Bookishness, Current Affairs

Discussing The Giver’s Relevance in GIFs

South African schools don’t really study The Giver by Lois Lowry as prescribed reading, so I finally read it last weekend. I had been putting it off for years but it is such a quick and easy read that I could read it in an afternoon.

Guys, I had so many thoughts about it afterwards. On GoodReads I gave it a pretty high rating, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO “QUESTION-MARK” OPTION! I have never felt so conflicted about a book before. Okay, maybe once before, in Lord of the Flies, after that whole thing with the rock happened. That was unnecessary.

So my thoughts went something like this:

THIS PLACE SOUNDS AMAZING. THIS IS A UTOPIA. CAN I LIVE THERE? GET ME A REAL-ESTATE AGENT, STAT! 

Because seriously. Everybody gets the job that suits them best? Awesome. Everybody has access to the same things? Fantastic. It’s like the whole idealistic Marxism thing EXCEPT IT ACTUALLY WORKS. Which it never would in real life because of power-hungry people and stuff.

And then, in the back of my mind, this tiny voice asked, “I wonder how Lowry is going to ruin this for us?”

And BAM! No colour. No memories. But – but… history is one of my favorite things!!

As a dystopian novel (now remember, this is a Middle Grade book published in 1993) it was pretty wonderful. I thought Lowry’s writing was lovely and descriptive and gripping. Stylistically, it was good. I enjoyed reading it.

But I was also annoyed.

I don’t like biases and propaganda. I realise that there is bias and propaganda in most anything we see or read or hear, but The Giver is BLATANT. Lowry makes it pretty clear that she equates Sameness with socialism/communism, and so she draws the parallel of evil. This isn’t really surprising because she was born in the 1930s so war and the Cold War were her childhood milieu. The thing is, the parallels are almost TOO easy to pick up on (much like in Animal Farm). The difference is that Animal Farm, to my mind, illustrated the progression of history, whereas The Giver tried to give history qualities it never had.

I should probably reiterate:

I REALLY LIKED THIS STORY! I just didn’t like… some other stuff.

So my biggest issue is that Lowry presents us with a false dichotomy. In The Giver, there is Sameness, and the only way for order to be maintained is to eliminate difference and therefore also eliminate colour and pain and pleasure. And making babies is bad. And euthanasia happens all the time. Because duh, that’s totally what socialism is all about!

The presentation is as if these two are inseparable – which we know is not the case since the Bastion of Democracy in our world is known for her Big Brother-esque behaviours these days.

I don’t think that The Giver is a bad book to read, but I do think we have now reached an age in World History where we should realise that the capitalism vs. socialism debate runs deeper than our shallow arguments; and that it is simply not as black and white as we may have been taught in school. It is not the way of life in The Giver that brings about trouble, it is the choices individual leaders have made – which could have been made by ANY hypothetical governing system.

On the subject of false dichotomies (and here it becomes less political and more airy-fairy) I don’t believe this whole “you can’t have pleasure without pain” trope. You can’t have peace without war? Bullshit.

There is no such thing as cold. There is only the absence of heat energy. If you do not know warmth, you will not understand cold; BUT you do not need the cold to understand warmth. It is NOT a two-way street.

Therefore the idea that we must somehow prefer a world without love because it will also be a world without hate and terror is way too simplistic. I love colour and I love music and gosh, I adore the beauty that is the diversity of our world and our cultures but I would never, EVER try to impress upon anybody that it somehow makes up for the presence of suffering. 

IT DOES NOT.

As for the movie:

I liked it. It didn’t reek of a political message as much – it was made to be one of those dystopian movies we’ve come to love-and-hate. It still has the same underlying dichotomies but they’re a little less blatant. Some minor changes are made that don’t really affect the plot much, but better the progression of the movie and the understanding for those who haven’t read the book. And the kids are older when they get their assignments, which suits me fine because seriously, twelve is too young for that ish!

Have you read the book? Watched the movie? Tell me what you think! Agree with me! Disagree with me! Tell me stuff!

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Discussing The Giver’s Relevance in GIFs”

  1. I had to read this book in school and it is still to this day one of my favorites! however I have totally failed in the aspect that I didn’t know that The Giver is part 1 in a series so yeah.. I have some reading to do to find out what happens 🙂

    I have yet to see the movie but it looks pretty good for being a movie 🙂 I try not to compare books to movies and just enjoy each for what they are otherwise it can be pretty frustrating :p

    http://www.dianamechelle.com

  2. I haven’t read the book OR seen the movie, but I’ve always thought about picking it up just because it’s considered by a classic by some and I enjoy dystopians. I’m not sure why my school never assigned it. I feel like I wasn’t required to read a lot of books most people assume are required reading in schools.

    I do think I should give this one a try sometime though. I don’t know if the false dichotomy thing would bother me as much as it did you, and I’m quite intrigued about this utopia you described.

    If you could only recommend one or the other – movie or book – which would you recommend? I’d assume book, but maybe not since it made you a bit ranty 😉

    1. I get bothered/ranty by some random things at times! Usually I manage to suppress my irritation and then sometimes I just get silly about it. 😛
      I don’t as a rule enjoy watching movies, which is why I would recommend the movie. But in this case, the book is so short that they included almost everything in the movie. There are still some details in the book that I loved and that were missing in the movie, but the movie really brings home the wonder and beauty of living, which I didn’t really feel so strongly in the book.
      So, I can’t really say, but in this case I would say watching the movie is a pretty good alternative and if someone didn’t really feel up to reading, I would say that the movie is just as good.

  3. I’ve not read this, but it sounds interesting. I think the flaws in the beliefs of the author/book are probably great for educating people about socialism/communism without pointing it out, getting them to think for themselves. Must pick this up sometime and have a read!

  4. I didn’t read this in school either, though it’s definitely a part of the curriculum here, so I’m not sure why not. When I read it on my own, years later, I liked it but wasn’t a huge fan. Loved hearing your thoughts about it!

    Also, I agree. The rock incident in LotF was totally unnecessary. And just awful.

Comments make me happy. Say hi :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s