The Giver
discussion
Am I the only one who didn't like this book?
date
newest »
newest »
I personally thought this book had potential but could have been better. It fell a little flat somewhere in the middle and the ending couldn't redeem it. It ended very abruptly and confused me. I did however like the whole Utopian community and how the memories are being sustained by one person, the Giver.
I wasn't crazy about it either. I agree with Demonsthenes. It had potential but it wasn't really realized. And just in case you're curious about the rest of the series like I was and think 'maybe it all comes together and gets better', well, you'd be wrong. It gets worse.
I agree with some of what you said in your review - some things in the book were disturbing, but that's not always a terrible thing to find in books. Alot of the disturbing situations in the book are to make you understand how severely messed up this society is. Mission accomplished.
But yes, I can't rationalize away some of the unrealistic things about the book. Like the lack of color. This book is supposedly distopian, but the way they have manipulated color to disappear for almost everyone, the way they seemingly control the weather, and things like the magic (which is the only explanation) when the Giver transfers his memories to Jonas is all ludicrous in anything but a fantasy book. And that really bothered me since I did not intend to read a fantasy book at the time.
I really didn't like it and was even angry when I finished reading it. It actually felt like a waste of time. I never understand the bandwagons people tend to jump on. It was boring, only scratched the surface and I can't believe kids read this in school.
Nope. Didn't like it either really.
Well, I loved this book. I'm not saying you're wrong for hating it. It's your opinion and you don't have to like it.Yeah, it was a bit inappropriate. I think that's more of a critique for whoever decided the 8+ thing than the book itself, though.
It's been a while, so I don't remember exactly, but I can't really argue the weather thing either.
The color thing: There IS color in the world. There has to be- what else would Jonas be seeing. And, as you said, it's impossible to remove color. The government is manipulating the people's bodies into being color blind. Again, it's been awhile so I don't remember how. I do recall that they deliver all the babies, however, so with this technology they could easily cause color blindness.
The pills carve out sexual desires. And the love issue is addressed more greatly in Son.
I haven't actually read all the sequels either. I read Gathering Blue and the first halves of Messenger and Son. They were boring. I didn't really mind the ending to The Giver, though. I mean, I wanted more but I sort of like it when authors use cliffhangers. It feels more realistic and it's just different than usual. Still, that's my preference and I see how it could bug people.
It's young adult fiction, so its certainly light reading. I thought it was alright, nothing to rave about.
One wrote: "It's young adult fiction, so its certainly light reading. I thought it was alright, nothing to rave about."Well, yes. The reading level is quite low and I know fourth graders who can read it. Still, I believe this book is a classic. True, it's easy to read the words but there's a lot of symbolism and meaning behind it. I don't think a book being YA necessarily means it's shallow and lame.
Dramapuppy wrote: "Well, I loved this book. I'm not saying you're wrong for hating it. It's your opinion and you don't have to like it.Yeah, it was a bit inappropriate. I think that's more of a critique for whoever..."
First of all, thank you so much for leaving me to my own opinion. I've gotten a lot of hate lately from being a "horrible reviewer" which is kind of a downer. Thanks for telling me about the color. That takes away some of my frustration. :-)
Kristen wrote: "I wasn't crazy about it either. I agree with Demonsthenes. It had potential but it wasn't really realized. And just in case you're curious about the rest of the series like I was and think 'maybe ..."
I wasn't really concerned that there WERE disturbing things, just that we let kids read them. My eight year old cousin read it in her class because it was required and she still has nightmares. :-)
Sarah wrote: "Kristen wrote: "I wasn't crazy about it either. I agree with Demonsthenes. It had potential but it wasn't really realized. And just in case you're curious about the rest of the series like I was a..."
Yeah, that's something that's iffy. I don't think kids should necessarily be sheltered from every bad thing in the world since they have to live in it and early exposure to some things, allows them to understand and learn appropriate responses to them. For example, I was introduced to the Holocaust at a fairly young age, but it wasn't anything in depth too soon. Just enough to understand the basics of what happened and that they were very very wrong.
