The Giver is a terrible book (and worse movie)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 чер 2022
- Kanye West dresses his Kanye best, with a Kanye vest on his Kanye chest. He goes to school to take a Kanye test. In art class he designs a Kanye crest, then hangs it up at his mom's Kanye behest.
Patreon: / jamestullos
Twitter: / fortullos
My other channel: / ghostbuster274
Donate: paypal.me/JamesCTullos?locale...
goodreads: / james-tullos - Розваги
One thing that always struck me as odd was that the “utopian” village Jonas ends up in at the end of the series also has jobs assigned based on one’s skills and personality, but here it’s ok because they have art and music or whatever
I’m not gonna lie tho I still love Son it’s a pretty good book
I don't see how that's odd at all. I mean sure, assigned housing and occupation is still bad, but obviously a society that has art and culture is better than a society that doesn't have art and culture.
@@hamos4744 we're not talking about "better" though? It's utopia
@@hamos4744 yeah that’s true, I was more pointing out that the book never takes issue with it here like it does in the Giver’s community
@@alexander8257 I believe it’s because whereas in the other books, it’s a communal system where people have freedoms about themselves and culturally, while it’s much more controlling and almost robotic in The Giver
We read this book in seventh grade english, and the only thing I remember about it was the scene where Jonas tells his parents about the wet dream he had about Fiona, because the entire class burst into immature laughter and the teacher could not restore order.
“the stirrings” lmao. the same thing happened in my class.
For my 6th grade, we had a combination of awkward, uncomfortable silence and extended, immature giggling.
(I was one of the awkward silence kids and, as someone who had not quite reached the point of her own "Stirrings" yet, the whole sex feelings thing sounded dumb and just a thing that makes you have to grow up all of a sudden, and those anti-Stirrings pills in the book sounded so appealing to me. But don't worry--I now know experiencing one (1) aspect of getting older doesn't mean everything changes at once, and I can still like the things I liked when I was younger, and I don't have to like noisy clubs or drugs or whatever just because I'm an adult. It all feels very black-and-white when you're 11.)
Same
what chapter?
fr😭
I mostly agree with your analysis (though I don't think it's nearly as bad as you say). Personally, it's my favorite book. But I'm *heavily* biased. My brother kept this book in his locker all through highschool. Then, when I started highschool, he gave me his copy and I did the same. A year after I graduated my brother took his own life. So, idk, I find a weird comfort in it and that helps me overlook a lot of the books pitfalls.
It's perfectly fine to have something mediocre, or bad even as your favorite. I like plenty of mediocre books and movies and that's okay. We all have our own personal emotions attached to it, and the mediocrity of said book or movie doesn't make how we feel any less meaningful.
@@mcchilde2903 that’s true. “The Giver” is not mediocre, however, unless you do an extremely shallow reading.
@@mcchilde2903 the giver is not mediocre but that’s a fair take (actually I’d say it’s a true and good one)
Understandable.
Sorry about your brother. Suicide is one of the saddest things you can do.
@@misskate3815 I agree. In fact I mentioned this in my comment to the narrator. A very superficial understanding and take. Kind of narcissistic in fact. Ive always been a great liver of the written word. Whle The Giver isnt exactly a literary masterpiece it is very relevent to modern society and where things are, and where they are further headed. This narrator is so juvenile in understanding.
There's actually a reason Jonas was chosen as the Receiver, though it's pretty quickly glossed over. Early on he witnesses an object "change" in a way he didn't quite understand, and it's explained later that he managed to briefly see in color, something that nobody else can do. The Receiver is chosen from whoever is capable of seeing in color.
or experience something the rest can’t in general-the giver heard music which led to his receiving the position
@@pinkbunnypeepsyall8251 or have some other ability, such as healing/premonition/soul-reading
Pretty quickly glossed over? That was the thing I remembered most from the book, interesting.
but how did they know he sees color
@@Itsme-zt9lmexactly
The Giver is genuinely one of the best dystopian novels I've ever read. It's unique, it's poignant, it has clear themes and doesn't rely on a big mustache-twirling evil dictator or a half-assed love interest for the main character to keep you engaged. You're engaged because this dystopia is so...bleak, yet also not evil. It's just neutral.
Course the movie then adds both a mustache-twirling villain and a love interest and makes the society a lot more overtly evil because it just had to be a YA dystopian movie.
I think much the same could be said about Brave New World (and perhaps We by Zemyatim), correct me if I am wrong.
Adds a love interest? Fiona was always a core component of the book? There was like a whole chapter of his sexual fantasies
@@haha-lj5sq yeah but the movie really plays it up - they kiss in the movie, whereas I don't think it's ever shown to be reciprocated in the book
For real though!
But it is an evil community. They have normalized infanticide and eugenics? That's about as evil as it gets honestly
You did miss the twin point. They need to have the same number of children every year. Its nothing to do with identical or fraternal. You just can't have 51 babies.
I also think it would have been an anomaly and freaked ppl in that society out seeing two identical people
@@Theatreninja100 maybe, but they would do it either way.
They do say having 2 people who are identical would be confusing; they're aiming for people to be the same but not identical, easy to distinguish but not wildly different
@@MakiPcr Both of these things are true simultaneously. Again though, fraternal twins would still get the same treatment.
I seem to remember the dad mentioning the twins at dinnertime, and the mom asks if they're fraternal or identical, and he says, "identical," and she's like, "oh, that's too bad. One of them will have to be Released, then." So like. I'm not 100% sure it's about the number of yearly babies?
I personally read the main conflict of Jonas running a way in a more complicated way. The way you describe it, Jonas is automatically doing good by allowing the memories to return to the Community, but the whole idea behind the Community is that their utopia, where people are without want or pain, only exists because they have all forgotten that they CAN experience pain, other emotion, and all individuality. By running away and returning the memories to them, Jonas gives them the right to choose their own path, but also curses them with the memories of human existence.
the question is whether it is better to have the choice to do terrible or wonderful things or to have no choice and live in a society without want or chaos or pain. Jonas isn't necessarily doing a good thing and I always read him as being a lot more conflicted over whether it was moral to return the memories.
Yes! These "critics" are more often than not such shallow readers/viewers it baffles my mind. Doing it just for the views, because hating on something gives you on average like 2-3x more views than praising it? I am so bored of these criticism that lack understanding, proper research (he got lots of things wrong), and obviously also life perspective. The more intelligent a person is, the more they understand things, including books. He obviously does not.
agreed on both parties
Not every good story needs a solid main character. I think if you wanted Jonas to be like the dude from rangers apprentice he would be less unique and compelling. You gotta remember this book Is being read by middle schoolers who don't have very much control over their life just like Jonas. They pretty muched forced to whatever their parents or teachers tell them to do just like Jonas. Kids stay ignorant and do whatever people tell them to do untill they start learning more and having more experiences just like Jonas.
Jonas is a good character for the audience reading his story. Most kids are not naturally skillfull truly special
And a side note, reading dystopians isn't always for the main character, me personally I prefer to learn about the world and why it ended up that way, isn't that one of the main reasons for the genre?
