Posts
- After the first few chapters, what sort of questions do you have about the Community? What do you guess about terms such as "Release," "Elsewhere," and "changed" (referring to the apple and the audience at Jonas's ceremony), that have as yet not been explained?
- The Giver is a Utopian novel, a story about a "perfect" society (kind of like Alicia's dream for Mommy Salon;)). What are the benefits and drawbacks of trying to create a society of perfect peace and safety?
- The Community has many rules and structures in place to preserve their chosen way of life. Which of these rules seem acceptable to you and which don't? Why?
- So far, do you think the book seems to promote the idea of an ideal society, or is it a cautionary tale? What passages lead you to think one or the other?
Feel free to comment on this post (without giving too much away for those who have not read as much as you have) or jot some thoughts down on your own as you read.
7 comments:
As I've been reading, I've enjoyed posing questions to myself-provoked by the novel-and trying to answer them. For instance, are people like Asher a threat to the community? When is it desirable to choose control over future opportunities to choose?
ok, so I should write something?
Besides reading the book and writing something.
Is there anything else I need to know or do before the 17th?
So, basically I wish I could live in Denver, because I would much rather get into a face to face conversation about the book! I started to jot down ideas (after reading Kristy's thought-provoking questions) and thought I would leave a brilliant post of my thoughts after the first few chapters. Truth be told, I finished the book in a day and a half, and I hardly stopped to write about ANYTHING because I just wanted to finish it. Now I have all kinds of things going through my head, but I shouldn't post them all, because it might give away too much. So I will ponder on my own for now and wait to hear what others say...
Jean: yes, write away.
Anna: I'm so happy you're joining us! And comment away! I think most of us are getting close to finishing.
I was talking with Jared the other night about this being a Utopian novel and he said, "Or a dystopian novel, right?" Being the Socratic teacher he is, he left me to think about that.
So, now that I'm done [**spoiler alert here**] I can definitely say it's a dystopian novel, which I actually think of as a subcategory of Utopian novels. The society is ultimately condemned as a dystopia, a failed attempt at a perfect society, by Jonas's escape.
And that's the thing: it's an escape, a liberation, not a criminal runaway. Just the way Lowry describes his escape in a positive light instead of writing it as an irresponsible avoidance of conventional rules shows that this community was not good (as if we didn't know that already--releasing babies! That scene plays in my head and my throat aches and threatens to collapse).
So what I'm working in my brain now is, where do we draw the line? If this is a bad society, why are some of the rules acceptable to me, even some that we don't have in our society, and others are heinous? Where do rules become oppressive? What do y'all think?
That IS the question. Where do we draw the line? Reading this with 10 more years of life under my belt since my last reading, I felt much more favorably disposed toward Jonas' community. The last time I read it, I kind of knew that I was supposed to shun it, but this time, having been exposed to more of the ugliness of the world, it was much more attractive! I mean, what's so bad about plenty of food, security, and no worries?! The conflict between choice and security is heart-rending. But I think I have to choose choice and freedom. Like Jonas thought as he started to regret his escape, then remembered that Gabriel would have been released had they stayed: "So there really was no choice." How ironic that when it comes to the life of someone we love, we feel that there isn't really a choice, after all.
Well, as one offering in response to Kristy's last question, I liked the "sharing of feelings." Obviously it became somewhat of a farce as the novel progressed, but I think having healthy family communication and support is one way we can prevent situations in which we have to choose between coercive control and chaos. If we resolve negative feelings before they escalate into violence, part of the problem is solved before it begins. The best governance is self-governance (and family governance, as an extension). I also think emphasis on courtesy and considerate-ness (is that a word?!) is helpful in maintaining a safe community and is a better alternative to a tyranny of rules.
See, I don't know if I would call it a dystopian novel. I am not condoning their society by any means, but the dictionary says dystopia is:
"a society characterized by human misery, as squalor, oppression, disease, and overcrowding"
I wouldn't call their society miserable. I would call them oppressed MAYBE...but then again, can someone really be oppressed if they don't even KNOW they are being oppressed?
Here's what I think--I think they did a great job creating a Utopian society--free of conflict, hence peaceful. But I think that they did a horrible job of creating Zion. I think I want Zion myself. So I am wrestling with what went wrong in their community. Because when Jonas and Gabriel were about to die getting to Elsewhere, part of me really just wanted them to go back to their "perfect" city. There was something safe and inviting about it.
Kristy, I like how you pointed out how Jonas' escape really brought to light the fact that he was leaving something that was bad. I hadn't thought of it quite that way.
P.S. I have actually never read Thomas Moore's Utopia, so I don't know if his Utopia IS more of what we traditionally think Zion will be...but I just know in my mind, Utopia feels like it would be a lot like Jonas' community. My opinion.
That last comment was supposed to be from me. Well, it WAS from me, but I just posted from Justin's computer. Sorry for the confusion!
Post a Comment