I'm not sure how I'd feel about the Giver and a kid that age. I tend to think that I'd lean more toward your feelings though. But every kid is different. Some can handle more at younger ages than others.
Eh, I was not a fan of that part, I'll tell you that. I would let my 10 year old sister read it, and just have her skip the pages with Jonas describing his "dream". It is a little inappropriate, but it could have been worse, if you know what I mean.
Didn't like it. Shrugs. My mom thinks it is the greatest book ever.
I thought for years that there might be a sequel to tie it up because I felt there was no closure at the end..
No you're not the only one, I hated it. Stories about Utopian societies are as old as Socrates and Plato's Republic, and this story seems to take the ideas earlier writers like Thomas More and Marx, to a society that has worked to meet the impossible ideals for many years. You can really see how "utopia" strips people of all that is personal and human and it's scary because you can see people promoting it in varies ways today. Though I wanted to see what happened and so I finished it, it was dry, dull, and the ending accomplished nothing for the loss. I wouldn't recommend it if you are especially sensitive because you will think about the horror of their attitudes and how easily a society could reach for this level of government in order to gain control. It's a lot like Orwell's, Animal Farm.
Cassandra wrote: "I thought for years that there might be a sequel to tie it up because I felt there was no closure at the end.."There are sequels. Three of them.
I think that, like many books, this is meant to be read at a certain time in a person's life--and that, in my opinion, is when they are quite young. I read this when I was in 8th grade, I believe, and that was the perfect time; I was enthralled by the story. It was also for me a fantastic initiation into the genre of sci-fi and dystopia. Saying that, it served a good purpose when I read it; though, if I had read it for the first time now, as a 22 year old, it would have undoubtedly fallen flat.
This was one of the first books I read through a book club and was outside my reading zone. I thought it was a quick and easy read. It perked my interest to read different kinds of books.
I really struggled to like this book, and I am a huge fan of dystopia/post apocalypse fiction so I had really high expectations when it came down to it though this book just didn't make the cut.
I don't typically like post apocalypse dystopia stories. I wasn't surprised that this fell short for me. I was more surprised that I liked hunger games and the movie avatar.
Kristen wrote: "Cassandra wrote: "I thought for years that there might be a sequel to tie it up because I felt there was no closure at the end.."There are sequels. Three of them."
Oh? So is the whole trilogy disappointing then?
No this was the most boring, weirdest and tedious book I read in awhile.
Alexandra wrote: "I think that, like many books, this is meant to be read at a certain time in a person's life--and that, in my opinion, is when they are quite young. I read this when I was in 8th grade, I believe, ..."I'm glad you found a time where you liked it. I think, in most cases, I'd agree with you. I think here I might amend your statement to say, "when they are quite young and not yet bitter or jaded about their academic life." By the time I was in 8th grade, though, I guess I didn't fit that description. The personal frustrations I had with this zombie of a book would have led to a brush fire MySpace rant and more likely than not an after school detention, haha! Fortunately, I have space between the book and that redundant education. Here's hoping can speak more tactfully about it now:
I am still scratching my head as to why this is award-winning, and I've read it 4 times [starting not long after it got that shiny gold sticker]. The writing is less complicated than adult books, but I don't think that is what bothered me. There wasn't much challenge in the narrative, and the political message was pretty much bashed over my head with each school assignment for it. But what bothered me the most is, even though I have read it so many times, I don't think I could tell anyone much about it. It rolled straight into forgettable territory until yet another English teacher dredged it up again, with more or less the same quizzes and analytical drivel.
I doubt I ever would have enjoyed the book as much as I do others in its genre. The first time through [in the mid to late '90s], it was a nice but merely average book, the sort of thing I'd read in one sitting at grandma's house when there was absolutely nothing else to do. Not much about it shocked me, not much was terribly poignant for me. Maybe it was because I had read Madeleine L'Engle the year before? Maybe I was just that weird of a child, but after the second time The Giver popped up on the curriculum, I would have gladly read the Oxford dictionary cover-to-cover and written a report on it instead.
