THE GIVER and age appropriateness

My nine-year-old son who is in the fourth grade brought home The Giver and was asked to read chapter 2 on his own. While I would never suggest that any book be challenged in a school or library, I am concerned about age-appropriatness and whether or not he's ready for such a complicated book. He's quite adept at reading, but I'm not sure I want him to be held accountable for his understanding of this allegory and some of it's "darker" themes -- infanticide for one. As a parent who loves books and as a high school English teacher who teaches "banned" books, how would you approach this?

I haven't read the book yet, I'll go put it on the list right now... but even though my boys read very well and could handle more mature themes, I've never seen the need to rush them into darker, challenging books; keep them kids as long as possible!
As a parent who loves books, I'm eager to share books and as a parent/teacher I'm all for reading the entire banned book list... but sometimes those challenges to books are appropriate, not every child (or even most children) may not gain anything positive from reading a book that is too mature.

I'm 36 and The Giver disturbed the heck out of me when I read it a few months back. I was a little surprised when people said they had read it in elementary school.

My personal method of ensuring age appropriateness is to never give anyone under the age of eighteen a book I haven't read myself. I've actually read some really good books I might have missed that way.
I cannot imagine a school board allowing books with the themes The Giver seems to contain. If you think the book will be too disturbing, talk to the teacher and then to the principal if need be. You don't have to be confrontational, but you do have a right to protect your child. I speak from experience, I have an LD child(he's an adult now and doing well, thank you). I had to intervene many times during the sixteen years it took to go from pre-school to graduate. If you are reasonable, with valid concerns, you will sometimes be listened to.

I read The Giver when I was about that age and thought it a beautiful and touching book.

Then I read it again a few weeks ago (22 years old now) in preparation for teaching it to high school students and was highly, highly disturbed.

In my experience, children can handle a lot more disturbing things than we often give them credit for. Fairy tales and novels are excellent ways for them to learn about and handle such issues in a relatively safe space.

Of course, you know your child best. I'd suggest discussing the book's ethical issues with him as he reads and making sure he understands that it is a dystopia -- Lowry makes it clear that infanticide, for instance, is reprehensible.

I think that sometimes in the effort to "challenge" young readers, especially those that are beyond the average reading material, parents/educators/authors confuse quality writing and thought-provoking subject matter with mature themes; a book for an 8-12 or 10-15 year old does not need to be shocking, disturbing, or graphic in order to be emotional, touching, or even troubling in the sense of getting young people to face and explore the world around them. Powerful literature for children and teens is great, and should benefit the reader (vocabulary, comprehension, critical thinking, reading enjoyment, etc) without crossing the line and creating emotional difficulties by being too mature.

Where is the line? I can't tell, but I know it when I cross it....

I read the book when I was an early 15 and enjoyed it very much, especially grappling with the themes. As a few other people have mentioned in this thread and some other people I've talked to, they read it as kids and enjoyed it and when they read it again as adults they found it disturbing. I think kids will deal with things they understand and not be hurt, and if it's above their level they'll just skim right by. A lot of books that I reread now have things in them that never registered when I was younger.

I'm a big fan of The Giver, and I think it's a good book to teach in school. However, I don't think a 9 yr old would get most of what Lowry is trying to say. I think they would, at best, just get the surface story. So the book is wasted on grade 4s.

My daughter is almost 11 and I haven't pointed it out to her yet. It's not that I'm trying to protect her. I want her to read it when she will get more out of it. Maybe in the next 6 months or so. Or longer. Right now she's happy with Harry Potter, the Warriors series and Roald Dahl.

Having commented on this book before reading it, I confess to thinking "What are these people whining about? This book is quite tame!" as I cruised through the first several chapters...

Then came THE SCENE and I can't imagine assigning The Giver to a 4th grade class, especially to go read on their own. Maybe I'm over-protective, but I want to be able to discuss it w/ my kids when they read it -- it's almost like this is too good a story to be wasted, it needs to be read and given the quality attention and response it deserves for its quality writing and themes.

