The Giver

I finally came around to read this. And it was good.

Part of me wants to think this story is about growing up and leaving your innocent and orderly life as a child behind, to face the gruesome reality of adulthood. But another part of me just takes the story as it presents itself. A scifi”ish” dystopia where manhood altered nature and feelings, because we destroyed the world with our behavior. Because those are stories that I like.

I like frightening future predictions, because it's fun to weight them for their possibility of coming true. And this one really could come true, or is already if we look at North Korea.

And this is where my problem with the book emerges. Lowry created a world that feels really claustrophobic and intense, but it leaves me with a desire to learn more about it. There's not much depth in everything, be it the world building or the characters.

I settled with the thought that this is on purpose, because that's how the characters in this world live. That's all they know. There isn't much depth in everything. Everything is superficial.

This way I could really enjoy the book, because it throws you right into this community.

Am I wrong? Probably. Could one interpret much or even less deeper than this? Sure, but with this mindset, paired with the really awesome ending that leaves you like you want it to leave you, I really enjoyed The Giver. I think it's a book that you can form like you wish.

I'm a life-long fan of dystopian fiction, and The Giver is a fine entry in the genre. Lowry's writing is clear and direct. Every word and scene seems to be present in service of the Story, and I appreciate that. The story itself is small-scale dystopia, about a community containing maybe a few thousand people. (There are precisely fifty children of any given age.) So, this novel feels like it's more a critique of cults than of society as a whole. I liked it very much.

YA dystopia/post-apocalyptic was the genre that got me into reading when I was younger, and with this being dubbed as the OG dystopia (first published in 1993) novel, I just had to read it. I also watched the movie adaptation a few years ago and liked it, and more recently, a university classmate who I had a crush on mentioned that this was his favourite book, so obviously I am going to read it.

I found that it did not feel like a YA book at all, it read more kid-ish, and this might be because of the standardised language the citizens of the Community are required to use. Everything is standardised, which gave a technical feel to the world. Sameness, they called it. Sameness was the ideal, Sameness meant everything is perfect.

The main character, Jonas, is likeable and easy to empathise with. I think that if I had come to the novel cold, I would have been just as frustrated as Jonah was, trying to make sense of all that he is finding out about this seemingly flawless world. But of course, we know that it isn't perfect at all. It raises interesting questions- whether having potentially disruptive knowledge and information purposefully hidden is ethical or not, is it better to have limited choices to ensure stability, and oh, how would you feel if your big, life decisions, like what your career and who your spouse and children would be, were mandated by a system and the government?

The book ended on a hopeful note, a cliffhanger which I felt was a perfect segway into the next novel in the series. I have not gotten my hands on it yet, but because this was a good read, I intend to do so.

So, I know The Giver has been out for a long time, and I know they made a movie, but somehow I'd never read or watched it. But on the recommendation of a friend, I finally have. What a strange little book! It definitely belongs in the same realm as Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, 1984, and The Handmaid's Tale – which are among my favorite books – but the ending was tremendously unsatisfying. It's the first book in a quartet, though, so I'm hoping the other three, which I have requested from the library, will tie up the loose ends. It definitely feels like it's only the first installment of a story.

The dystopian society in this book has effectively banished most feelings. But to get rid of hate and war and prejudice, they also had to banish the memories and feelings of individuality and difference. With everyone and everything the same, they're mostly incapable of feeling true love or happiness. So they all live in peace – but it's a complacent, uncaring peace. It's not peace because of love, it's peace because of the absence of passionate feelings. Whether this is good or not, well, that's up to the reader to decide for themselves. The actions of the main character, who aims to disrupt that peace, could be seen as good or bad.

I'm not actually entirely sure how I feel about this book. I will probably have a better opinion once I read the next three – Gathering Blue (2000), Messenger (2004), and Son (2012).

Edit: I have now read the other three, and I'm still a bit at a loss. These were...odd.

You can find all my reviews at Goddess in the Stacks.