Conversely, Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is so totally creepy and brutally efficient that as an adult I can't bring myself to finish reading it after as many times. I can't help thinking, when I remember it, "How can this man have the stomach to write about these things? How can he use such a blase tone? Why hasn't anyone done anything to stop this?"
The idea of those societies are rather similar, but the difference, I think lies in the execution of the society or setting as a character. Huxley's focus is on the titular "New World" from the start, whereas The Giver's society is somewhat distanced from the narrative and never gets a chance to fully blossom. We're not fully shown the intricacies of The Giver's society before its hold on Asher begins to weaken, and our experience as readers is colored by him and his [pretty special snowflake-y, now that I think about it] ability. It lacked a sense of presence and organic drama. I don't recall the story itself ever having a consistent or proper use of tone, either. I think those flaws affected a few other parts of the book's construction. Maybe that is what the second, third and fourth books are for, but I can't say I'll be reading them to find out.
Overall, I don't feel the book necessarily lives up to its fame, and I don't think that it's as thought-provoking or nightmare-inducing as others in its genre. It is, however, a quick and easy read, worth enough note for a summer book club or other leisurely intellectual activity. I'd like to stop seeing it on syllabi, mostly because better books are out there, especially when it comes to modern YA. Personally, I'll take a book I struggle to finish over the quick and easy read.
I am not on the Giver bandwagon. I had to remind myself it was a book meant for younger readers and I am not in the YA category. I wanted more details and development, but it was not so. I was actually kind of upset at the end, felt cheated!
I hated it! End of story...
I hated his book! It is very DISTURBING and I think it should be taken off reading list for any school!!!!!!!!
Linda wrote: "I hated his book! It is very DISTURBING and I think it should be taken off reading list for any school!!!!!!!!"Well, that's a little extreme. My fourth grade teacher read it aloud and no one was scarred. Still, I'm sure if a parent didn't want their child specifically reading the book they could write a note explaining and get their child out of it. I don't think it's fair to deny the rest of the class however.
My Child's Fifth Grade teacher did not require it but had it on a list. After reading it I had strong feelings about it. I like Lois Lowery books but she let them down on this one. There is no way a child could understand it at all!! I'm not talking about SCARRED, I'm talking content!
I liked it, but I don't think it's amazing, just average
Linda wrote: "My Child's Fifth Grade teacher did not require it but had it on a list. After reading it I had strong feelings about it. I like Lois Lowery books but she let them down on this one. There is no way ..."I suppose that makes sense. Our teacher explained before starting that there was some sexual content but most of us probably wouldn't catch it- and we didn't. I don't think that stopped us from understanding it, though. Comprehension wise, we were an advanced class. I can't speak for the other students but I understood most of it. And I've reread it multiple times now that I'm older.
Cassandra wrote: "Oh? So is the whole trilogy disappointing then? "Very. Only there are four books in total, not three. I think I must have confused you with my last post - I meant that there were three books in addition to the original.
(Minor Spoilers Coming)
Basically, the entire series has a ton of potential that is never fully realized.
Books 2 and 3 are completely unnecessary and a large part of book 4 is as well. The ending is rushed, flat, and disappointing in that we never really get to see what we've waited the entire series for.
Also, the big conflict and resolution was pretty stupid if you ask me.
Book 4(Son) is about Claire and the baby that was taken from her in book 1, who Jonas steals so he would not be killed.
So, essentially, we rehash a whole bunch of book 1 from a different perspective, leaving the scene at the point when it would be new information and actually interesting. Rather than explaining some things and showing the effect of other things, Claire magically gets amnesia and can't remember any of it. She then goes to a new place where we get to know and care about characters who, a few chapters later, are totally disregarded and never heard from again. That really annoyed me. Then, for less than the last half of the book, the real story starts, most of which is dragged out and pointless. Most of the book could have been summed up just as effectively in one or two short to moderate chapters.
Actually, having read the whole thing, the entire series could have been one book.
Books 2 and 3 fit in after book 1 and in the middle of book 4, and are entirely pointless other than to give details of minor characters to the main story. Both books, in my opinion were a huge disappointment and a waste of time since the endings were stupid. There's alot of build up to nothing and no real resolution or consequences for the "bad" people.
