The Giver

This book is haunting. The dystopian, disturbing parts are so subtle that they sneak up on you, but when you see how broken this world is, it stays with you.
The Giver is as much about what the author doesn't say as it is about what is described. So much is insinuated that you don't get any answers to the big questions like What Happened, or Why is The World Like This. You get bits and pieces and you need to read all four books to get an idea of what might have lead to this, but the story itself is so engaging that you don't mind after a while and you just go with it.
I liked that the book is told through the eyes of a child, with the logic, thoughts and questions a child might have. It's a book about trust and perfection, about what we show more would give up for peace and harmony, how our world would look like if we took away our differences. It sounds ideal, but beneath the surface is a deeply flawed system, but one that looks eerily plausible today. show less

I really enjoyed this book for several reasons. It takes place in a seemingly utopian community, until you realize that the community's individuality and freedom of choice is so repressed that it's more of a dystopia. This really pushes the reader to think about what is more valuable in human life; living without strife, or deciding how to live your own life. I also really enjoyed the language used in this book. The way the memories that Jonas receives are described is very vivid, in order to contrast the dullness of the rest of his society. This books big picture is freedom at the cost of possible tragedy.

It’s wild how a book this short can feel this big. The Giver reads simple on the surface, but it’s the kind of simplicity that hides a whole philosophy underneath. Lowry builds a world so quiet it’s almost sterile, and then she cracks it open just enough for the light to hurt your eyes.

What struck me most wasn’t the dystopia itself but the tenderness hiding inside it. Jonas’s curiosity feels less like rebellion and more like waking up from a dream you didn’t realize you were in. The way he learns to name color, pain, and love hits in a way that’s hard to shake. It’s a story about memory, but also about art—the need to feel things even when it hurts.

Lowry’s writing has that stripped-back lyricism I really admire. show more Every word does its job. There’s no noise, no filler, just meaning layered on restraint. For a book written decades ago, it still reads like a mirror held up to how easy it is to trade truth for comfort.

It’s one of those stories that lingers after you close it—not because of how it ends, but because of what it makes you notice when you look at the world again. show less

Jonas lives in an ideal community, where everything is planned out perfectly for children to learn and grow at the right (same) ages, have a career picked out for them, have a spouse picked out for them, and even have their designated maximum of two children picked out for them. No one is ever unhappy for long, and families discuss their feelings nightly to make sure all is sorted out. Medication exists for minor ailments, but there is no hunger or war to warrant much suffering. But when Jonas is selected not for a career so much as an unusual assignment -- that of Receiver to the Giver -- he learns there is more to life than their community of sameness allows. And that the community's perfect veneer hides a dark underbelly. But what show more can he do with this knowledge if only he and the Giver have the memories of things that happened long ago?

This book is ubiquitous in middle and high school circles and I guess for that reason I was convinced I had already read. But whenever I tried to recall what happens in the book, all I came up with was the plot to Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery," which is a rather different story. So, I decided to finally read this book and see what all the fuss was about.

I did appreciate how this book makes you question so many things. It starts off seeming almost utopian (and arguably, some could say it is utopian for some members of this society) and then we slowly see how there are things that are far from ideal. But it opens up questions of what would you trade off if you could? Are colors worth having if people are starving? Is music worth listening to if people are killing each other? The book doesn't provide easy answers, but instead allows the ideas of individual choice versus collective good to sit and linger with the reader.

One thing that I didn't necessarily like about the book --- which is not a criticism per se --- is that I wanted to know more than what Lowry showed us. I was curious as to how humanity got from our present day to this society; they certainly had some technology we don't but they also did things like control the weather that sure does seem outside of the capabilities of humankind. It also seemed like this community might be the exception rather than the norm, although that wasn't entirely clear. The ending really left me wondering and hoping to know more. I plan to continue on with the series to see if I find answers to my questions.