The Giver was read one year (at the school where I work) by a group of 4-6 graders, but the teachers had indepth discussions with the class after every couple of chapters.

hailelib -

I hate that style of discussion. I can't stand talking about a book in chunks like that, that will make me hate a new book without fail and can make me stop liking an old one.

In the classroom setting it would be hard to wait until every student finished the book before discussion... and especially with a book like The Giver there are many elements that need to be touched on as the story progresses, in order to engage the students/readers, not simply wait until their final verdict.

You're saying it's easier to make sure all the kids have read x number of chapters so far, four or five or whatever times?

And anyway, I don't care what's easy, I care what's best for the kids, and from my experience, in school, that was the worst possible way to study a book. It made me, a book-lover, hate to read the book. What does it do to the kids who didn't already like reading?

I didn't read The Giver till grade 8 in school I think. I think we could have read it during an earlier grade, but maybe not fourth.

blue... I don't see where "easy" fits into how to best insure children understand the vocabulary and concepts of a book they are reading; most of the children that do not like reading are not going to read an entire book, especially one with a difficult dystopian fantasy theme, and be able to discuss it like Oprah's book club when they finish. The teacher's role and goal is to engage the students in comprehension of the story, and this requires (with most students) working with the student as the book is read, sometimes on a chapter by chapter basis.

...the book-lovers, as you were/are, usually are the better readers, and could read and comprehend at a higher pace... which is why the educator's biggest challenge is usually not in helping the slower readers, but in keeping the advanced ones actively interested.

Its been a long time since I've read the book. What is "THE SCENE" TeacherDad?

15 -

And this is one of the problems with school. There's no middle ground, no way to deal with both the more advanced students and the less advanced in the same class.

I don't necessarily have a suggestion for another way to deal with books in a group setting - however, I did plenty of book reports, starting in late elementary school, where I had to read a book all on my own. And I just know from experience that stopping every chapter or two to do in-depth discussion is a great way to completely turn me off a book. I couldn't then and can't now reasonably discuss a book in the middle. That makes zero sense to me, beyond things like 'do I like it enough to continue' or 'do I hate it so much I'm going to get rid of it'.

If a student needs to be worked with that much on a chapter-by-chapter basis, then I suggest that The Giver is not the right book for them, because they won't get what they could out of a book like this anyway.

oh no, I'm not giving the surprise away...

I'm not sure what the problem with reading a few chapters and then talking about them is. There are book reads on this site where threads are set up to talk about say chapters 1 to 4 and a week later a thread for 5 - 8 is started. Is it that the pace is too slow? If you and your friend were to read the same book would it ruin it for you if she wanted to talk about it with you before you had finished the whole thing?

19 jj

I can't really explain it any better than I have. I can't comment on the first threads in those group reads, because talking about a book in sections like that makes no sense. I would only post in whichever thread was the end of the book, so I could talk about it all at once.

It wouldn't ruin it for me if a friend wanted to talk about the first few chapters (although if I haven't read any later chapters, I'd hope she wouldn't talk about those yet) but as I said before, if I haven't finished a book there really isn't much I can say beyond I like it so far, or I don't.

But that's not the same thing anyway - talking to a friend about a book is completely different from analyzing it in class.

I have to agree with bluesalamanders on this. Discussing a book piece by piece always turned me off of it quickly. (And the worst by far was when we got tested on it in sets of chapters...) It just seemed to sort of break up the flow of reading it if you had to discuss it in those seemingly arbitrary sections. Once I'm fully done I could imagine discussing different sections of it, but I wouldn't want to have a discussion until I am done because otherwise it seems too much like a chore to break it apart before I'm even done.

