The Giver is a utopian or dystopian setting, depending on how you look at it. It's about a community who medicates themselves against all strong feelings, like love, desire, hate, etc.
Except for one person, called The Giver. He stores all the memories of civilization, of peoples past, just in case the community leaders need wisdom.
There's a lot of discussion of happiness and ambivalence. Can you be happy if you have never known unhappiness? Can you appreciate life if you don't know pain? Is being ambivalent the equivalent of living in a prison, or is it a utopian way to live?
Honestly, I don't care. I had trouble with the "not having strong emotions" part of the book. People don't start receiving medication until they hit puberty. Which means children don't feel love for their parents, aren't cruel to their friends, and don't experience jealousy, etc. Simply because as a human race, we don't remember those feelings. The Giver is the only one who remembers.
That's crap. You don't have to remember love or hate to experience it. You don't even have to witness it. It's a pretty natural thing. And since when do human beings have a collective memory? We're aren't hive animals.
I couldn't get past this to even bother with the discussion about humanity and society. Plus, the ending is open for interpretation. I hate that.
The Giver just reconfirms my distaste for all things "classic".
No comments:
Post a Comment