتمع
يختار لك منذ صغر�� المجال الذي ستدرب فيه..ثم يجد لك عملا يناسبك
يختار لكل فرد زوجه او زوجته طبقا لنظام مراقبة يناسبا بعضهما
ثم نختار لكما ابن واحد وابنة واحدة يناسبكما
فالزواج ليس كاملا بعواطف وعلاقة كما تظن
هذه هي اسرتك..هذا هو عملك..وعندما تكبر تجلس بدار المسنين برعايه متكاملة..لحين خروجك من المجتمع

مجتمعا يربط بين افراده روابط يحكمها القانون وليست العواطف الإنسانية المختلفة
مجتمعا بلا حروب ، بلا مجاعات ، مجتمعا بلا فقراء ولا اغنياء ، مجتمعا به مساواة

ولتحقيق المساواة كان يجب التضحية ببعض الاشياء..غير العواطف البشرية
يري القائمون علي المجتمع انها تضحية لازمة لجعل مجتمعهم منضبط
ليكون مجتمعا منضبط بقوانين كانضباط الكون

*******************************
يوتوبيا ديستوبيا عجيبة.. يوتوبيا لأن المجتمع منضبط، مثالي ، بلا مشاكل
ديستوبيا ﻻنه بلا...مشاعر ، روح، ألوان ولا حتي جمال

رواية لا يمكني ان اصف ما شعرت به تجاهها
لاني بهذا سؤثر في رايك، وهذا ليس هدفها علي الاطلاق

ماذا اذا كنت كما يظن البعض مسيرا بالفعل؟ وتشكك في انك مخير؟
ماذا ان كان كل افعالنا لا تخضع للإرادة الحرة
لا مجال لعواطف ومشاعر قد تعيقنا من التقدم
لا حب، لا تعاطف، إذن لا كراهية لا بغض
لا حروب، لا دمار

لا يوجد مكان بين المجتمع للضعفاء، إذن لا مجاعات، لا فقر، لا شقاء

ستكون اذن حياتك مثل جوناس بطل الرواية

روايه فلسفية بالرغم من انها سهلة وسلسة جدا في احداثها
تناقش امر رهيب دون تعقيد ودون اي مساس بالدين
فكانت رواية مناسبه للجميع
وبالرغم انه لا يوجد اكشن
لايوجد صراع وإثارة
لايوجد قصه حب
لايوجد سحر

ومع ذلك لم اشعر بادني ملل بالعكس
أثارت بي التساؤلات كثيرا

الديستوبيا الشبابية
YA Dystopia

بالرغم من ان الرواية تعود للتسعينات، 1992، الا انها تعتبر سابقة لعصرها في مجال الدبيستوبيا الشبابية او للنشء، تسبق الروايات الشهيرة الحالية باكثر من 15 عاما مثل
Hunger Games, Divergent, City of Amber
وغيرها ، بل اكاد ان اجزم انك ستجد ملمح من هذه الروايات موجود في تلك الرواية الاصلية

أسلوب الروي أيضا مثير ، بطل القصة "جوناس" ستشعر بمدي قلقه يوم الاختيار ،ليعرف التدريب الذي سيحدد وظيفته في المستقبل بطريقه مثيرة..ترقب يحبس الانفاس ومشهد مكتوب بشكل جيد جدا

بل وان الصفحات العشر الأخيرة..كنت احبس انفاسي بالرغم من عدم وجود اكشن او مطاردة مثيرة مثلا..كنت مرعوبا بالرغم من عدم وجود رعب

كنت مكان جوناس ... كنت معاه اتخذ القرار الاخير

النهاية تراها انت بعينك..وقد ترتاح لها حسب حالتك النفسية وقت القراءة

وانا اغلق صفحات الكتاب لم اكن منتظرا جزءا ثان..وفعلا لا اريد جزء ثان يستكمل لي الاحداث انا في غني عن معرفتها
نهاية ستحبها لانها نابعة من شعورك وتابعة لحالتك المزاجية

قد يضايقك النهاية المفتوحة نوعا ما لكني كما قلت انها تابعه لمزاجك وفكرك حول مصير جوناس
ماذا حدث للمجتمع؟ هذا لا اعتقد انه سؤال يشغلني بقدر انشغالي حول البطل والذي فعلا افكر فيه كثيرا لدرجة اني لاول مرة تقريبا اكتب ريفيو قبل ان افكر حتي ان ابحث اكثر حول الرواية..لقد انهيت الرواية منذ دقائق فعلا

