Keely's review

I thought that it was a good book, though it had a rather dissatisfying end.

I wouldn't call this book a failure. I thought it was rather good, actually, though it somewhat lifts a lot from Logan's Run. A ton of my students read it and they love it...it makes them think in ways they haven't thought of before, they tell me. I am just reporting what my sixth graders have said...I find it much better written, though not as imaginative as A Wrinkle in Time. I though that Gathering Blue, the companion to this book, was more of a failure, though an interesting one.

Well, I would say that this book fits into a lot of other Post New Age works which serve mostly to
support opinions already held instead of making any sort of challenge to worldview. This certainly does serve to invigorate children who desire to have their beliefs and philosophies affirmed.

There is a benefit in confidence in this, and it can provoke an internal dialogue, but unless the reader already has an internal understanding and ability to self-critique, nothing much can come of it except perhaps intellectual busywork.

I myself cannot take any kind of busywork and pointless affirmation of children is precisely the thing that is being blamed for the self-entitlement of my generation.

So I suppose my argument is that the author herself does not have enough philosophical or rhetorical knowledge to express new ideas, and instead relies on cheap allegory and metaphor to present an unfounded (and unoriginal) case.

Wrinkle in Time is a book of a higher class, most certainly, but sometimes falls to some of the same oversimplification.

I'm sorry, but as a teacher of literature and a deeply-read person myself, I find your arguments rather thin and ill-formed. I don't see that this book at all contributes to what you term "the self-entitlement of [your] generation", and in general your responses seem rather bloated by...well, a couple different things, perhaps I'll just call it a pseudo-intellectual jargon. Actually, your response very similar to students who have strong intellects of one sort but lack a greater understanding of constructing a social fabric (and really just get their rocks off by arguing with the teacher). All stories have been told before, whether you realize it or not; the gift of a writer is in making the language beautiful and the story compelling, thereby perpetuating the kernels of human wisdom to be found, yes, even through those worthless allegories and metaphors you so disparage. Similarly, I fail to understand exactly what you mean by, "This certainly does serve to invigorate children who desire to have their beliefs and philosophies affirmed." How is this dam_ing? Don't all of us desire such things? E.g., the argument you persist in making reflects your desire to sustain the idea that you are above such trifling books and the intellectually inferior people who read them.

You know, I take it all back. If I read this purely for humor's sake, I find it incredibly entertaining. I apologize if what I've written is harsh, but like the 'hack' Lois Lowry, I persist in believing that words well-written may cause people to think, and so I continue to strive. I do suggest to you, however, learning to correctly employ a hyphen or two.

God forbid Keely should express an opinion. God dam_!

Yeah, well, how insulting can Keely be to the children and adults who liked this novel? Lowry's prose is a lot better than Keely's, and it *is* very hard to make real sense of what Keely wrote (at least to what must be my feeble understanding). Sorry if my opinion was too harsh; I believed I was just taking issue with the details of what s/he said, explaining that to some readers (e.g., me) perhaps the words were a little obtuse.

To be fair, this is less my opinion than an analysis of the work, and hence quite open to critique. If only that's what I had received.

I'm not sure what I have done to become the outlet of your built-up literary vitriol, but I suppose that dealing with those maddening children with a 'strong intellect of some sort' has made me an obvious outlet. I suppose I was always the child who felt a need to question teachers; I did it throughout college, too. Often, I was right.

Of course, it is difficult to deal with teachers in this way, especially when they feel a need to set themselves above others which such meaningless epithets as 'deeply-read person'. I don't care what your opinion is as a 'teacher of literature' or 'deeply-read person'. The opinion of a Human Being is sufficient as long as it is well-supported. Of course, there is always the hypocrisy of setting yourself above someone else and then taking an anti-intellectual stance against them. One of these days, you may have to choose one or the other.

It's good to see that our teachers are still invigorated by the mocking, self-important fury and numerous ad hominem attacks that made my (and Syd Barrett's) youth so very exciting. From belittling me to artificially elevating yourself to making a grammatical attack, you have truly spared no pointless aside in trying to hurt me personally for expressing a text-referential argument about the artistic value of a book.

