Our Banned book is The Giver

[Rei]

Alrighty folks, it's time for another book. Both Kelly and I were swamped last month, so our apologies for no November book, however for December there shall be a book.

Due to the small participation in October, we are going to make this an open vote. So if you participated or if you didn't, your vote will be heard until the end of November (23.59 Thursday, 30 November). Please remember that if your vote is the winner, we will expect you to participate.

And with that, here is your ballot:

The Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger Amazon
The Giver, by Lois Lowry Amazon
Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley Amazon
Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson Amazon

Be sure to PM Young Val or myself, Rei, before December!

[Rei]

Aaand the winner is The Giver, by Lois Lowry!

The sections will be as follows:

9 December: until chapter 6
16 December: until chapter 12
23 December: until chapter 18
30 December: we finish the book

That said, happy reading to you all!

[VelvetElvis]

Ooh, count me in. I have this book.

My highschool chose a different book for the entire school to read each year. The Giver was my freshman year.

[Seiryu]

I love this book. I'm in.

[Oliver Dale]

I'll give it a shot!

[starlooker]

I already own it! And have read it! Yay!

[Gravity Defier]

I think I'll do this one. I'll have to wait for the 16th to read it again, but that should be a piece of cake seeing as I'll be traveling all day.

I love this book.

[ratesjul]

Yay!!! I'll do better this month!!

[v-girl]

Do we start a new thread for discussion, or just begin it here?

[Rei]

Right here is plenty fine. I'll post my thoughts when I finish this essay, sometime this weekend.

[Gravity Defier]

The first time I read this book, I was 12 years old and in the seventh grade. I understood it then, but I'm obviously looking at it from a different perspective.

What intrigues me is how formulaic everything is, but I'm especially interested in the telling of feelings and dreams. Something that is so private, so personal, so potentially deep and revealing becomes just one more way to keep track of and control over the citizens in this society. The responses are even more mind-boggling to me; they're automated, pre-canned responses. "Thank you for sharing."

I have more thoughts on it, but I'm struggling with not falling into what I remember of the book beyond Ch. 6.

[Seiryu]

The entire system seems to try and ensure that people are not so much "happy," but not displeased with their current standings and so forth. It is, of course, a novella about a dystopia. There's less of a "Big Brother" on this and more of a "everyone disproves of your actions" type of thing.

It's odd, though, that they "replace" Caleb. It's like by giving them a new child, they are trying to say, "here, let's hope you will never dwell on your dead child again."I wouldn't be surprised if they had the ability to suppress some of those greater emotions via some kind of device or some sort of hypnotic therapy. Or maybe by granting them the "replacement" child, they're trying to keep things in check. I don't know. They never went back to that couple again.

When I first read this, it hadn't occurred to me what "releasing" meant, but then again, I was young. Had I first read it now, I think it would've been obvious.

[Rei]

I actually had a completely different reaction from you, Alea, with the sharing of feelings and dreams. I saw it as an amazing example of communal life and relationship building within a liminal phase. It teaches them to build trust and to treat each other with respect so that everyone in the community will be happier and peace will be maintained. Everything in this society is liminal; their lives are a series of rites of passage where they are seperated from society, held seperate for a while (called liminal, from the Latin for 'threshold'), and then they are returned to society in a new form, a new position. Even the "Thank-you for sharing" responses fit into this. Before they share their feelings or dreams they are in society at a lower-level, so to speak. Then it is someone's turn to share, he is seperated by being put on the spot. He shares and during his sharing he is in the liminal state. Then after he shares, he is welcomed back into the community by their words, "Thank-you for sharing."

And I think I'd better stop here, as I don't have my book with me and I fear I may be about to go past chapter 6.

[v-girl]

I've read this book countless times. Different things hit me each time.

Actually, this time it was something rather trivial. I hope to be a physician someday, and I'm always interested in learning more about physiology. So I found myself wondering what the pills that prevent stirrings actually do. First of all, I realize that the author probably was not interested in the science behind it. And I also realize that the pills must be some treatment that prevents the effects of sex hormones. The problem with this, however, is that if you prevent formation of these hormones, no one would develop correctly physically. But maybe that's the point--maybe we have a community of breastless females, males with undeveloped genitalia, etc., all of which would most likely further the lack of sexual interest between the people in the community.

However, I am just thinking too much into it, and probably the people are expected to develop normally, minus sexual desire.


I also feel that the sharing of dreams and feelings is formulaic, but it's also strangely a very nice idea to me. It gives someplace for people to unload, because it doesn't seem like otherwise Jonas can share his feelings with anyone else. I think it's interesting that it doesn't seem like he has a choice whether or not to share his feelings or dreams (until later in the book, obviously), mostly because it's something that just isn't done. That's the thing that keeps the community together--some things don't even cross the minds of the people to do, simply because they just aren't done or they have never heard of it before. It's almost like Cain and Abel. No one knew what murder was until someone was murdered.