وبالرغم من ان فعلا النهاية تحتمل الكثير من التفسيرات الا انك ستختار تفسيرك كما قلت حسب حالتك
فقد يظن البعض أن جوناس نجا وانتقل لمجتمع طبيعي، بينما يري البعض الاكثر تشاؤما انه مجرد خيال بعد هلاكه....ولكن دعنا من تلك النظرية السوداوية

نهاية ستجعلك تفكر كثيرا جدا..جدا
هل مشاعرنا وعواطفنا البشرية هي فعلا سبب الحروب والشقاء؟
هل إرادتنا الحرة هي سبب الظلم؟ هل اختيارنا الاديان المختلفة هي سبب الحروب
هل عدم تحكمنا في المناخ او خلق الله هو سبب الكوارث؟

رواية صغيرة جهنمية ستشعر فعلا ان الحياة لايجب ان تكون هكذا
بنهاية اعتقد انها ستجعل الرواية تلتصق بذهنك لفترة طويلة جدا..حياة عشتها وجربتها في مجتمع لتكون تجربة لك تضيف معني جديد لك
سواء اتفقت مع هذا المجتمع او اختلفت عنه
ولكنك لن تنس مصير جوناس
والذي ، تذكر، انت نفسك من سيشهده


بالرغم من اعجابي بكل شخصيات الرواية..الرجل الحكيم وعائله جوناس واصدقاءه ولكن الاهم هو مصير الفكرة نفسها

الرواية دخلت عالمها بالصدفة -كما اشتريتها حتي صدفة - لاني اعتقد انها مجرد روايه فلسفية "خاصا بعد قراءه اولاد حارتنا / الله والانسان ثم حوار مع صديقي الملحد" ولكني وجدت انها روايه ديستوبيا بطلها ولد في الثانيه عشر من عمره
وفوجئت عندما تعرفت اكثر علي عالمه
ذلك المجتمع الذي كتبت عنه في البداية

اكتشفت انها روايه تستكمل رحلتي في قراءات العام..ترد علي ذلك العذاب الذي تعذبته في تشوش الرمز مع "اولاد حارتنا" و تخبط افكار "الله والانسان" فهي تجعلك تفكر في حقيقة هل الانسان مخير ام مسير..وجائت الفرصة مع هذه الرواية البسيطة ذات الاسلوب السهل الممتع والفكره الشامله الاكثر عمقا

هي رواية ديستوبيا شبابية تعتبر سابقة لكثير ممن صدر مؤخرا ك
The Hunger Games
Divergent
بالرغم من ان الاخيرة فعلا واضح تأثرها بتلك الرواية الصادرة في بداية التسعينات

كما شعرت بشئ من التشابهة مع هاري بوتر في جزئية التنسيق

ارجوك اغلق هذا الجزء ان لم تكن قرات 6الرواية من قبل فمتعتها في نهايتها
بل والغريب ان د.مصطفي محمود ذكر رواية في "الله والانسان" قد تكون افكارها متشابهة - وهي تسبقها بسنوات كثيرة طبعا ولم اقرأها حتي الآن وهي رواية
A Brave New World ولربما قرأتها لاحقا
ولا انكر انني سعدت جدا بالنهاية التي شعرت انها تدل علي وصول الفتي لمجتمع طبيعي
وان كان البعض يفسرها بوفاته وانتقال روحه لليمبو، مرحلة البرزخ
ايا كانت رؤيتك للنهاية ستحوز الرواية علي اعجابك


رواية احببتها جدا
واعتقد انها صارت واحدة من اهم الروايات التي قراءتها وبداية متميزة لقراءات العام


محمد العربي
من 9 يناير 2014
الي 15 يناير 2014

"تقريبا لأول مره أكتب رأي عن رواية فور الانتهاء منها
ولكنها ستظل في بالي لفترة طويلةبحق"

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


Wow... just wow.

I'm really ashamed that I haven't picked up this book sooner. I went on a vacation today, and I spent more than 10 hours in the bus, so I brought few short books to kill the time and this book was one of them. If it wasn't for this trip, who knows when I would pick it up.

I devoured every single page of this book so fast, and in the end I was left wanting more. But I do have to say that I'm not sure if I will read the sequels, because I think that this was the perfect way to end this book.

Amazing book and I'm sure I'll be re-reading it in the future many, many times.

There is a moment three-fourths through the novel where Jonas’ family is seated for dinner, and as they do every night, they share the feelings they had that day. His mother is sad, his sister is angry and Jonas, now that he’s the new Receiver, doesn’t have to take part in this little group therapy. He’s learned to much too talk.