Beyond that, I really shouldn't respond, because you have not confronted me with any new evidence or refuted my points, but have merely restated them as if I am an idiot and you are knowledgeable. While this probably works very well with children, I'm afraid you'll find no such easy target with me. Of course, internet arguments against personal attacks are pointless to refute, but I suppose on the off chance that you thought you were being productive and never realized that you are, in fact, hurtful and irrational, I should point that out.

My argument, I feel, stands: Lowry's book is oversimplified and merely restates the points of works like Fahrenheit 451, 1984, and Brave New World, but without expanding upon them. Since she only makes general (and often vague) statements about meaning in her work, she does not promote thought. Instead, she merely reinforces what you already think, whatever that may be. We are all special. We are all human. The world is amazing. Life is precious. Freedom must be fought for. It is remarkable that she can chisel her story into the tombs of such dead tropes: one would think there would be no room left.

Of course, as you say, these 'kernels of human wisdom' are, in a sense, eternal. However, they are also self-evident in a post-existentialist culture; they are, in fact, the basis of that culture. She has taken the most obvious questions, posed them vaguely, and set them into a poorly-built world. Now, this is not the worst crime. One might accuse Shakespeare of a similar. However, Shakespeare really did use profundity and beautiful language (not to mention a pretty solid knowledge of psychology) to cast his works; and so, as you said, such works may succeed on other levels.

However, Lowry is never an author I would go to for a fine ear in prosody. Nor psychology. Nor Message. Nor would I particularly go to her at all, given this initial outing. I am sorry that you are upset in your life and that there is something in the way I speak or analyze which draws out your ire; but please recall, if you are responding to a review by attacking people and restating their statements as questions, you are probably not making a useful critique.

Just to be petty: 1. that is not an accepted use of an ellipsis (unless you are quoting yourself and leaving something out?) 2. 'e.g.' stands for the Latin 'exemplia gratia', which is for when you make an argument or point and then present a case which illustrates that point. 3. 'jargon' means field-specific terminology for oft-discussed topics, so if you are accusing me of being knowledgeable of literary terminology, I guess: thanks? 4. I used four hyphens in my review and three in my response. Correctly. Have you actually even read Lynne Truss's chapter on them, or did you only review that book for completeness? Hell, you gave it a 5, one would think you'd have paid some attention to it.

Actually, all my uses of ellipses were acceptable, since it is a question of style and usage; in a living and changing language, there are often usages accepted by some, not others. Of course e.g. is for an example, as in I am an example of a reader who found your language rather cudgel-like. (Oh! I see in the first one--I deleted something else, probably something insulting, so just overlook that one.) You must be right, I am completely irrational, or at least must have been. I abjectly apologise for all that has lead you to react so vehemently. But dude, it's a children's book, and children's themes are often simplified explorations of larger, more frightening issues. I just thought your critique was pompous and rather out of scale. Looking at all of this that you've written, I'll again add, hilarious. I'd just feel sorry for young people who read this and felt that you were calling them simple, that they were only capable of busywork, and that what ever affirmation of their beliefs they took from the story, it was worthless.

If this is really the tone of the website as a whole, I'm disappointed; I just don't feel that these sorts of silly diatribes are cool. Most of what you wrote in all of this mess is attacks on Lowry's intellect, attacks on the intellect of anyone who likes her work, and remarks attributing some desire for self-aggrandizement to my reply. Whatever. If you wrote things that were more pertinent and less insulting in your last chunk of text, I apologize for missing it; I really just couldn't read it all and skipped to the end. If you're smart, you did the same for mine.

I would not insult someone by skipping over part of a response they made to something of mine, because I might miss some important fact which might help me to learn something new. I also probably wouldn't make a response to someone when I hadn't read what they wrote; but rudeness knows no bounds.

I am of the belief that all literature be judged on the same scale. This goes doubly for children's literature, which I believe is much more difficult to write well than adult, and hence shouldn't be a haven for watered-down or over-simplifying authors. Children are more wonderful and capable than people give them credit for. I'm glad that someone who is charged with the process of educating them thinks mental expansion and learning is best achieved by things dismissed as 'dude, just a children's book'. Now I'm not sure if you like the thing or not.

My problem with Lowry has nothing to do with her intellect, but rather her writing. My critiques involve how she constructs stories and ideas. Of course, the witless rarely make for good books. I'm not sure why you think I would be deprecating the intellect of her readers; I certainly may be making some claims which may not be shared by them, but conflictive opinions are what make up the body of good discussion. If I'm not right, at least I have made my stance and invited others to come to present new information regarding.