And I've always wanted to know who had the idea for this community. Is it like the movie The Village? Are they the only community like this? Is it one ideal that actually worked for a good amount of time? I haven't read the book that recently so I don't remember if they talk about this at all.

[Ithilien]

I agree with v-girl: this isn't the most scientific of sci-fi novels. I always wondered how they managed to control stirrings: was it through regulating hormones? So how did sexual reproduction occur with the birth mothers? But I guess this detail is slightly trivial.

So far (I've read this book a while ago) the society depicted doesn't seem too flawed. In fact, it sort of resembles a school - it is an institutionalized community that runs flawlessly on very strictly monitered rules. Everyone has a role they must fulfill and are expected to perform well. Individuality is not the most important issue. Everyone is content, if not happy. Its a peaceful place.

[Gravity Defier]

I find repressing individuality to be a major flaw.


Structure is nice, rules are nice, peace is wonderful...but so is being allowed to live.

This book (and I'm trying really hard not to act on knowledge of how it ends or the things that happen in between Ch. 6 and the end) reminds me, as Catherine mentioned, partially of "The Village," in that it was obviously set up this way and likely with reason. It also partially reminds me of "Equilibrium," where you set people into such a rigid schedule and way of life (in the movie's case, with drugs), while keeping so much of what's beautiful about life away, that they're practically zombies. Why are animals like hippos and elephants made to be imaginary? Unless they have gone extinct, which might be mentioned if that were the case, someone decided to present them as fake, mythical creatures. I wonder if they're allowed to view art. I can't remember enough of the book, but somehow doubt, that they ever watch movies or listen to music.

Why the 2 child per household rule? (At least there is no stronger emphasis on one sex versus the other, but they probably realize the importance of that balance.) Too much government in the personal lives of these people. Major flaw in my book.

Even the telling of feelings seems like a way to keep people at bay. I don't doubt that they think they care about each other, but it seems to be much the same system that voting here and now is based on. Give the people a chance to express themselves and make themselves feel heard and they'll be content.

[Ithilien]

O...M...G. Did someone just mention EQUILIBRIUM?! *hyperventilates in corner*

Ok, back on topic.

I think the book presents a good question: is sacrificing individuality a good price for the sake of social stability? There are no more wars, no injustice, no human right violations, no crimes, no natural disasters...They're not unhappy (they wouldn't even know what that means in the first place). So, is this the way to go?

[Seiryu]

I think they're scared and they don't know it. Everything they do ends up leaving them frightened to break the rules. Actually, you'll notice that the whole family eventually breaks the rules. I can't remember specifically, but everyone in that family has done so and everything is still fine. How are they still living in fear if they all break the rules? What'll you get for breaking a minor offense? A sharp reprimand. The guy Jonas's mother was talking about and having three strikes, he did something REALLY bad three times. Otherwise he'd just get a reprimand, right?

Why are these rules in place if people are just going to break them? And the other ones that the one man is being punished for seem to have the same weight as the remprimand ones as far as fear goes.

[Clover]

Did anyone else find it interesting that they seem to use attachment (ie: the lack there of) to control individuality? To keep people from standing out, no one is allowed to get too closely attached to anyone. None of the connections Jonas has seem to be love, or very strong attachment, except for those to his own family. But even that, it seems so formulatic, like everything else. The whole family was picked by some council to be together, not some higher power.

The thing that really brought this up, was in Chapter 6, Jonas talks about Gaberiel being held back, and the family having to sign a contract saying they wouldn't get attached to the non-permenant residient now joining their home. That's all so Gabe doesn't stick out, become different.

And the Stirrings and the pills. What a nice way to squash attraction. Have a pill and never look at someone of the other sex in that way again! yay!

Does any other anti-utopia stories do anything similar? I don't remember 1984 doing anything like that, except for maybe spouses being chosen by some offical. Brave New World does it by allowing and encouraging everyone to sleep with everyone all the time, I think (I'm a little foggy on that book, it's been a few years).

[Ithilien]

Most dystopia fiction uses the abolishment of feelings as an effective way of controlling the society and maintaing "peace" and order. I think Brave New World degrades feelings of love to the point of being meaningless. In 1984, there is no source of passion in the dreary world. The Giver is no exception. They not only use the pill to eliminate Stirrings but also make emotions such as love (in more than just the husband/wife form) incomprehensible. Maybe the common theme among these books is that feelings is what makes us what we are: both the good and the bad. If you want a perfect society, that is exactly what is required. However, all the heroes would say that to sacrifice emotion is to sacrifice the point of living.