I actually had a discussion about this subject, concerning a different book, just yesterday. She was concerned because her daughter, who is in the 6th grade, was reading a book that had an explicite sex scene in it. She went to the librarian and was told that it is recommended for children as young as in the 4th grade.

We talked about the fact that movies and video games all have a rating system, but when it come to books, there is nothing. Why is that? As she pointed out, she wasn't asking the librarian to ban the book, she simply wanted something on it to let her know that there may be objectional content within the covers.

Frankly, wouldn't that be helpful to everyone? I mean, there is a difference between a book's reading level, and age appropriate content. Wouldn't you like to know before you let your child read a book you haven't read if there is something you would rather not expose them to inside?

I agree with bluesalamanders and Kira about discussing a book in the middle. It really bothered me when we had to do that in school. I like being able to form my own impressions of a book before hearing what everyone else thinks.

If some students aren't able to understand a book independently, I think the teacher should take that into account by assigning them a simpler book to read, not by stopping every chapter or two to analyze it for them. If you can't understand the book without help, you're not going to enjoy it even if someone's there explaining it to you every step of the way.

I understand the need to discuss books "in chunks" in a classroom setting, but personally, I don't like talking about books when I am in the middle of them. (I'm talking about fiction -- non-fiction is different.) I like to "live inside" novels while I read them, and discussing them takes me out of that space. My poor husband always wants to share books we have in common by asking me where I am in the story -- "has x happened yet?" -- and I find that incredibly annoying. I can go on and on at length once I'm finished, and I don't mind breaking things down into chapters the, but don't talk to me until I've read that last page! Besides, how often have you read a less than gripping book whose last chapter makes brilliant sense of all sorts of things that came before? Granted, I probably wouldn't assign a book like that to a 4th grade class!

I think there is a big difference between reading for pleasure/reading at your own level and reading to learn in the classroom setting. The best reader in class still needs instruction and can benefit from discussion and analyzing throughout the book, whether it's vocabulary or symbolism or studying how the story is constructed. There is plenty of room for both types of reading in a class.

I agree with TeacherDad, #25. I've started off reading a difficult book for class, read my chapters, gone back to read provided notes/commentary, and suddenly realized that I was an idiot. "OH! Why didn't I realize that BEFORE!" is usually my first exclamation. And a teacher/notes can bring up things I wouldn't have thought of before. There's definitely a difference between reading at your own level and reading to learn. (On my reading level, say, James Joyce. I'd be lost without somebody to explain things from Ireland in that time period.)

I'm reading Little, Big and sure would appreciate if I had someone explain things to me every few chapters. I know there's a whole lot I'm missing. I tried to look it up on Wiki and Sparks Notes, no luck.

I read The Giver a few years back and to be honest I don't really remember much about it. I do know that at the school that I work at they introduce it in 8th grade. I'm assuming they think anything younger is "too young."

The best reader in class still needs instruction and can benefit from discussion and analyzing throughout the book, whether it's vocabulary or symbolism or studying how the story is constructed.

I agree with almost this whole sentence, but I'd leave out the words "throughout the book", if by that you mean discussion and analyzing while reading the book. There's no reason you can't read for pleasure and then analyze it afterwards.

absolutely right, Zoe; and by "throughout" I kinda meant "at some point or even several points, depending on the book and the reader"

A nine-year or much younger from five to eight years old is considered to be a very young boy at a tender age can easily influenced by others. In a different culture or tribal group, age is considered in different perspectives. For literature or civil class lessons, a book meant for young adults (say 16 years to 18 years) are not really suitable for very young schoolchildren,5/6 years old (First grader) to 11/13 years old (Sixth grader).They should be prescribed books with motto
(lessons of life ) such books as " To Kill A Mockingbird" - Harper Lee, " The Good Earth " - Pearl S. Buck, "Great Expectations " - Charles Dickens.These books have the simplified versions with graded levels for the young readers.