Of course, this response isn't really for you, but for other readers who may happen to witness this discussion. I am sorry that you have not found this site to be the wellspring of affirmation that, in accordance with you, we all desire. I am sorry, but I prefer to be challenged and questioned rather than affirmed.

If you prefer the latter, then you may have a great deal of trouble in the area of literary criticism. Hopefully the responses to your forays will be well-thought and fully explained and not devolve into the sort of ad hominem troll-baiting which so dreadfully fills up internet forums.

Cheers.

last word? is this it? or this? who gets it?

Dude! Lolz! WTF PAWNED!

*Ahem* My apologies for the above, it was mandated by the Gods of the Internet for this particular form of discussion as the only acceptable interjection by a third party. If the Gods write letters, this is their introduction and post script.

In my Eighth Grade classroom, this book was a catalyst. Mrs. Lipscum said read; we read. Afterwards, we discussed. I came off the factory floor dissatisfied and convinced the young boy had died. I was told by one classmate that Jonas didn’t, but that he’d instead made it to the house. Warm, happy, and free to explore the music he’d found along side the sled.

I have no desire to argue the topics previously discussed, but to branch it all out on a newer path. I read both sides of what you’ve said. It was time to crunch the thoughts of others. Employing what’s left of my subscription to Questia.com, I went in search of Literary Criticism. The results were sparse. Young Adult seems to mean, “Ignored”

There are logical inconsistencies. There is a definite repetition of post New Age themes. In fact, Natalie Babbitt of the Washington Post says,

The story has been told before in a variety of forms—Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 comes to mind—but not, to my knowledge, for children. It's well worth telling, especially by a writer of Lowry's great skill. If it is exceedingly fragile—if, in other words, some situations don't survive that well-known suspension of disbelief—well, so be it. The Giver has things to say that can't be said too often, and I hope there will be many, many young people who will be willing to listen.

The first time anyone hears any idea, it will challenge. The first impression and yet here it’s wasted; akin to teaching Shakespeare through Shakespeare in 90 Minutes. Look at that passage, for it’s damning. “If it is exceedingly fragile…so be it.” The Giver may have something to say that is important to shout over and over, but its voice is weak and timid. It’s drowning in a chorus a thousand strong.

Why was my school career wasted? Why was I taught the Bohr model of the Atom? The simplification of the truth is a deliberate shielding. I don’t know what bothers me most; the idea that the adults I told about my recent “discovery” of the Bohr model were simply amusing me without telling me I was wrong, or that they didn’t know.

The Giver is nothing without its ending. Freed from the deliberate vagueness that communicates an almost Celtic otherworldliness, the novel instead tells us an almost patronizing message: it is our pain that makes us human. It is our lust that makes us men. Our love gives us meaning. Our rage makes us whole. While the inhabitants of a true Celtic burgh would sing their immortal song in agreement, it’s been the struggle of Mankind for millennia to find something human beyond the sensation and to expose the divinity beyond the body. I could argue that The Giver cries for a freedom of sensation, not from it, but the movie Equilibrium has almost the exact same message. Show that to your class. It’s a better ride.

So, like the rotating seasons, we’re left back at the end, on that hill towards freedom. Here, it appears that Lowry has killed her own novel. The ambiguity that made this book a “treasure” is merely ambiguity. In 2004, The Messanger brings back Jonas, very alive and with magical powers.

I’m violating the rules of Modern Criticism. I’m using The Messanger to question the ability of Lowry to actually have encapsulated some consistent message in her story. Thus, the teacher of The Giver is left to turn ambiguity into lesson. Is this the real reason The Giver is so highly favored? Because, ultimately ambiguity teaches whatever you want it to impart. Like many books that are ill favored by Time, the giver is more mirror than seer, and mostly shows us ourselves, dressed however we want to be seen.

Thank you for saying so many things that I was both too riled and too harried to say (or perhaps I was thinking too shallowly).

And thanks for mentioning the movie "Equilibrium," i'd not heard of it before. I'll check it out!