Instead, he sits by and critiques his family with teenage angst and internal monologue. His mother is sad, but he’s felt true grief. His sister is angry, but that’s really just exasperation and he’s felt rage. He cannot explain to these people what he’s experienced through the magical memory transfer in the Giver. Their limited understanding of the “human experience” deprives them so much that his mother ridiculously thinks her anger is anger. Jonas, and Lowry, tells us it’s not.

Wait, what?

They’re not angry? Why? Because they don’t really know pain, that the shallow existence they lead in this communist crèche, freed from having to make hard choices about life, prevents them from knowing the Truth, from feeling life. Because they don’t really know him! They couldn’t possibly understand him!

*ahem* So, the kid’s hitting puberty; we’ll give him a pass at the family dinner. But I’m not so willing for Lowry.

The Giver gives the Receiver memories, and because Lowry’s dystopia is so darn un-American, with its government chosen jobs and arranged marriages, it’s really really easy to like and agree with Jonas as he becomes more like us and less like them. He takes a pill so he won’t desire girls, and at the same time, enjoys his psychic memory hallucination of sledding. Who doesn’t like sledding? Who wants to take a pill that makes you asexual?

Unless you’re a hydrophobic monk, his emotional argument isn’t an actual argument, but a presentation of the bizarre and straw-man against the familiar and asking the reader to take a stand. We cheer when he stops the pill and starts having wet dreams because, darnit, though embarrassing, that’s so human! We’re human! Those wacko folks around Jonas must be robots. Communist robots.

Jonas’ day to day life ends up being bizarre and his dreams, very sane seeming. We nod with him when he critiques his mother and we think, “What a sheltered child. This world, this place, prevents people from experiencing what it means to be human. His parents can’t even say they love him! How sad! All the Sameness, how bad!”

I might agree, but I have an Uncle who fought in Vietnam.

I made the mistake once of asking him about it. It was a school project and I was supposed to interview someone who lived through the war; bonus points if they fought. I’m still not sure what the teacher was thinking other than to make sure all his students really understood Rambo.

Uncle never really answered any questions past the first few, and finally he stopped the interview. He looked at me and said in the most serious, dangerous voice I’ve heard, “You wouldn’t understand, kid. That kind of thing, you wouldn’t get it. You can’t. So leave me alone.” I left and he sat on the porch for the rest of the day staring off into some memory that wouldn’t leave.

I have always been damn glad I *don’t* understand.

That’s the dirty trick behind the Giver. Each and every one of us lives in a pampered world, with just as many limits, barricades, and group-imposed mandates as Jonas. We have complex social structures that control everything we do. They’re just different.

So we scorn the communistic life he lives and agree wholeheartedly that people should see in color, have the choice of what job they work at, and that you should be able to have more than two children. Unless the reader is Chinese, in which case this probably comes off as extravagant.

Meanwhile, we drive the speed limit in heavily regulated cars, nod to the policeman who punishes dozens and dozens of various crimes and are confident that OSHA will require our employer to not negligently kill us. I’m sure those would confuse the hell out of Jonas.

The author wants to reader to find nothing but restrictions and denials in Jonas’ world, restrictions that prevent him from experiencing the fullness of the human experience! I see them all the time in our world too, and I’m often very, very glad.

The true limits of the human experience are horrible, really excruciatingly appallingly bad. Robert Burns was right, and we do our level best to avoid man’s inhumanity to man. Until you’ve been raped by a Bosnian rape squad, fought rats for rotten food, and gotten trench foot, you don’t even get to start talking about the limits of the human experience. We gladly trade away vast amounts of choice and freedom for a life without those memories. We structure our entire culture around the prevention of a lot of what we never, ever want to know. How many of us have been stabbed? Tortured? Enslaved? We have professional soldiers because most of us don’t want to do the job. Often, we don’t even want to know about the job.

But, I’m not angry because I’ve never felt bloodlust? Not sad because I’ve never held my buddy's guts in while he told me to tell his mom he loves her? Not scared because I’ve never hid in a foxhole while artillery splintered the trees above?

Whenever a child tells me they hurt, I listen and take it seriously. It very well may be the worst pain she’s ever felt, regardless of what it would feel like to me to stub a toe. I listen, because I’d want my uncle to listen to me. Because emotions are subjectively powerful.

If Jonas is right, then none of us get to complain. Ever. Our emotions are meaningless and trivial, pointless affectations of a person who hasn’t really experienced life. Even if those experiences will give you  a thousand-yard stare. Follow that link. Tell that  Italian soldier how angry you were yesterday.