They're basically semi-interesting rabbit trails. But just like in book 4, after you get to know and care about these characters, they're basically disregarded and that's the end of it.
I didn't like it. It was boring, and sad, and... why are they making a movie out of it????
They are making a movie out of it as Hollywood is TRULY running out of ideas for original screenplays.
Alexandra wrote: "I think that, like many books, this is meant to be read at a certain time in a person's life--and that, in my opinion, is when they are quite young. I read this when I was in 8th grade, I believe, ..."I'm just going to say really fast that I love. Your. Profile. Picture.
Dramapuppy wrote: "Linda wrote: "I hated his book! It is very DISTURBING and I think it should be taken off reading list for any school!!!!!!!!"Well, that's a little extreme. My fourth grade teacher read it aloud a..."
I agree as well. My mom was horrified to learn that Hunger Games was read aloud to me when I was in sixth grade because she felt she didn't want me to read it yet. Some books would be NICE to get permission slips for.
Kristen wrote: "Cassandra wrote: "Oh? So is the whole trilogy disappointing then? "Very. Only there are four books in total, not three. I think I must have confused you with my last post - I meant that there we..."
Thank you for writing this. I was going to try out the rest of the series, but maybe I should wait and read some different books instead :D
I kept thinking about "The Lottery". It was well written, but it read like an assigned required reading. Depressing. No, I didn't read the other books in the series.
I didn't particularly like this book. The plot isn't very clear and there is no direct problem to address.
In other discussions, it was pointed out to me that there is no direct conflict, but it is the paradox of paradise. Jonas is living in a community/society where everything is same, perfect and regular. He is capable of receiving and giving memories that tell the tale of life before them - when there were animals, differences, variety, color, emotions, etc. It is about Jonas's struggle to accept Sameness as he remembers life before him when freedoms and choices were able to be made.
The reason I believe most of us found this book disturbing and boring is because we don't really care. In other books, the main struggle and conflict is based on violence, physical threats or conspiracies. In The Giver, these threats are what lies beneath, in the imperfection of, for newchildren, not being able to adjust fast enough to live an orderly life in the community, trying not to be different - living in a lie. The Giver has nothing dangerous but life itself, having to live in a community that does not tolerate individuality or freedom.
I think writing this, I finally understand what The Giver really means. But that does not mean I liked it any more. I prefer books with action and mysteries and intention. Who agrees?
In other discussions, it was pointed out to me that there is no direct conflict, but it is the paradox of paradise. Jonas is living in a community/society where everything is same, perfect and regular. He is capable of receiving and giving memories that tell the tale of life before them - when there were animals, differences, variety, color, emotions, etc. It is about Jonas's struggle to accept Sameness as he remembers life before him when freedoms and choices were able to be made.
The reason I believe most of us found this book disturbing and boring is because we don't really care. In other books, the main struggle and conflict is based on violence, physical threats or conspiracies. In The Giver, these threats are what lies beneath, in the imperfection of, for newchildren, not being able to adjust fast enough to live an orderly life in the community, trying not to be different - living in a lie. The Giver has nothing dangerous but life itself, having to live in a community that does not tolerate individuality or freedom.
I think writing this, I finally understand what The Giver really means. But that does not mean I liked it any more. I prefer books with action and mysteries and intention. Who agrees?
I'm sorry to hear of the people that dislike the book. It is a book that I think doesn't hold up as well for adults.The accomplishment of the book is that it manages to cover so many important topics in society.
1) The difference between equality and Sameness
2) The importance of sensory information to our happiness (color)
3) Euthanasia
4) Abortion
5) The nature of transferring knowledge from one generation to the next (who is privileged, who is ignorant)
6) The disconnect between the morality of the self and the morality of society
7) Learning that our parents are fallible
8) The paradox of a Utopian society
9) The necessity of biodiversity
10) The role of government and public service
11) Jonas having faith in something Else even when everyone he knows is ignorant
EDIT:
12) Almost forgot eugenics
Bodhi. Yes, this book covers a TON of important topics. Julia was saying she didn't want to read a deep book with themes. She wanted a more Hunger Gamesy type book. The Giver read like a short story. The plot doesn't really matter; it's just the themes. I think Lowry pulled it off. The book is well-written. I can see why some people don't like it but that doesn't change the quality.
