I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I have no problem admitting that I was too hard on the book. But if you'll allow me I'd like to defend myself a little bit. You might imagine that dystopias in addition to whatever else they might be trying to do, would want to explore what makes something a dystopia and secondarily warn us away from certain paths which might lead to that destination. If a dystopia is unable to show a credible path to how it might happen, then they're not as successful as it could be.
I'm pretty forgiving when it comes to YA dystopias, but The Giver is supposed to the be the smart one, the one that does it the best. And while it's a satisfying book, I don't think it reaches the level of being a genuine classic.
I totally agree it's not the best YA dystopia in the sense of warning us from a plausible path. I don't think it's the best in terms of the most entertaining to read either; most (at least) of the characters are only one- or two-dimensional.
But I do think it does show a credible (if not plausible) threat from its utopian-feeling atmosphere. Hunger Games (for example) shows us a realistic threat (our celebrity culture), but it doesn't feel like a place we'd want to build or want to live. The Giver does show an attractive place - and, indeed, a place reminiscent of what many people across the world are striving to reach. It may not be credible for it to reach the heights of this magically allegorized dystopia (in part because of the magic, and in part because of books like this)... but it's a threat in lesser senses, and it's good to remind young readers of it.
I agree the sequel doesn't fit! Back when I was a kid, and I first heard there was a sequel, I was so excited. But, it turned out to be a totally different story with next to nothing in common... and not so good a story at that, I thought. (I never reread it and don't really remember it, so I can't say whether I'd give it the same review today as an adult.)
Now that I look back on it, as I mentioned, a closer-in sequel would've taken away from some of Lowry's themes. But I'm wondering whether the loose sequel-ness of "Gathering Blue" (and the other two that followed it, I now see) really added to them, or took away from their own stories.
(And for myself, I'm not sure whether Jonas dies. Maybe you're right and he does. Or maybe he doesn't, but we don't know what happens next.)
The Hunger Games and Divergent are both more entertaining and more interesting as Dystopias go. My only criticism of them is (just like TV and movies like Braveheart), the people do not exhibit real bodily frailty. There are wounds that do not incapacitate or kill that should. Totally unrealistic, though young people without any medical experience might believe it is real or closer than reality than it is. Also in Braveheart, he would not be able to cry ‘Freedom!’ while being DISEMBOWELED. Total shock or death going on there. Sorry, dudes. Not real.
Yes, they're definitely more entertaining and draw you in more! But they're not places I feel any draw to live.
(Well, okay, I've been to one of the places where they filmed some forest scenes from "Hunger Games", and it was a fun place to hike. But I wouldn't like to live in the middle of the forest either.)
There aren't any rules yet because I just started this blog last month! I haven't read either of those books yet; I'll keep them in mind, especially "Wuthering Heights." And in the meantime, I've got a few other book reviews queued that I hope you'll like.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I have no problem admitting that I was too hard on the book. But if you'll allow me I'd like to defend myself a little bit. You might imagine that dystopias in addition to whatever else they might be trying to do, would want to explore what makes something a dystopia and secondarily warn us away from certain paths which might lead to that destination. If a dystopia is unable to show a credible path to how it might happen, then they're not as successful as it could be.
I'm pretty forgiving when it comes to YA dystopias, but The Giver is supposed to the be the smart one, the one that does it the best. And while it's a satisfying book, I don't think it reaches the level of being a genuine classic.
And thank you for commenting!
I totally agree it's not the best YA dystopia in the sense of warning us from a plausible path. I don't think it's the best in terms of the most entertaining to read either; most (at least) of the characters are only one- or two-dimensional.
But I do think it does show a credible (if not plausible) threat from its utopian-feeling atmosphere. Hunger Games (for example) shows us a realistic threat (our celebrity culture), but it doesn't feel like a place we'd want to build or want to live. The Giver does show an attractive place - and, indeed, a place reminiscent of what many people across the world are striving to reach. It may not be credible for it to reach the heights of this magically allegorized dystopia (in part because of the magic, and in part because of books like this)... but it's a threat in lesser senses, and it's good to remind young readers of it.
Hi there. This is one one of my least favorite books ever. Because I believe in the end Jonas dies. And then there was a sequel. Nope, sorry. He died.
I understand there is another interpretation of the book. I just don’t buy it.
I agree the sequel doesn't fit! Back when I was a kid, and I first heard there was a sequel, I was so excited. But, it turned out to be a totally different story with next to nothing in common... and not so good a story at that, I thought. (I never reread it and don't really remember it, so I can't say whether I'd give it the same review today as an adult.)
Now that I look back on it, as I mentioned, a closer-in sequel would've taken away from some of Lowry's themes. But I'm wondering whether the loose sequel-ness of "Gathering Blue" (and the other two that followed it, I now see) really added to them, or took away from their own stories.
(And for myself, I'm not sure whether Jonas dies. Maybe you're right and he does. Or maybe he doesn't, but we don't know what happens next.)
The Hunger Games and Divergent are both more entertaining and more interesting as Dystopias go. My only criticism of them is (just like TV and movies like Braveheart), the people do not exhibit real bodily frailty. There are wounds that do not incapacitate or kill that should. Totally unrealistic, though young people without any medical experience might believe it is real or closer than reality than it is. Also in Braveheart, he would not be able to cry ‘Freedom!’ while being DISEMBOWELED. Total shock or death going on there. Sorry, dudes. Not real.
Yes, they're definitely more entertaining and draw you in more! But they're not places I feel any draw to live.
(Well, okay, I've been to one of the places where they filmed some forest scenes from "Hunger Games", and it was a fun place to hike. But I wouldn't like to live in the middle of the forest either.)
Best dystopian novel. 1984
1984. The best
Don’t know what the rules are for requests. But I would love to read a review from you on 1. Wuthering Heights or 2. Traveling Mercies by Anne Lamott
There aren't any rules yet because I just started this blog last month! I haven't read either of those books yet; I'll keep them in mind, especially "Wuthering Heights." And in the meantime, I've got a few other book reviews queued that I hope you'll like.
Thanks! I would also like to throw in ‘Old Fears’ by Woolley/?Rolfe. Can’t wait to see what others you pick.