>31 skoobdo: About simplified books, I don't think they should be read generally. If something is too complex for an age group, wait a few years rather than dumbing it down and ruining them for reading it in the original form. After all, if you read an abridged version of a book who is going to want to go back and read the longer form? And if you do go back and read the longer form, then what was gained by reading the abridged one? I think there are enough great books out there meant for younger kids that they don't need to be reading abridged versions of adult books.

I should have mentioned that there are good novels(unabridged) - Puffin Classics series (published by Penguin's publisher) and other good publishers for young children and teens with a range of their vocalbulary's knowledge especially British and American, some translated from foreign language sources.The book I read in my childhood years, Aesop's Fables is a very interesting book for children that teaches young toddlers (3 -4 years) and school children by pointing out a moral of each fable, and really there are good values and morals to every tale. .A good bedtime storybook for young children.

I am generally glad that I read children's editions of The 1001 Nights and Homer's Odyssey when I was in the 3rd or 4th grade (about 9 years old). I never encountered these books in classes through college, and am glad I had an early exposure.

I agree with the abridged Illustrated Classic versions to introduce young readers to the great works, they (the books) whet the readers' appitites for quality literature, and help create a quality base for future reading without being overwhelming; they also provide touchstones for the current material they are reading and watching.

Personally, I think the Wishbone books/TV series did another great thing by adapting great classics in a manor that young kids could enjoy. It's a shame it's not longer on TV. (I believe.)

Of course, I was a little too old for it and my sister who loved it doesn't read much outside of Harry Potter, The Princess Diaries, and Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants so maybe it's not all that effective. But at least she has an idea of the classics.

I think The Giver is more of a 6th or 7th grade book, but some 4th graders would get it.

I find the discussion about teaching style very interesting. As an English major I got so much more from the 3 day a week classes where we talked about a book while reading it then the once a week class where we discussed the whole book at one time. I really enjoyed Paradise Lost and I know it was because I had that great class where we dissected it as we went along. I think it is a learning preference, not a right or wrong thing. Of course, in a classroom with 25 kids it is difficult to teach all methods.

I think children's editions of books can be useful if the original book is VERY complicated or VERY long. It can make them eager for more as they grow older. But I think if the book is only simplified/shortened a little bit, there's no point in doing it. Just wait another year until they learn the vocabulary or develop more concentration. I've been required to read abridged editions of books before, I believe The Odyssey was one, and all I could think about while reading it was "What parts did they leave out? What am I missing?"

I loved Wishbone as a kid and I still think back to it whenever I'm not sure about a classic's plotline that I haven't read recently/ever, so in that respect it was useful, but I also find that I get a lot of those plots confused with each other because the Wishbones were similar. So I guess it just depends.

Another thing that occurs to me on discussing books at the end vs. at intermitent periods is that, if I'm not understanding something or I have a misconception, I want it rectified as soon as possible. If I read the entire book and then a teacher corrects me, I'll feel completely lost.

I guess as a kid I never thought about the abridged versions. When I was in the 4th grade my sister and I got a whole set of abridged classics. They were about 100 pages with a few pictures. I read them over and over again. This year when I read the complete David Copperfield It was like returning to my childhood. I remembered all the characters and the story. Now as an adult I can appreciate Dickens writing. I think as a teen I would have found him tedious.

Whenever someone mentions Dickens I am ashamed to call myself a reader -- except for various editions, including Disney, of A Christmas Carol, I have never read any Dickens. None. Well, except some line about "the worst of times, the best of times..." and that may have been on a greeting card or insurance ad.

My daughter first read "The Giver" in fourth grade. She had to read it again in seventh grade. She loves the book, but I don't care for the themes. I definitely think fourth grade is too young to grasp the book completely.

Sometimes I wonder if the revisiting of this book is similar to the "spiral" way of teaching math. You study something for a bit, then revisit it in more depth in a year or two. I think it's a stupid way to teach, but I don't get a say in how they teach in our schools.