I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're also trying to fit this book into templates that it wasn't made for. Jonas is not a traditional protagonist, the community is not a traditional dystopia, and this results in a nontraditional conflict. That doesn't mean we are lacking in any of these things, but we should judge them for what they are.
The point you make about the community being on the average good is arguable, but as you point out, the points you say are made for cheap shock value are supposed to prompt that very question. Furthermore, that question has been led up to by Jonas experiencing the received memories, which are supposed to ask what we value in these things which have been removed from the world and how they affect people. The memories in of themselves are also part of the book's appeal. Experiencing these scenes out of context and through someone who could barely comprehend them is part of what makes this a great book for kickstarting the imagination of children.
Also, I think there could have been a more prominent reason, but the dinner table scene (keyword: "Apprehensive") establishes why Jonas may be the Receiver. He's worried about the Ceremony of Twelve, and he has to reign in that emotion in order to fit into his family/community. It sort of reminds me of neurodivergent masking, now that I think about it.
In short, the book is definitely not perfect, but it deserves a lot more credit than being compared negatively to Ayn Rand. It's not as tight with its worldbuilding or as gripping with its conflict as I think you'd like it to be, but it's more than just "that book you hated because you were assigned to read it in school."
I think there's something inherently repulsive about a fictional dystopia where people want for nothing but just lack individuality and creative expression. In particular, this bothers me because society is generally very conformist/assimilationist, and poverty is common, but a kind of controlled/consumerist individuality is highly idealized.
Also the book is the first of four books and a lot of the conflict resolves over time. The second book follows a completely different dystopian society built entirely around fighting and being strong. But the main character can accidentally weave the future and has a club foot. So all of the characters basically are impoverished and the opposite of the Giver. So Jonas meets Kira, his future love interest who comes from this terrible community. Then Mat, a character from Kira's book is the next story, and Gabe, the infant from the Giver goes back to the community of the first book to save it.
A book about how individualism is great being distorted in adaptation because the people trying to adapted were too focused on individualism is very funny
It was distorted in adaptation because they were too focused on making it like something else?
despite the fact that its not super substantial and fell a little flat at times, i liked the giver because it didnt rely on a big baddie head honcho who runs this evil scary regime, the way most dystopians do. they arent being forced to live the way they live, and it genuinely doesnt seem that bad to live their lives. the scary part is that human insticts simply demands more than just survival. emotions, sensations, art, ect are missing, and thats the dystopia. i liked that premise a lot, i just think its a shame it was sort of sanitized for anyounger audience
So, did your copy not have the baby murdering and the reproductive slavery parts, or what?
@@misskate3815 yes i am aware they killed babies (a sort of eugenics thing, i believe) but i dont remember reproductive slavery? also, i should clarify - yes, the society is quite scary, and the baby murdering is the catalyst for the main characters being disillusioned from his world. but the main emphasis is not on excessive violence or opression but the lack of human sensations.
@@yoongitrash2699 They essentially have teenagers serve as birthmothers and give birth to three children(unless complications arise)
Son has a better explanation, but the Giver kinda implies it
The baby killing is population control
@@yoongitrash2699 by reproductive slavery I think they are referring to the women who are chosen in their job ceremony to be birthgivers and then after three babies they're done and are forced into another job
@@writteninthestars02yeah, and the kids are super young and basically have their children ripped away from them. Gabe's mom had her at 14 and she spent a whole book (one of the sequels) looking for him.
I'm pretty sure the receivers must have light eyes because passing on memories is a genetic ability. In the book, Jonas tries to give some memories to his little sister (and maybe Fiona?), but it doesn't work. We only see memories passing through people with light eyes (the Giver, Rosemary, Jonas, Gabe). They also mention some traits that are required to be chosen to be a receiver during the job ceremony thing, but I can't remember them and they didn't really seem that relevent.
well that is at least a reason for bland-does-near-nothing protagonist to have plot value, it's still not a very good reason in world building
@@prcervi I know. Just explaining.
@@justcallmelucky i'm just insulting the book
@@prcervi what, did you want him to have premonitions?
I think the light eyes represent some sort of magic, especially when considering Kira and Matthew
I remember we read The Giver in like 5th grade. The only thing I remember happening in the whole book was the main character saying "I'm starving!" when he came home from school or whatever, and was immediately chastised for lying about starving bc he wasn't literally starving.
The literal speech is intended to give us clues about the brutality behind the black and white “happy” community. There’s another scene where a child is beaten because he has a tendency to say “smack” instead of “snack”.
They also made us read the giver in 5th grade! After we had to write a continuation of the story based on how we interpreted the ending. Me being an edgy contrarian child made it so, actually no, Jonas did not make it to this awesome utopia. Actually he was having hypothermic hallucinations and froze to death in the middle of a destroyed ghost town
@@LostSwiftpaw tbf thats way better than what most 5th graders would come up with anyway. but did 5th Grade You need a hug
@@LostSwiftpaw that's legit how I interpreted the ending in whatever grade I had to read it in school. I liked that it had an open ending so everyone could interpret it for themselves. But apparently there were sequels so the ending isn't open to interpretation or something?
That’s how I interpreted the ending when we had to read it. He froze to death and hallucinated his own happy ending. I did not like the ambiguous ending when I read it, it felt like a cop out
I found it ok cause I thought the concept was cool. Also it was one of the only books we had to read for school that I didn't despise or find horrendously boring. It was actually somewhat creative! It was written as a deconstruction of a utopia and that was the first (and one of the last) utopia books I read so that was kind of cool actually. That might be why some people defend it? Who knows.
I agree with what you've said here though, it has many flaws. I think most of them are just the product of their time, where characters don't really matter in thought experiment stories, but it doesn't make for a particularly interesting or logical read.
Read a brave new world instead. It's just this but way better. There is also a good audiobook of it on youtube
@@amerashi1111 I just looked it up and it sounds interesting, thanks for the recommendation!
@@amerashi1111 I can’t stand Brave New World, I was bored to tears reading it. The idea is neat, and I thought the world was creative, but the story was… just okay to me. I also had to read and write a ton of analytical stuff on it which made it even drier. I liked 1984 much better, felt more realistic
@@KatieLHall-fy1hw That's strange because i usually get easily bored and i wasn't by Brave New World. Although I think i would agree that 1984 is better written.
It is as if you are looking at the features of the book and calling them bugs. About the blue eyes, people with that color eyes are chosen for the Reciever because that trait is a marker for the abilities that make the job possible. We know this because Jonas can see red in flashes even before he goes off the drugs. Gabriel is also able to receive memories, and he also has blue eyes. The same is true of the Giver. Furthermore, not everyone is able to receive memories, only those with these particular traits, as is demonstrated in several scenes.
The wish to get rid of the red-haired trait, as well as the willingness to destroy the old and the young who are unproductive, is a demonstration of the arbitrary nature of the society, which makes it dystopian. Along the same lines, throughout the series, Lowry makes it clear that all life is sacred, so to her, murder, infanticide, euthanasia, and assisted suicide are all equally horrific.
Furthermore, you keep saying that what makes the society seem dystopic is the sameness, and that is an element which is commonly mentioned throughout the book. However, this is merely a symptom of the pharmacological repression of emotion.