Now imagine the person who could stare into those eyes and truly tell him he doesn’t know pain and fear.

They exist, if you can call that existence.

What would you happily give up to not be that person?

I’d start with a lot of my “freedoms” and start thinking about limbs. Assuming that person has any left.

Lowry doesn’t talk about all the memories Jonas got, though she mentions one that was bad. A war, an injured boy, cannons in the distance, not something any of us want to experience. At the end, when the memories leave Jonas and fly back to his people, giving them the “wisdom” they bring, the music and the color, Lowry tells us Jonas hears singing back in his old home.

I always wonder who got that memory, or the dozens of others that should and could have been worse. Could Jonas just not hear the crying above the song? Did she just hang herself quietly?

Jonas’ world isn’t that different from our own. His life, not that different from our lives. Lowry needs it to be because without it, her message fades away: Choices. Life is all about choices and without choices there is no freedom and without freedom no real experiences and no “wisdom”. Jonas doesn’t have any, supposedly, and that’s just wrong and bad. There is a moral message here. It condemns the large choice Jonas’ people made because it ends up limiting the small choices.

It condemns without proving, like a sermon, instead of a debate. Just like a sermon, it seems to point of some intangible as authority without bothering to give it a name. It seems we’re just supposed to know already.

We make choices all the time, and some of them are collective. As a people we chose to not really experience the limits of human pain tolerance. The people of the Giver have made the same choice, but because we’re never told why, it’s easy to assume it was a baseless assault on the wonders of personal freedom. Could it be, like ourselves, that it was done to limit pain for everyone?

People will disagree with me, saying I’m missing the point. It’s the inability to make the little choices, between red and blue tunics, between jobs, that make choice important or life worth living. They’ve given up everything to be free from everything, and that’s not right. Unlike us, who’ve merely given up a lot to be free from a lot. It’s the tunics that matter in life.

It’s not? Where’s the proof? What’s the actually argument? That freedom to choose your job is important? If you want to say that, fine, but you need to make an argument each time you level the powerful accusation of “bad”. With it comes a duty. A duty to make your case. I’ll argue back. If I couldn’t pick the color of my shirt anymore, that all shirts were black, but I would never get a paper cut again or stub my toe, I’d seriously consider it.

Throw in a freedom from the migraines I get and I’d say yes. Shirts don’t help when I’m lying in a dark room wondering why the sun is so bright.

There isn’t an argument here, with facts and progression and debate. It’s just jingoism and individualism triumphing over a straw-man village full of straw-persons. Jonas feels they should know the truth! Freedom! Choice!

Is this book so popular in school because his village is every high-school that doesn’t let you pick electives and makes you wear a uniform? There’s a reason for that, you know. It would have been nice to know Lowry’s.

I don’t want to experience all of life. Just some of it. I want to love, work, write, and play, and I’m very, very pleased to live in a country that does its level best to wall off a lot of humanity from its humans. If that means I never get to rape or kill, well, I’ll give up that freedom if it means I probably won’t get raped or killed.

Mostly, it’s because I looked into that soldier’s eyes. Let Jonas and the Giver keep their memories. I’m angry enough as it is. I don't want to find out I'm actually just peeved.

Me after finishing this book...
n  n

Update:
I watched the movie and (with the exception of Jeff Bridges) it was all kinds of disappointing.

As every Newbery Medal winner, The Giver is a very well written children's book. Its deceptively simplistic language reveals a rather horrifying dystopian world. This is a world where people are not given freedom to decide anything for themselves - their spouses, children, careers, future, even clothes or haircuts are all pre-planned and pre-selected for them. They are not allowed to even own their feelings and dreams. Their sexuality is suppressed. Of course, it is done for common good - to preserve peace and serenity, to avoid any disturbance, be that war, hunger, over-population, or simply personal discomfort of pain. Only two people in this community are able to understand what people miss out on. The main character Jonas is one of these people.

The Giver is a good book, but:

- it is too young; experiences of a 12-year old are too simplistic and lack edge for my liking;

- in terms of dystopian setting I found a couple of Lowry's aspects of the Community hard to accept. I believe that no matter how restrictive and oppressive a society is, feelings of love and attachment to one's children or parents remain intact, unlike in this book where family connections are very easily severed and forgotten. Secondly, this story claims that people do not experience a feeling of love, for instance, because they don't have a memory of what it is. IMO, feelings are not something we learn or recollect, this is something that we experience involuntarily.

In spite of my complaints, I am interested in reading the sequels.