I do disagree, Clytemnestra, with your assertion that you would never suggest that a book be challenged in a school or library. I think it's your job as a parent to do exactly that if you think something is being assigned that isn't age appropriate. Taking on the banning of a book is a serious responsibility not to be taken lightly, but you most definitely should speak up if you think a book is not age appropriate.

Having worked as a volunteer in our elementary school library for the past two years, I found books in the core collection that would absolutely curl your hair. One was a graphic sex-ed book appropriate for no one younger than about 13 years old. Because it was part of the core collection, no one actually selected the book to be purchased for the school. A book company compiled the titles, sold them to the school as a collection, and off the book went to the shelves of the school, where kindergarteners could check it out. I brought it to the attention of the librarian, who immediately took it out of the collection, and notified the district, which pulled it from all 65 elementary schools in our district.

The librarian has 6,000 books in her libary and can't be intimately familiar with each and every one. She was horrified she had never come across the book, because no child ever checked it out. The kids did, however, know about it and would snicker over it while hidden by the shelves.

Keep in mind that not all books are worthy for your children, just because they managed to find a publisher. It's your job as a parent to make noise if you think something shouldn't be assigned to your child's age group. Don't sanctify books -- learn about them and make decisions.

Is there a distinction between saying that a book is not age-appropriate for a certain age group and saying that a book should be banned?

It may just be semantics, but "banning" to me carries the connotation that "Nobody should read this book. It has no redeeming value" whereas saying it's not age-appropriate is more like we've been discussing here - that maybe the book contains subject matter that should be introduced to readers of a certain age/maturity level.

#41
For a library as small as 6,000, I would think a librarian could have passing familiarity with nearly every book. Up until 3 years ago, my wife and I had that many books in our home library, and I think we had passing familiarity with all our books.

I think it's unfortunate that the ordering of books is cede to someone whose main philosophy is to clear out their warehouse. There are reference books out there that help you choose books.

Regarding banning of books, I've always assumed that referred to public and college libraries. I am not an expert on elementary school libraries. In the early 1950's, I went to seven schools in six years, and none of them had a school library. I t was not until the third school of my seventh year that I went to a school with a library.

I've been thinking that it is not always easy to tell if a book has been banned by a library. No library that I know of comes remotely close to acquiring a full set of books that are published in any year. So were the books not bought banned? I was amazed when I was first cataloging books in LT that I had books that had to be entered manually because no one else had them.

#41 -- I'm not sure about your "stupid way to teach" (...?), but do agree that parents need to be aware of what thier children have access to in the libraries, on campus and public, even if it's just to be able to guide reading choices or answer questions...

As far as the semantics of "banning" is concerned, a lot of people assume it is taken to the extreme and the offending titles are burned to a crisp in a roaring fire; a book could be banned or restricted from the school setting or for certain ages, not neccesarily forbidden to all....

There are a few books in our school library that I do not check out to the 6-9 age group. I just tell them that when they are in the 9-12 group they can check it out and that nearly always satisfies them.

I remember my elementary school library being divided into two halves - and one half we couldn't even look at the books from until we were in at least 3rd grade. I thought that was always a pretty sensible system. And I think, if you did have some reason to need a book from that side, if you talked to the librarian and she thought it was appropriate, you could check it out.

With those who had divided libraries by ages though, my greatest fear would be that there would not be enough in the younger section, either in terms of challenging materials or sheer numbers. As a kid I read (and still do read) very quickly, and to be limited to those books marked Grade 3-6 on the back or something would have driven me insane. To have them grouped by age level would be ok, but to limit their ability to check out other age groups' books seems like not a great idea. I recall going to the library in elementary school, being able to look at all the shelves, and picking what appealed to me the most, pure and simple. Having to talk to the librarian to check out a harder book seems like a huge disincentive to read more challenging books. I was shy and hated talking to adults when I was younger.

Our local libraries' collection are basically divided into three main age groups: Junior, Young Adult and Adult.