As far as Jonas not having to work for his catharsis, you are just plain wrong. Day by day, he goes in to the Giver to receive information, knowledge, memories, and training, all of which is described in the book. The fact that the training is more mental and emotional than physical is the whole point. Not to mention the fact that each session is described as exhausting and often traumatizing. Finally, the final scenes which describe the escape are not, in fact an escape. Jonas has the option to continue his training without intervening for Gabriel, in fact, this would be the easiest path for everyone, but he has knowledge that this course of action will doom not only Gabriel, who also has the gifts of a Receiver, but also the Giver, who will no doubt be euthanized after he fulfills his purpose in society -- you seem to forget the implication that this happens at the retirement home. So Jonas chooses to act instead. In doing so, he faces danger, fear, and pain, uses his gifts and training, which is described in fair detail, saves Gabriel, which is not selfish but altruistic, saves the Giver, saves his society by restoring to them the memories and emotions they had repressed for generations, ends a cycle of violence, and ultimately saves himself from a marred conscience. This is the essence of heroism!
This story is a psychologically archetypal story about the necessity of integrating not only reason and the positive emotions, but all the components of the psyche for the health of the individual and the wholeness of society. This is true not only of the first novel, but also of the other books in the series. There are some points of the story that I will agree are not as impactful as I think Lowry expected them to be, but overall, she did a good job of world building and creating her story. Furthermore, some of what is missing is filled in in later books in the series.
As you yourself mentioned, there are a lot of people who have seen excellence, truth, and even a little bit of entertainment in this book. The fact that you have not seen the same may say less about the book and more about your attitude toward it.
This dude just wrote a whole essay.
@@lilahmarrs6269 I guess I had a lot to say.
@@bryanjones8079this is a lot. But kinda fire. You into writing?
Well said. It really does feel like James hated the book as a kid and then needed to justify that hatred as an adult, but didn't actually reread it (just a summary) so he doesn't really understand what the book is talking about, just a clinical analysis of it.
Isn't it usually the _antagonist_ - which in dystopian fiction is the setting itself - that drives the plot?
... there are sequels? Doesn't that kind of undermine the point of an ending that's deliberately open to interpretation?
Personally I'd argue there's an element of psychological horror to the Giver, but it's more subtext than text. It's all implication and the gradual realization of how the Society gaslights people, perpetuating itself on lies.
Not direct sequels, just about different communities that have different ways of running their society. And I do think some of them aare thought out more. For instance, Gathering Blue is about a girl who’s crippled and uses a wooden leg. Haven’t read theese books in a while, but I think she died clothes or something? Check it out, you may like.
@@thejorgieverse1501 I say semi-direct sequels, especially Son
As regards the first question, I don't think so because if the setting stayed the same there would be no plot. But it is an interesting and insightful question, I think you could make the case that the setting is the main character...
@@thejorgieverse1501 unfortunately despite her saying they're not direct sequels-they are
Gathering Blue isn't a sequel. It's a different cast with no overlap.
I think that there's a fair point to be made that going from a totally sheltered social structure in a literal utopia, to being informed that the cookie-cutter structure of your known world has had all the difficult and dangerous parts of its experiences carefully and intentionally pruned away, to *experiencing* those dangerous and difficult parts in agonizing detail, can be traumatic. It's a product of a sheltered and privileged upbringing, yes, but that fact doesn't make Jonas any better equipped to handle how real the experience of bleeding out under the beating sun is (as the books portray it)
But you can't expect people to understand psychology like that. If there's one thing I've learned, most people are so fucking stupid that they refuse to believe that anyone has trauma or that anything actually mentally affects people.
This! He not just misses the point of the book, he also has no idea what trauma is like. I have complex PTSD and there is just no way so called "privilige" (that became a buzzword to usually shut up people in the West when they call for social justice) is going to diminish what the experience feels subjectively... Jonas was at that point just like a baby in a completely new situation. Of course it is gonna be overwhelming. Like perhaps when we just threw James out of the plane or something without his being prepared for it at all. Something that will feel routine to a professional sky-diver but overwhelming to a huge chunk of people. No one in this utopian world was equipped to deal with the raw emotions after being literally heavily dissociated their whole lives.
I think a lot of it could be traumatic even for someone who hasn't lived a "perfect" life. But yes its even worse when you never had to deal with hardship in any way whatsoever and have no idea how to even cope with that hardship and bad feelings
Something funny to consider is: The Giver Quartet actually is more likely fantasy, not sci-if, which kinda changes some of the implications of the worlds actual technology(the movie not allowing for Gathering Blue and the movie taking place in a future with actual advanced technologies are two issues that probably cause the movie bigger issues than at first look)
The world the book takes place in doesn’t really kill those that make mistakes, nor does it push for sameness and then removal of feelings, but The Community isn’t really a normal place in the world, which isn’t obvious in The Giver, but is very obvious in Son
Looking at the world the book takes place in, I think it slowly becomes more apparent that “The Community” is actually not that good because it is a overly controlling project/town that isn’t necessary, and that food safety and suitable housing can be found in this world without sacrificing so much. If the rest of the world were like, I dunno, Tragedy-era Danganronpa, then it would be the safest place around, but it’s more like the scenario found with The City of Ember, but with magic, and less imminent danger of the town failing and thus a need for everyone to escape, and makes the community a misguided dystopia more than a one created with malevolent intent.
I actually wonder what your opinion of what Gathering Blue or Son would be if you read those books
bro is absolutely flabbergasted at the idea of a complex protagonist ☠️
Why does the protagonist have to have a unique ability that makes them seem “better” than everyone else? Isn’t one of the points trying to be shown that anyone can be the positive change? Also why would his community need a name? To the community, they are all there is, they don’t even know there are other communities…so why would they have a need for a distinguishing name? A lot of your nitpicking doesn’t actually make sense.
It makes sense in that he probably didn’t reread the book for the review.
I agree with you about the protagonist thing like protagonist shouldn't be special just because they have some kind of super power however I will point out that the community is aware of other communities because Lily has been on like field trips to other communities playgrounds and schools or had one come to hers she told us about it in the first generation so there are some other communities but the whole thing is sameness right so why would it need a name even if there were others cuz everybody knows what community they're from because they almost never leave except for the people who deliver the fish I guess and the kids who travel from one school to another and obviously the kids who are traveling know that the community they're traveling too isn't their community even if they don't have names
@@lahlybird895
Jonas has premonition IIRC, Jonas just doesn’t realize he has it during The Giver
The fish delivery comes from a separated community at the bottom of a cliff, but they have none of the restrictions of The Community since they aren’t part of that system
@@insertcolorherehawk3761 he has premonitions?
@@lahlybird895 he has visions, but like I said, those don’t come up in The Giver, but it does in Messenger
When we read the Giver at school there was zero pre explanation by the teachers. No one told us beforehand it was a dystopia. We were just told to read it and form our own opinions. I think its meant to be vague about its message to let students form their own ideas and be able to recognise small shifts in our society towards this way of thinking. If it were an exaggerated caricature of dystopia where every evil is obvious then it would be bad.