By what strange grace (or stranger fancy) has Sinon with Cassandra been mistaken?

wow. looks like you created a stir:). just wanted to say, 1 star? thats the worst rating you can give a book. I can understand you trying to even out all the,(as what you probably think) misleading 5 stars, but surely it deserves more than 1 star. its not rubbish.

wow, i applaud anyone that could slog through every word of most of those comments, and i read EVERY word of the lord of the rings trlogy, even all the songs.

i like the giver. i enjoyed reading several of lowry's other books too. i just like the way she writes. she is able to manipulate me into sentimentality. i am not an intellectual though.

How can I stop getting 'new comment' ...okay, that's not how I want to say it. How can I unsubscribe from this book's review comments? I don't see anything that I can click on, and as I am no longer commenting, I just don't want to know about any new comments that have to do with this book. But I cannot seem to unsubscribe. Oh, wait....I just unclicked the 'add to my update feed'. Maybe that would do it. Okay, nevermind, this whole thing I just typed was completely unnecessary. I think.

I don't think it was because in order to get the remove from update feed, I think you have to post something. Or maybe not...but I can't seem to find another way to get rid of the emails, so I too am adding another unecessary comment. And I probably spelled unecessary wrong, too, because I can never spell it corretly. sorry.

I suppose I would try to post something about it in the Goodreads Feedback Group (http://www.goodreads.com/group... or check if there may already be a thread about how to 'unsubscribe'.

I gave the book one star because I don't think it has any intrinsic worth. I am not trying specifically to enter a 'ratings battle' with those who love it, as that would be both pointless and petty. If The Giver were the only book, or even just an early book in the dystopian genre, then I might feel a need to give it a slight benefit of the doubt (as one might with Neuromancer or Robert Howard), but this book is entirely redundant and bears no aesthetic marks to forgive its transgressions.

It also staggers a thin line between the abstract and spiritual and the purely allegorical and didactic, which means even the message of the book cannot be trusted. Lowry is simply not a conscientious author, and any inspiration which derives from her, merely a happy accident.

I never imagined I'd be discussing The Giver as much as I have done, and I am sorry for subjecting you unwitting subscribers to yet another installation. Not that you'll be reading this far.

K. Thanks for the response. Just wanted to check and make sure you wanted to give it one star. A single item can look a thousand different ways depending on past experience, knowledge, and even how we feel at the moment. "See Spot Run" could be magic depending on the experience and attitude of the person reading it. For me, "The Giver" was a good, imaginative book. However, I appreciate and respect your opinion. Thank you.

I know that this comment page is probably already stale, but I had to step up and voice my opinion. Note that this assessment is coming from a person who was accually a child in the classroom when they read the novel. I'm not claiming to be an intellectual, heck i'm not even out of high school, i'm just letting out my feelings on the argument.

I have to agree with Keely in this debate. It would do me no good to elaborate on my conclusion, because keely has already stressed all of my points [and much, much more to that matter]!

Beyond that though, I just didn't enjoy the novel. I didn't feel attached to any of the characters or scenes. It felt awkward trying to get past the terrible cliff hangar ending, past result led to sleepless nights, (note, this was a while back). What would be called the climax felt to me like just another dull section.

I personaly believe that in order to enjoy a book, you have to enjoy it...sounds funny, but this is a common problem in my generation of teens. They simply don't have an interest in reading. They would rather be off with friends, drinking booze, and playing video games. Whether it appears to be illiterate or not, I think that books these days need to begin appealing more to teens, or my generation, and those behind me will continue to be discusted by reading more and more as time goes on.

I'm not here to agrue my opinion, because quite frankly, i'm terrible at quarreling. I hope you don't brush off my comment, simply because of my age, but if you did, I wouldn't be offended. My generation is already looked down apon by a variety of different angles.

Sincerely, Dave.

It happened again. I thought that I had unsubscribed from this topic/review, and then it sent me another message. AAAAAHHHH! This is so annoying. Not that your comments/arguments aren't interesting or anything.

Sorry, don't know much about this site yet, i'm still what gamers would call "a noob".

Being a newbie here, I pressed on the "vote" button so that I could rate this review; unfortunately, I was unaware that by clicking on "vote" it would automatically enter as a "yes".

For the record, I meant to vote "no". To each his own, as far as opinions, but in my own - this particular review misses the point of the book entirely.

In particular, the idea that the book gives "simplistic answers" is the very antithesis of my experience of reading it. Rather, it prompts young minds to "QUESTION, QUESTION, QUESTION!" Which, imho, is what true "education" should be about.

Thank you. Finally someone who actually agrees with me about this book.