The audiobook narrator did an excellent job but there was a weird choice to randomly play music during certainly selections of the book. I found this jarring, even though the music itself was not unpleasant -- it just seemed to come out of nowhere and then also leave as suddenly. show less

Celebrate diversity - it is what makes the world go round. To Jonas who lives in a world of Sameness, where diversity is eliminated and even colors have been lost, it seems like perfection has been achieved. But there flaws to perfection and secrets that are hidden by Sameness. Lowry's book is well written, drawing the reader from an idyllic world to a place where diversity is ridiculed instead of celebrated. The reader is forced to consider the price of losing diversity, creativity, and emotions such as sadness, grief, and love. Her hero is a young boy who discovers the truth and is forced to make a difficult decision with momentous consequences. The writing flows well and the plot develops quickly as it builds toward a resolution of show more the conflict that grows less in the community and more within Jonas. But the resolution only creates more issues and the reader is left at the end to wonder about Jonas' choices. show less

This book asks the imprisoned child in Omelas to bite her keeper and escape into the sun. Of course we all are the child and the citizens of Omelas with our clever gadgets, easily procured clothing and sundries, we live less than we could and give less than we should for the most part. Using dystopic-utopias to ask what it is and what it requires to be human is part, asking what it costs is something else.

Wow.
Okay, I'm pretty sure I don't just hate this book because I was forced to read it in English class. I spent a lot of time sorting out my feelings for it, separating the good from the bad, the interesting from the totally unrealistic and confusing, and I realized that I am completely justified in disliking it.
I discovered pretty early on that the only reason we were reading this book was so the halfwits in my class could grasp the definition of dystopia, which was pretty infuriating in itself, but when you exist in an eighth grade Language Arts system void of AP or Honours, you take what you get, I suppose.
But when we finally finished reading and analyzing what precious few parts of The Giver that there were to even analyze, I show more thought, "No. That can't be it. Surely that can't be all there is to this book... Surely there's something more! There must be some subtext, some cleverly-placed metaphor, SOMETHING other than a childish attempt at a dystopian novel, right? RIGHT?!" But no. We are left completely in the dark about, well, almost everything. World-building? HA! The utopian community doesn't even have a name, for Christ's sake, much less a relative location. Are they even on Earth? Damned if I know! Characterization? As if! Not Jonas, nor anyone else in this novel, behaves like a human being. Yes, I understand they live in a society that "brainwashes" them- where they see killing random babies for no reason as perfectly okay and justifiable. Yes, I have read Brave New World and The Hunger Games and Divergent, and I'd like to think I have a pretty good idea of what makes a dystopia interesting. But when you leave out major plot points and story elements, what do you have left? How can anyone consider this as a valid analyzation of human morality and psyche?! (No joke, I actually saw a review that said exactly that.) Even just looking at it from a story standpoint, it's unreasonable.
I realize that it's not necessary to say why everything is the way it is in a fictional story. Heck, sometimes I don't even wanna know, I'd rather just infer. But for that to happen, you have to give me something to infer upon. You have to at least explain, or even just present, the basics- interesting setting, interesting characters, interesting plot, if it's a totally kickass novel, maybe all of the above. The Giver had none of that.
Still no word on how memories are transferred, or how far in the future it is, or what Jonas' last name is, or what the name of the community is, or why only blue eyed people can receive memories, or why there are even birthmothers when conceivably there is the ability to artificially grow babies, or how the memories go back to the community if the receiver is lost, or how, if nobody knows the meaning of the word 'animal', they have salmon hatcheries and think nothing of it. So. Many. Holes. So many unaddressed topics. Trust me, I could keep going, but I'm afraid if I do I'll just lose control and slam my head on the keyboard out of sheer frustration.
This is just a very, very poorly written book that even children- the intended audience- are confused by. I think somewhere along the way Lois Lowry had a valid concept for a dystopian young adult novel, but about three pages in she got totally lost, and instead of recollecting her thoughts or taking the plot in a new direction, she kept going and, as I like to say, rode the shitstorm all the way to the shore. The only reason I didn't give The Giver one star is because I feel like it tried at least a little bit to say something. And, if I hadn't been so misfortunate as to have read such atrocities like The Different Girl by Gordon Dahlquist & Liar by Justine Larbalastier, both of which had absolutely no theme or point, I probably would have given this one star.
One thing is for sure- I will never doubt my teachers' ability to choose books that make me want to stab myself in the eye with a fork. show less