I had to read The Wind Singer at school, which is about a society where people are sorted into castes based on how well they do at tests, and this video reminded me of it. Near the end, there's a speech where one of the leaders of the society talks about how Aramanth has no poverty or crime, but it's presented like we're supposed to disagree with him? Also, the way they fix society is... by putting a piece of metal in a fancy windchime? It's a fantasy element that doesn't mesh with the plot at all.
The Wind Singer is one of my favourite books (it's actually the first in a trilogy and I love the whole series- read them as a teenager and have such fond memories), and I actually loved how it had both fantasy and dystopian elements, but I couldn't help but smile at your last point. It's fun, but definitely quite ridiculous and doesn't really say much that is useful.
Man, I loved this book. The movie was fine but could’ve been better by having the main character as young as he was in the book. It’s the only third person dystopian novel I have in mind, and I like it that way.
Also, don’t throw the term gaslight around. People can like the book and think it’s a masterpiece. That’s an opinion, not a psychological abuse and torture method.
it was a joke, relax.
I love your pfp! Thursday!
"I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone," is basically the same joke without the misusing-a-very-serious-word issue. Still not really funny though.
he was exaggerating for the lolz bro. it’s like when people say i’m gonna kms after a minor inconvenience.
@@chlorin333 But that's not funny either.
i actually loved this book as a kid. i've only read it once and i remember having very positive feelings about it. people can disagree with you doesn't mean they're abusing you lmao. i know the gaslighting thing was a joke but please lets use at least some words as intended before they lose all meaning and i feel like i have twitter brainrot when i'm talking to my therapist
If he'd tried to give a damn about the book, maybe he'd appreciate the importance of precision of language. Ironic.
It’s wild to me that anyone could dislike The Giver as a novel, much less hate it! But I appreciate you sharing your opinion knowing that the masses will probably froth at the mouth lol. And I agree that the movie was totally horrendous
You mention that Jonas’ training isn’t really training because all he has to do is just sit around while the giver transfers his memories. But that point I gotta disagree. Taking on all of humanity’s collective suffering and anguish over the course of weeks (or was it months?) and being the only person carrying that suffering and anguish has got to be mentally taxing on a teenager.
I thought the meaning of the story was that sometimes the younger generation cannot cope with the knowledge or society of the older and have to leave and make their own way.
I like that.
i thought that too!
When was the last time you read it? I think you need to give it a reread (and I mean an actual reread instead of just skimming).
Here's a hint: Those complaints you have about the things the Society do that are illogical? _That's the point_ (or part of it, anyways).
I mean, he missed the fact that the main impetus of the Gabe storyline is that all human beings have value, even if other people want to dispose of them, so safe to say he didn’t really do a deep read.
I party your accusation that the MC being a nobody is a bad thing, and thrust back with this: perhaps it's a good thing that he's an everyman. It reminds you that anybody CAN be the hero, if they make the right call when the right call is almost impossible to make. In addition, one might consider the simple act of restoring the history of the community to all people, though painful, is inherently good. We should HAVE our history, even if it hurts.
As an actual middle school teacher who has to teach this book to students every year, I agree that this story is immensely overrated. I get that it was probably more notable back when it was one of the only young adult dystopias, but the genre has played out and the novel is totally unremarkable in today's context.
Yeah, how could anyone relate to a protagonist who rejects his entire society on the basis that a disabled baby is worth as much as anyone else ? Totally overdone Yawnfest.
@@misskate3815 disabled? That kid was just less healthy, not even sickly, just LESS HEATHY than their twin.
@@NapaCat the implicit reasoning behind the intended murder of GABRIEL, an actual character in the book, is his failure to reach certain milestones that his peers are reaching. This would be because the Community doesn’t want less than perfectly normal children.
Jonas, having connected to Gabriel as a fellow human being, makes his decision to leave because his father tells him that Gabriel is being “released”, AKA murdered.
Btw, murdering a baby bc it’s weaker than its twin is also ableist eugenics.
@@misskate3815 Also, it’s the community’s mechanics that cause many of Gabriel’s issues, some of which are pretty much reduced when Gabe is near his Birthmother, for example. (this might have something to do with his abilities, but that’s a bit more than what has to be said here)
His overall development appears to have no real issues beyond his infant years.
As a young boy, this novel was incredibly important to me. I didn't read it with a class, I read it on my own, privately. I was experiencing many of the same things Jonas was in my adolescence and I remember this being a gentle book, introducing interesting and important topics while keeping some entertainment and mystery throughout. I'll need to pick it up again and see if I still feel the same, but I think it is unfair to call this book totally unremarkable. Young boys need good literature today and this one is designed to be read in private.
The only thing I remember from the book is the setup and the protagonist wanting to bathe his girl friend. I too read this in middle school. Dang book left next-to-no impact on me.
Oh, right, and the protagonist's guy friend was punished for using "starving" as an exaggeration.
(Grammer Nazis took over society!? What kinda Hell on Earth is this!?)
He was punished because by saying he was “starving” he reiterated the memory/concept of literal starvation which the community had sought to eradicate from their psyche.
@@zawrator4457 See, that's how little of the book I remember.
Might just mean you're a shit reader, mate.
@@zawrator4457 But like, if they wanted people to forget that starvation existed, maybe the first step is to eliminate the word from people’s vocabulary? Actually, that’s a key thing that really should have been in the book. The Giver introduces Jonas to words he’s never heard before, like “pain,” “color,” “joy.” These concepts are so alien to Jonas that he hears these words as gibberish at first. Imagine someone telling you about the idea of “drim.” You’d think they’re maybe joking and making it up, or maybe think they’re just insane in some way. I would have found this a really interesting point for the story to hit upon, but I guess the way that language controls thought was far too Orwellian for Lowry to be comfortable with.
@@pizzajoke3561 Lowry did tackle those concepts, instead of "eradication" however she chose to show it through "diminishing" it:
The village knows all these concepts per say, but through technology they have diminished them to the point that they lose all meaning. The village know pain per say, but through widespread usage of anti pain drugs, they only know a shadow of the true sensation.
This is very much hammered home in the scene where Jonas spends the final night with his family, where he realizes that all the emotions his parents and sister share are just a bastard version that is nothing like the actual emotions.
Matter of taste obviously, but I personally find this "skewed" line far more interesting than Orwells totalistic "all nice things are now banned >:(."
I've seen a lot of people complain about The Giver, but I thought it was just because they had to read it in school. (I can relate; my units on Shakespeare plays dragged on for what felt like half the school year, and literally nobody in my class liked A Doll's House.)
What do you think about this specific criticism? Is he right about the flaws or does the good still out weigh the bad in your opinion?
@@sebastianoleary2743 I've never read it.
@@NitroIndigo oh, lol
Aw, I liked A Doll's House, I liked most books I read in high school (with the exception of Sophie's World, which is atrocious). Yes, I am a huge nerd.
@@sebastianoleary2743 as all books this one definitely has flaws, but a lot of what he complained about is just nitpicking and not paying attention to what's going on in the book, I would say give it a read.
I didn't have to read because of school and was 17 or 18 at the time and I liked it.