Junior: from toddler ( 3/5 years ) to 10 years
(Children Collection}

Young Teen: 11 years to 15 years
(Young People Collection)

Young Adult/Working Adult/Senior: 16 years to 99 years
(Adult Collection)

Reference: For all ages
Note: The ages are my estimation.

I know I'm an outsider just randomly jumping in to a discussion, sorry! I'm like you, Kira, I would have HATED having to talk to anyone in order to check out a harder book.

"Age-appropriate" is highly dependent on the child, I think. I read The Giver around 4th grade and loved it. The horrible things were horrible, but they were done by the *bad* guys, so you expected them to be horrible. (I also haven't read it since, so this is based on my memory of reading it.) In 5th and 6th grade, I was reading the books my older brother was reading, and I don't think they messed me up or destroyed my innocence - I do have a very persistent innocence, though.

Children should tackle difficult subjects when they feel they are ready to. Kids are very headstrong when it comes to that.

I grew up in the 1950's. I don't remember reading novels that dealt with difficult subjects. But I did read the newspapers and magazines that came into our household. Although we lived in Rhode Island, my mother always got at least one other Sunday paper besides the Providence Journal. Perhaps three times a month it was the New York Times, once a month the New York Herald-Tribune; when we visited Cape Cod to see a relative, we also got a Boston Post.

So my knowledge of the larger world didn't come from books. So, I remember scary articles about the threat from possible nuclear bombs, and the 100 neediest cases in the Christmas season (in the N. Y. Times), and the hopes dashed from the Hungarian Revolution in 1956.

This is a long way of saying that I can't really comment about the Giver directly.

I am with camp who read the giver in elementary school. We read it in our fifth grade "gifted program." I think it's a wonderful statement on the darkside of power and control and consequences of trying to achieve a perfect society.
These types of books are the kind that more subtle speaks to the horrors of the hitler's vision of a perfect race and the Third Reich and other such montrosities. I think its a good book and i don't feel I was hurt by it. There are dark themes and disturbing stories throughout holy scripture and yet we teach them to children every week. I say this as a theology student and hopefully future pastor.
This obessession to protect children from everything and try to sanitize their world in some ways is detrimental. I think the giver is a good way to introduce the truly darker side of human reality in an intelligent and thoughtful way. Well that's my rant, I of course trust you as a parent to make the best decision with your child. Good luck and many blessings.

edited for spelling

@41:

So your response to a controversial book was to pull it ENTIRELY so that *no* kid could have access, not to age-restrict it? I find that way more terrifying than the presence of the book there to begin with. There certainly are books that aren't appropriate for *any* elementary-school-age kid, but you complain only that 'kindergartners' could access it, not that it wouldn't be appropriate even for an advanced sixth-grader.

And the idea that 6000 books is too many for someone whose JOB is dealing with the books to have glancing familiarity with is ludicrous. 6K books puts you at #71 on the LT size list; some of those are padded with short stories, or are non-personal libraries, but on the other hand children's books are shorter, so I think it balances out. I think that's where the failure lies, here; perhaps nobody decided to purchase this book, but someone put it on the shelf, and a flip-through at that point would have found a TRULY inappropriate book.

@46:

As a smart bookworm child that system (kids younger than the third grade not even being allowed into the "other half" of the library) would have done nothing but ensure that I never visited that library. Fortunately neither my elementary school library nor my public library were so committed to enforcing the idea that nobody was allowed to read above their grade level.

Sometimes I wonder if the revisiting of this book is similar to the "spiral" way of teaching math. You study something for a bit, then revisit it in more depth in a year or two. I think it's a stupid way to teach, but I don't get a say in how they teach in our schools.

Why do you object to this method? I think revisiting concepts in a bit more depth is one of the best ways to make sure they're committed to long-term memory, rather than just learned for a test and immediately forgotten.

@52: I agree completely.