Okay, now I sound like the movie Equilibrium. I think everyone should see it! Speaking of which, I'm in remission and should deny my impulses to watch it right now. In the movie, it is the aftermath of WWIII and everything is devastated. The new society that arises "embraces" the drug Prozium which eliminates all emotions.

[Ithilien]

I've heard a lot of speculation as to what exactly happened in the end and would love to know what you guys think actually happened.

Did he reach another place and the echo he heard was music from where he came from, as is the most intuitive interpretation of what happened. Or, did he actually return (with or without knowing) and the Giver left him the sled on the top of the hill as a sign of welcome? Or did he actually die (the book mentioned how the pain disappeared) and the rest was just an after-death illusion?

[Rei]

I do not think that the author could have possibly intended him to die at the end. It would ruin the entire point of Jonas's experiences and conclusion that feelings and living life is worth it if it just ends in death, forgotten and lost. I think he found another community, but one that did not choose to suppress its reality, much like the world that he and the Giver sought to re-create in their home community.

I really don't know about the sled, though. If it actually were his home community, how would the Giver know he was there? And if it isn't, why was there a sled? Did some kid forget it or what happened?

[Young Val]

this is part of a "trilogy" as it were, and the character of Jonas makes an appearance in a latter book. he does, in fact, live.


my thoughts on The Giver soon. i know i'm running late, and as a mod of this club it's not very flattering, but the holidays are seriously rough on my end. details later, i promise (...on my thoughts regarding the book, not my life).

[locke]

this is part of a "trilogy" as it were, and the character of Jonas makes an appearance in a latter book. he does, in fact, live.

What book?

Am so mad now. The point of Jonas dying for me always was that truly living, having memory, passion, love, feelings, valuing life and the ability to die was more important then living a pale half life, the life of shadow person. But my sisters believed he lived, while my mom and I felt that he died. I always liked the book is left open ended.

I'm guessing the second book is the inferior rehash Gathering Blue, whats the third?

Has anyone noticed that although the society values sameness above all else, 'true' natural sameness is treated as an abomination (twins are not allowed to both live)? That little touch says a whole lot about the problems with utopian visions of socialist/communist endgame societies.

I first read this book in fourth or fifth grade, before it won the Newberry award, I've read it about six-ten times since and listened to it on audio.

They can't introduce the concept of extinction, because it opens up too many avenues of questions and problems.

I love the idea that the pill they take inhibits sexual characteristics, the image of near sameness that draws of the adult community is quite vivid. I'd always assumed it more of a contraceptive/minor hormone suppressant. I never really connected it to affecting the other emotional connections and bonds of the community.

The mixture of color and black and white the lose of smell and sound. Hearing music. The unemphatic world they live in. These images are etched so deeply into my brain in such vividness that I may have been wrong for many years, it may be this book that embedded in me the filmmaking impulse. I was captivated by the concept of their world.

Interesting note, this book had such an impact on me that I always suspected that similar hormones were individually mixed into the food of the battle school children to keep the 10-12 year olds from developing sexual characteristics and the potential ensuing problems (puppy love, the girls underperforming to attract boys, the Spartan problem of Older boys abusing the launchies recently put into their army etc). That was why there was an emphasis on Bean and Ender eating all their food.

I think for me, what was always the most terrifying moment of the book is when Jonas starts exclaiming, 'but we should get to choose what color to wear each day!" and the Giver replies "Yes. but what if someone chose wrong?" And Jonas is completely sobered and horrified, and he ends up agreeing that it's better they didn't have to choose. That always broke my heart.

I just remembered, it's burned into my brain and it just came forth and is replaying in vivid detail. It was fourth grade, I had checked it out from the library I started reading it in class. It was the end of the day, the bell rang. Chapter one had just ended. I remember sitting in a line waiting for the bus to arrive sitting next to the gradually emptying bike racks. Chapter two had just ended; They'd parked their bicycles outside. Oh wow, this was getting intense. I was almost dizzy with the worlds blurring into each other. Somehow, I had secured one of the rearmost seats (maybe even the single in the back left corner). I ignored one of my best friends and neighbor and couldn't stop reading. The bus driver, Margie, had to yell at me twice maybe three times when it was my stop. I read it while walking up the gravel paved hill to my house. "Jonas has been selected." I stopped, heart pounding, afraid to keep reading but insanely anxious to find out what that meant. It was a Friday afternoon. I finished the book later that night, curled next to my waterbed, laying in the afternoon sun shooting through the window. Deeply, deeply embedded in the book, Jonas found the sled and I came up for air, inexplicably moved and wonderous. What an incredible and perfect book.

I just realized, the next time I experiend a book like that was about five years later when I read Ender's Game.



Adam