Only thing I hated about the entire book was the dad. He was a sick individual, who lied so comfortably to his family. His nonchalant demeanor and wicked behavior is what really got under my skin. For example, when Gabriel was scheduled for release, the father teased and made cynical remarks to the baby: “It’s bye-bye to you Gabe, in the morning” or “Enjoy it, little guy, this is your last night as visitor.” It really makes me think that he enjoyed killing all those children. I mean, after all, he did admit that he, himself, voted for the release of Gabriel.
and by that point, he had spent just about a year attempting to help gabriel advance and possibly be placed within a family unit by the ceremony, seemingly very empathetic yet unexpectedly willing and almost indifferent to gabriels release
@@leona067 I know right!
i see it more as he doesn’t quite understand the value of human life because the community hasn’t taught him to, so he simply doesn’t see a problem putting those children down. it’s the same with Fiona, it’s mentioned in the book that she’s already being trained how to release the elderly.
i still gotta say that the chapter where he euthanized the twin made me feel sick. ive read worse things but the way he acted during it did really disturb me
Hang on, I just want to vent a little bit. In 6th grade, we read Gathering Blue and Messenger one right after another, and then a few weeks later we read The Giver. I was 11 and so excited when I realized the Leader in Messenger was Jonas in The Giver. I remember having an in-class writing assignment where we were supposed to write what we thought happened to Jonas and Gabe at the end of The Giver, so I wrote, essentially, "I think he shows up to the village in Messenger and grows up to become Leader because Jonas and Leader have traits/backstories a, b, and c in common." I wasn't marked down on it, so let's be grateful for that, but Mr. Fleming _did_ write on my assignment something like, "I was hoping you'd take the story in isolation and come up with your own ending. Oh well." I guess this is what happens when let our kids get too excited about the books we're reading, smh. Not _my_ fault we read Messenger before The Giver. (Not Mr. Fleming's either, I don't think, to be fair--it was the fault of whoever designed the curriculum.)
I've always (well, not always, but for a few decades) called The Giver "Baby's First Dystopia" and that really is the problem there. It's trying very hard to tackle very mature themes and concepts, but it forces itself to do them in such an over-simplified and "I don't want to scar young minds" way that those concepts just fall flat.
Also, one thing that always niggled at me, even as a kid when I first read it, is... if they're all suffering from complete color-blindness, how does anyone know that what's-her-name has red hair, or that Jonas's eyes are blue and not gray? And, even if they have computers and security cameras to tell them, why does it MATTER and why does anyone even care since no one can tell on their own anyway? ... And, on that same note, how does it work that everyone is designed to be color-blind, but then Jonas gains the ability to see in color? Did those genes just magically shut themselves off?
You make really good points. I feel them not seeing color but also somehow knowing what color is what is something that's slipped by a lot of people. Probably something that should have been brought up during the book's drafting phase.
it’s probably manipulated genes, but the “magic” that allows Receivers to be Receivers undoes it or stops it or something stupid like thay
@@alienenthusiast I think every sequel just gave up on it anyways
I don’t believe Fiona hair is ever described as red until Jonas understand what red is, just that it seems odd. Same thing with their eyes, they’re described as light because everyone else has dark eyes.
@@taboolynx Her hair isn't explicitly described as "red" until Jonas mentions it to the Giver but, in that same passage (page 95 in a US paperback version of the book printed in 1999) the Giver tells Jonas that geneticists are still trying to get rid of things like red hair and that "Hair like Fiona's must drive them crazy." (Not "would drive them crazy" if they knew, but was probably actively driving them crazy at that time.)
I didn't go looking for a passage where Jonas' eye-color is mentioned specifically, on the assumption that the Giver could easily have pointed him and other blue-eyed children out to the Elders at some point as part of his job responsibilities, but it's relatively safe to assume that he didn't also walk up to the Community's geneticists and point out Fiona's hair color to them. He'd have no reason to involve himself there.
"What makes Jonas special enough to be the Receiver of Memory?" We are told in the ceremony (like they literally list out that he's intelligent, something else, can See Beyond, and will be wise someday), but that's just it--we're told, not shown. He doesn't come across as distinct from the other kids his age, and we don't get a lot of time to learn how he's different. We just get told it at the inciting incident.
Iirc, when Jonas describes the dream, he talks about how it's different from bathing the elderly, mainly because a) Fiona is laughing at him because he's not supposed to bathe her, that's not how it works, and b) the main feeling in the dream was wanting to bathe her, he "could feel the wanting all through" him. So like. It is clear that the dream provided a different context to the decidedly chill and unsexual context of bathing the elderly. That doesn't make the story good, I just wanted to point out I remembered a detail. ^^;
Did anyone else read the book in middle school?
Yeah
yeah
Same here
me
Nah I read the outsiders
They could've had the illogical killing of twins if they'd used it to make a point about how often those in power are not actually guided logic and principles, but by whatever will maintain and gain their power
I remember reading this novel in eighth grade and loving it but my advanced English teacher at the time thought this book was one of the greatest of all time. He had an obsession with classic dystopian so despite it being against the curriculum we read Fahrenheit 451 as a class too. I still had the appreciation for this book until it was tainted for me after last year when this said English teacher was discovered to have a sexual relationship with a 14 year old student of his until she graduated high school. The victim finally came out about it in her 20’s. It was revealed that they had sex at school several times a week and it was part of the reason why he coached the girls sports teams as well. When I found out I really wasn’t surprised based off some behavior he exhibited towards “special” girls he liked but man when I hear of this book now I just remember how difficult his class was and how he trained us like the military. 50+ pages for a night with at least 20+ annotations (with a paragraph explaining why) and this was in the middle of the week where the athletes had practice. Knowing now that he was a child predator I’m no longer surprised. Dude had some issues.
I hope he got charges placed on him and is serving time. There should be justice, that truly sounds horrible.
@@alienenthusiast To be honest, he was fired and I think he was serving time but I don’t remember if they had an official trial yet but if they have, the results are unknown to me. Obviously he will never work in a school again and I truly hope he gets the jail time he deserves. I remember something about a bail that was hardly anything but above else I feel bad for his family who had no idea this was happening. He had a daughter only a year younger than me and she just graduated. I can’t imagine what her and her mother are feeling.
@@avery2417 Hopefully he's getting his just desserts then and not back out in the public. 🤞 His poor family must be devastated, the idea of being a kid/parent and your own father/husband being attracted to girls your age/daughter's age is a haunting thought. I hope they can heal too.
@@alienenthusiast I agree. Also still hate the bastard for making us read Of Mice and Men with daily homework for a week straight (so many annotations and a paragraph to explain for each annotation for six nights in a row). I like to think he’s getting punished for his superiority complex and hunger for power as well.
That’s crazy, I read a news article yesterday about something eerily similar involving a teacher having a long-term sexual relationship with his student. What made it even more slimy is that the teacher got close with the student primarily because he was there for them after their brother passed away and they were grieving, so he took advantage of someone who was especially vulnerable.
It’s kinda upsetting thinking about this stuff. Hope your teacher serves his time.
At first, I thought you were talking about "The Book Thief" (idk why I confused the two), but then I read the Wikipedia description of the plot and memories came flooding back of one of my teachers showing me the movie. I don't remember if I read the book or if my class ever finished the movie...maybe Jonas took that memory from me lmao
Weird, the book thief is a seriously dark but not graphic thats a pretty good talk about civil courage, rise of faschism and generally even how bad poverty can be. And the ending wow.