I typed a great deal and lost it, but such is as life.Anyway...
SPOILERS†*******†★*************
The key point is this: the author presents the real conflict very late in the game (Jonas's understanding of what his father does to release a newchild). The resolution is not given much space to develop, and it is inconclusive/ambiguous. It's saving grace was that it made use of many of the themes in the book, and even the "first" sled scene/memory.
Bodhi wrote: "I typed a great deal and lost it, but such is as life.Anyway...
SPOILERS†*******†★*************
The key point is this: the author presents the real conflict very late in the game (Jonas's unders..."
I agree completely. It's that even though this book is amazing, some people don't like theme-heavy books. I loved it and it's quality writing. But that's why people are hating on it.
This Book is one of the best books ever! I'm glad i read even though i tried to convince myself not to, right as i picked up the book, i just couldn't put it down, i recommend this book to everyone!
Sarah wrote: "Thank you for writing this. I was going to try out the rest of the series, but maybe I should wait and read some different books instead :D "No problem :)
Yeah, that's probably a good idea.
I read them because I hoped that the series would get better and that certain things would be explained. Like, I wanted to see what happened in the community after Jonas left, but we never do. I wanted to see the reunion between Claire and her baby, and again, we never do. And it really doesn't get better. Book one was the best of the bunch.
Some people just have to finish a series to see for themselves. I can be that way sometimes. But if you're not obsessive like that, I'd definitely skip it.
Kristen wrote: "Sarah wrote: "Thank you for writing this. I was going to try out the rest of the series, but maybe I should wait and read some different books instead :D "No problem :)
Yeah, that's probably a g..."
Oh wow, maybe I won't bother with the rest of the quartet XD
Yeah this book was very slow. I didn't really like it sadly the movie was better. AREN'T BOOKS SUPOSE TO BE THE BETTER ONES!
♪~Kelly~♪ wrote: "Kristen wrote: "Sarah wrote: "Thank you for writing this. I was going to try out the rest of the series, but maybe I should wait and read some different books instead :D "No problem :)
Yeah, tha..."
I will say that certain things were interesting about the books, like the different societies. But the plot was pretty stupid and there were tons of things that just didn't logically fit.
Those things are basically unforgivable for me, lol
I read this many years ago when I was a wee fourth grader and I loved it. The Giver was the book that launched my interest in dystopian fiction and led me to reading books like 1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 420, and Anthem. Just to name a few!I haven't re-read it in over a decade, so I can't comment on how I would feel about the depth of the novel or the writing style as an adult, but it certainly made an impact on my younger self.
No offense intended, but I have to cringe when I see comments in favor of removing the book from school reading lists or libraries. That kind of censorship is never a good thing! The Giver, along with other books that had previously been banned in schools, fostered many hours of interesting and informative discussion with my parents. I would go so far as to say that I learned more from my parents and books that I pursued independently than I did in any public school classroom. Well, with the exception of math!
Rachel wrote: "I read this many years ago when I was a wee fourth grader and I loved it. The Giver was the book that launched my interest in dystopian fiction and led me to reading books like 1984, Brave New Wor..."I agree completely.
Alexandra wrote: "I think that, like many books, this is meant to be read at a certain time in a person's life--and that, in my opinion, is when they are quite young. I read this when I was in 8th grade, I believe, ..."Never thought of it that way but you're probably right. At a young age I probably would have liked it better....at 46....ummm...was not impressed. Great potential but to use your words it "falls flat".
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Sorry to fans of the book, I'm not trying to act like a hater :-) I was just wondering if anyone else sees some of my points:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
I admit, most of it is ranting. Please don't comment hateful things, I love a lot of other books and I am allowed to have my own opinion. :-)