Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

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:
(view spoiler)[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. (hide spoiler)]

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.