I mean technically its about a dystopia but a real one
@@marocat4749 I haven't read it since middle school and I forgot the title for a moment. It's a good book! I really like how it's told through Death's perspective, it's a nice touch.
Tbh I didn’t really like the book thief. It had potential, the plot was good and all, but god the pacing was awful. It has a bunch of time skips, yet it feels like each scene drags on forever and ever and it can be hard to tell sometimes when the time does change
He was picked because he could see colour and the whole point is that it was just dumped on him without any choice and the.reason the scientists wanted to get rid of red hair because it is colour. Also the worst thing they do is practice some kind of socital eugenics.
When my class read this book in eighth grade, my (Christian fundamentalist) teacher used the part when Jones's father kills the twin as an excuse to spend an entire class on an abortion debate. Like, wtf Mrs. Carlson...?
Honestly the way their whole system works is completely stupid and I honestly see if some other Nation came to try and take them over they would be so up their own ass with how stiff the rules change that they would have no time to come up with an actual plan for being obliterated
There are things I realize you just don’t understand from the book. For instance: the dream Jonas had that marked the beginning of his Stirrings. In the community, it’s not usual to see others naked. Only newborns and elderly. Bathing a peer is seen as taboo. The parents don’t have intimate moments aside from sleeping in the same bed. It’s also seen as rude to touch someone outside of your family unit. ALSO Jonas has pale eyes. THAT is what makes him special. Also also. Jonas decided the world needed to change when he realized love didn’t exist. And also what a release really was.
James, how do you think authors should make at protagonist "special" while NOT making them sooo special they're just another chosen one orphan farm boy?
I’m not a The Giver stan but this is a rare James Tullos L
i found The Giver to be perfectly…fine in terms of “school books” but i haven’t thought of it until now. Anthem was the one that pissed me off like nothing before and actually got me to *speak* in class because i hated it so much, lol.
Anthem made me blow a fucking gasket in freshmen English class- I couldn’t stand it and how my teacher would wax on and on about it, it’s the worst
@@lpchambers3681 What did each of you say in class? I'm curious. And how did your classmates and teachers react about it?
@@johannageisel5390 I don’t remember exactly, it’s been years. So this will be probably the gist of what I said, don’t have specifics.
Ayn Rand was shit person (will get to this later) who’s take on whole individualism forsaking any sort of society and welfare, is not only impossible but stupid in practice. Her writing is so far up it’s own ass, she can’t see the problems with her logic. Her treatment of (what was her name Liberty?) the girl in the novel was just weird and reeked of misogyny. For example, when they were giving themselves names at the end Equality has this whole monologues out choice, and how significant choosing a name would be and then names the girl instead of letting her choose! It never sat right with me. On the surface her message is fine, but I just do not care for her and it’s colored my perception of the book.
Now on to her as person. Any person that says that, specifically maternal but really any, unconditional love can not exist because one can only love someone as much use that they can serve to them later (ex. Children taking care of parents in old age isn’t from love but a transaction of service). Parents wouldn’t love their kids if they didn’t take care of them later in life. She was also strongly against any form of social welfare all throughout her life, and was horrid about people that used but she took in social security when she got older, so she’s a hypocrite with the wrong opinion, and plenty of them, check out her opinion on any social topic, civil rights and the such, not good.
I had a pretty conservative class make up so they didn’t always agree, or just agreed with whatever the teacher said to get better grades, but one or two always sided with me. My teacher absolutely loved Rand, talking about her trials as an immigrant (which I am not discrediting, that is hard, but does not inherently make you a good person above reproach), her existence as a female author (I am a women. I understand the achievement. Doesn’t mean she can’t also be a shit person.) and how’s she such a modern women (no).
I also just don’t think it’s that entertaining of a book, but it is short so I’ll give her that.
Pretty sure that’s everything, but I may wake up in a cold sweat and add more.
@@lpchambers3681 Thank you!
Cool that you noticed the logical contradictions in the book at such a young age. (Though I haven't read it myself; I have to take your word for it that they are as you say. ^ ^)
@@johannageisel5390 Oh it's been a very long time for me. The thing I mostly remember is the treatment of Liberty, the female...character (female set-piece?). She's a love interest first and foremost, but my teacher was very adamant that she served a *real* purpose. I don't care enough to reread Anthem and write a "Here Why They Did Liberty Bad" but she does not exist by herself, if that makes sense. I remember expecting Liberty to be a viewpoint of women in Anthem's society but she's certainly not and ends up subservient to her LOML. Silly little me for expecting a woman to matter in a book I read in that particular English class though, lol.
My teacher was a bit of a nut-job who did not like me and my class was full of "whatever why are we heres" or "whatever, you're reading too much into it." The teacher also peddle a lot of circlejerking about how good and great collectivism is, and if you didn't understand you would when you where older. That was also the year we read The Alchemist and she swore it was **the best book ever** (which I also hated reading, but not enough to discuss it).
I've been following your channel for a while and I usually like your point of view. However, do you have any books that you actually enjoy? It might not drive views as much, but I'd like to see what you consider good or even great.
Jonas does have a power cause he sees random flickers of colors.
I'm sorry bro but I really don't think you understand half this book. The giver isn't some great chosen one prophecy child. Its explained that the giver has everyone's pain and knowledge of horror. Jonas has a mental breakdown when his friends are playing a war game. The giver is basically living around a bunch of npcs that don't know anything while they hold the weight of the world. Every one being the same means same in the mind not appearance (we also don't know if everyone is similar height or weight). But identical twins would cause people to think outside of what the society wants. Also the whole rant about the finona dream is really dumb. Whats hotter bathing your grandma or bathing your girlfriend. We can also assume that the rest of society has any idea of love so Jonas may not even know what a kiss is.
But that's the thing they're not all happy they have to talk about their feelings and all their feelings are all kind of really shallow and also they aren't in loving families they're all in families that are assigned and paired up through paperwork and don't even know what the word love means
Also since the fact that people can actually apply for relief I'm pretty sure that means that there are some people that just are inherently not happy even if they can't remember all the things they're missing
This isn't just about famous this is about all the other things that are being suppressed and erased like emotions
From what I remember, the giver is tasked to take on the pain of the entire community.
Interestingly enough I never thought of it as a story about the importance of individualism, but a story about the importance of feelings and that you can not eliminate grief and sadness and pain without also eliminating joy and love and happiness.
The community described by the book sound like the Smurfs village. But with humans.
I had to read it in year 9 for a spec fic unit and yeah it feels like the equivalent of one of those “deep” facebook posts, tailor made to make you say “really makes you think”
0:20-0:25 for James Tullos listing out all my personal attributes.
When I read this and watched the movie in fifth grade I thought the community was just America and the rest of the world was completely normal. Like at the end of the movie I just thought Jonas has stumbled upon canada
i think you might be taking the book too literally. i’ve always seen it as being a more allegorical/conceptual character exploration not completely about the virtues of individuality so much as the dangers of conformity and what we lose in attempting to dictate how people should path out their lives, what happens when we erase culture and history for the sake of control, generally just “eugenics bad”, etc.
i like the sequels though. gathering blue is really good
Will James review them at some point?
@@theshenpartei I thought he said he would never read them
Nineteen Eighty-Four is a cautionary tale about how totalitarian societies can be sustained by a system that maintains nationalism, social inequality, and the manufacture of consent, not just state violence or a shadowy cabal. It doesn't matter whether Big Brother exists or not because the "middle class" (people with jobs requiring an education) has bought into the state ideology. The Hunger Games is also fundamentally about how state ideology maintains an oppressive social system.
Lois Lowry explicitly said that The Giver is *not* a dystopian novel and instead it's based on her personal experience of her 90-year-old father losing his memories. It shouldn't be taught to students as a dystopian novel.
I haven't thought about The Giver since, well, the movie. I feel like the book is wonderful as it is, and while I reflect on it while typing this - goes further with drawing parallels to heretical Christian theology. Gnosticism, specifically, is something I've always enjoyed studying and never really considered that a reason why I've loved this book was because of the Gnostic parallels. Bear with me through the lengthy post since it may bounce around some. Also, this is only about The Giver since it was the only one I read of the series and reluctantly saw the movie once.
Basically, think of the world as being inherently imperfect from an either imperfect or malevolent being (the nature of the creator god varied from cult to cult). All life has a piece of divinity, called the divine spark, yet is born of ignorance and often lives the entirety in that ignorance. Gnosis, just Greek for knowledge, is considered "divine knowledge" (similar to nirvana with Buddhism) and could be considered the same as being the Receiver of Memories - to be awakened to the true nature of reality beyond the ignorance even the Receiver of Memories was born into. Maybe it's just me wanting to make something more out of a more simple story, but I'm inclined to think it offers more to consider when you explore more beliefs and consider the value in storytelling at the core of them. Those that acquire this gnosis, whose nature can be summed up as being a "preternatural experience that acknowledges the suffering of life in reality and one's own placement in it", can be as arbitrarily 'chosen' or randomly come about in a host of people the same way the Receiver of Memories is chosen - a physical trait being used more so for plot convenience with the story. So, in that regard, such characters that come to be chosen or randomly happen upon this opportunity to receive the memories or undergo gnosis don't require being special.
What makes the dystopia of The Giver so good is how we can consider how morally nuanced it gets with what is defined as normal with the society when that truly isn't to us, or even leaves a questionable sentiment with us being unsure of how to feel. A dystopia doesn't require explicit good versus evil, and I find them worse when they try to make such clear distinctions to push the main character with the "good", when reality follows similarly with many wrong things happen that inevitably one group or another believes to be morally right and necessary. Yet, as perpetuating suffering is allowed by releasing people and babies in The Giver's world, so to people rationalize allowing the suffering of others for not conforming to their ideals ever, or any longer.
Anyways, a lot of it may be a stretch but hope ya enjoy the schizo post
james, you have no idea how insane the future books get: i gave up a quarter of the way through the final one because i stopped caring but the second one is even more wild (it's a bit better imo but they really amped up the insanity) and the third one backslides into a form of stupidity and retconning never seen before by mankind
My son complained the entire time he had to read it for school. At the end he threw it against the wall. He really hated the ending!
My name is Jonas...
I thought it was Ben...
@@TuesdaysArt It is Ben. You just happened to get caught up in me reciting Weezer. I guess maybe the reference is a bit crusty...
@@BenWard29 Ahhhh I see lol
Obsessively binging all your videos dude 💚 you’re my new favorite UA-camr!!
I appreciate the commitment. Did you also have to read Handmaid's Tale for school?
I didn't read the book in middle school as a lot of people around my age seem to have. I remember it existing and seeing other people read it when I was in I guess late elementary school but a teacher never made me read it and I didn't take it upon myself to read it at that time, and then one day in my mid-20s I randomly thought back to being distantly aware that it existed and that a lot of people seemed to make a lot of it, so I found a copy at my local library and gave it a read, and I thought it was interesting enough while I was reading it and now, half a decade or so later I just don't remember much from it. I watched the movie a while later when I found it on a Redbox and had pretty much the same review of the movie, that it was interesting enough while I was watching it and don't remember much from it now.
I honestly wasn't aware until I saw Big Joel's video that anyone gave much of a fuck about the movie either way.
I remember reading this book and hating it so much that when my teacher gave us an assignment to write/add and ending to the book I killed Jonas.
Honestly, when we read it in secondary school, I just found it kind of middle of the road.
Finally an explanation of my issues. I remember being pretty unimpressed when made to read this book school.
I was underwhelmed by this book (haven't seen the movie). I saw what it was trying to do, but it just seemed...lackluster. Like the author hadn't fully thought out her idea. I'm glad I'm not the only one who wonders why everyone else seems so impressed by it.
The Giver is a great intro dystopia book for kids. Don’t think you are giving it a fair shake
I remember reading this book in junior high, but I don’t know that I ever considered it that bad.
Because it really is not.
The reason colors don't exist is because it gives people choice, which leads to likes and dislikes, which causes arguments and fights.
The only reason I like the first book is because the rest in the series exist. However, when I read Gathering Blue, I got really confused as to why the author chooses to abandon the original protagonist. I hate the fourth book because it feels like the author through in magic for some bizarre reason.
That wouldn’t have seemed weird to her generation of authors. They often blended sci fi and fantasy concepts. It’s only recently that the genres have been completely separated.
Im just going to guess that you can't handle the unsettling feeling of the book?..
I haven't read this book in a looooooong time. I'll have to reread it.
With that being said, have you read Gathering Blue or the other two books in the "series"?
Hey, James! Big fan of your reviews! As a Brazilian, I would love it if you could reveal how sucky Paulo Coelho (specially The Alchemist) is, and how forced the supposed depth is! I believe it would be pretty entertaining if you have the time!
Damn, I've been wanting to read that book for a long time. Why is it so bad?
@@v1olante first the writing style is bland and completely on the nose, there is no subtlety or anything. My teacher at the time was fascinated by the book's foreshadowing in particular, which I believe was mostly because he wasn't really used to (I know it is a kind of arbitrary distinction) real books, you know? Or maybe he was just surprised that Latin writers could write? (The teacher was British) It was nothing special, and again pretty straightforward, making it completely predictable at times, to the point of taking away all the fun from foreshadowing which is (or should be) the tension and that "a-ha" moment when it all clicks and you realise you already had the answer all along. Also on the topic of not being very subtle, the themes are not worked on a literary manner, at all, they are literally told to you by secondary characters along the way and repeated over and over by the protagonist Santiago. They are not implied or conveyed by the narrative as much as the narrative just illustrates exactly what has already been said by characters' exposition. It isn't really consistent either, I don't know if for lack of editorial review (because people put our beloved Paul Rabbit aka Paulo Coelho on a pedestal I'd guess), some characters just change their degree of familiarity with the protagonist all the time (like an aunt that out of nowhere becomes a sister). Some pretty amateur stuff. The themes are boring as well and not particularly well elaborated on, it is the same old "the treasure was the friends inside you all along" (or something along those lines) and Mr. Rabbit doesn't do much of anything to maybe approach them from a new perspective or something. Pretty cheesy and preachy, flerting with self-help, very much pushing the author's esoteric agenda as a sort of prophet wizard. Just cringy.
There are moments of respite, such as a reasonably interesting goal dynamic for a secondary character who works as a crystal salesman, I won't say more than that to avoid spoiling anything for those who for some reason might still read it. But that's about it.
@@EttoreCagni This. 100% this. I had to read The Alchemist for school, and while I don’t dislike books simply because I’m being asked to read it for class, I was thoroughly disillusioned when I finished it. “Read The Alchemist,” they said (“they” being all the critical acclaim plastered on the covers). “It’s a story of inspiration and true magic!” they said.
Síndrome de vira-lata mesmo
well, might be, but I have a Letters degree and teach Literature, besides studying this specific book extensively for 6 months, guess I have enough information to make an informed assessment of it. Other people on the other hand, I don't know...
Edit: indeed, might I add, giving lectures about some Brazilian authors which I genuinely believe to the best in all of world Literature hahaha
I think you'd be happier reading a science text book
When I read the book in middle school I imagined the world less like a black and white grayscale and more like lines on white paper that get colored in. It just kinda made more sense to me, and I stand by that now because if they do see it on a black and white greyscale then people are obviously gonna notice stuff like different shades is hair and skin color, which breaks the sameness in a way.
I told my teacher it made more sense like that, she said “well in the movie it’s just in black and white so…”
Case in point the giver wasn’t great but for a visual adaptation it would’ve made more sense 2D animated
GOD FINALLY! I've loathed this book since they made us read it in elementary and highschool and all my teachers made me feel like such an asshole about it. Feels great to have other people dislike it with me
I think part of my problem with The Giver was that by the time I read it, I had already also read The Cage (holocaust book, nonfiction) and Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl (non-fiction, again), so I had already read accounts of irl horror that exponentially exceeded the setting laid out in The Giver. I remember reading it and thinking that the real life was so much worse than the dystopia presented in The Giver even after I finished it simply because I'd already read some non-fiction books.
I'd also already read stories with more interesting fantastical elements, which probably didn't help either, lol.
When I was listening to the plot summary and he reached the end I legit thought the book was just 1/3rd of the way through. This book is so boring
May i point out jonas has a power called the capacity to see beyond so he can se colour
Very fair! At the time when I read it vibes were king bc I primarily would read books as springboards for my many elaborate daydreams. Thankfully I now enjoy other people's plots in addition to my own (when they're good)
Yes, I watched the video fully.
I wasn't forced to read this book in middle school, mostly because I went to middle school decades after its release. I can only assume your vitriol for this novel comes from middle school (as stated in your outro): a time in our lives we'd like to forget, which makes your hate more understandable.
However, I read the book on my own volition. I found it in my homeroom's bookshelf (I was bored and looking for something to do), and the rest is history. I finished the first book in it's graphic novel adaptation (did read the first half of the original and yes there is a graphic novel adaptation) and the rest of the sequels. It was the first time I was this invested in a book series. The sequels start decent but by the end of Son (the last of four), it's FAR from the dystopia it was in The Giver (granted, Son released a whole 19 years after The Giver). They do kind of soil the ambiguous ending, but I digress.
I saw this video from you and, to not be the guy who immediately leaves hate comments, I decided to hear all of your points.
As heart-wrenching as your criticism is, your points do stand. I disagree with your reasoning behind why they are bad (Jonas is an audience surrogate in my opinion, the Community is a textbook example of a dystopia that might make you actually wish it to happen, etc.), but I see where you are coming from. I am not going to go in to much depth, as I know you've seen the surprisingly civil disagreements with your comments with their points, so I will put my opinion.
The Giver is a good but bland book at the bare minimum. However, being one of the first YA Dystopian novels, it brought the dystopian genre to the youth. It was also many of our first introductions to the dystopian genre (Not mine surprisingly, I read 1984 in 5th grade for a book project from an online resource site the school used, I kid you not. 20 grams chocolate rations and forest fratrenization, anyone?). I understand that this book was a part of your middle school experience, that you most likely want to forget, but I strongly but respectfully disagree with your hate. We are entitled to our opinions, and though your video was evidently emotionally driven, which is once again understandable given your memory of this book, you proposed several salient points.
I wish you well, James.
I've almost never had a problem with any of the books we were required to read in school, I try to make it a point to separate a teachers enthusiasm from my experience with it. I think it's important too to consider how digestible it is at exposing these types of concepts to a younger audience.
Jonas could've never been chosen as the receiver because they wouldn't be able to tell him apart from everyone else. He has blue eyes, but everyone is colorblind. Same with the red hair stuff
I talk to my classmate about the book before he said he hated it, I only saw the movie and I felt nothing.
I don't know why a dig at other reviewers at the start of the video is necessary - if you prefer to 'get to the point' then isn't that in itself a waste of time?
Not giving a brief biography of the author or a short summing up of their reasons for writing the story doesn't make you a better 'essayist', it makes you a lazy one. As an international viewer who hasn't heard of the author and never had to read any of her books at school, I'd quite like to have heard a brief summing up of who she was (or is - is she still alive? Obviously I don't know) and what motivated or influenced the creation of this book. That information is only a waste of time if it isn't relevant to the video, but as it could provide interesting context as to how the author came to write such a story (as is usually the case with most authors) it isn't a waste of time at all - especially in regards to a book which has very obvious social themes and underlying commentary throughout.
This is a tone I've found threaded through a number of videos on this channel, it reminds me of a time when James briefly addressed the fact that some Irish viewers had helpfully informed him that calling the Northern Irish capital 'Londonderry' rather than 'Derry' is not advised as most inhabitants of NI prefer Derry due to the 400 + years of social and political tension between Ireland and England...and James shrugged that off and essentially said well it's spelled Londonderry so that's what I'll call it. Profound arrogance is not necessary for a good essayist, especially if that or the person's personality override the review itself. I think I'll just stick with Lola Sebastian's reviews from now on, but I guess some people wouldn't like her as she doesn't 'get to the point' 😒
The giver movie changes it so that instead of nobody but Jonas and The Giver being able to express a variety of things and experience them but the movie changes "The power of friendship can solve everything!" Which felt very wrong to me.
Okay Tullos... Imma gonna read Ranger's apprentice again ( and I will gladly do )
It’s crazy I just looked up this book and movie. I am looking forward to your criticism.
I had to read this in school. I waited until the day before class and read it in one night. That's the best part, how easy a read it is
4:36 I feel like this book was inspired by Dune to some degree. When Paul drinks the "Water of Life" it is supposed to have unlocked the memories of all of his ancestors from both his male and female side. I was thinking that this "gift" of memory was a little reminiscent of Dune but then you said that its philosophic questions were somewhat pretentious and added that he was chosen because he "had light blue eyes" and yeah.... I think she was inspired by Dune.
I LOVED THIS VIDEOOO, MAKE A PART 2
I just realized Jonas’ bestie is a redhead named Fiona. That’s…fun.
No one is truly happy in the community, that's explained in Son, the last book of the series. It's explained that actually the people in the community have little to no emotions at all. They are like mindless puppets. And before anyone says that they "should have explained that in The Giver", in my opinion, it's okay to explain more about the world in future books in a series, it'd be impossible to explain the entire world of The Giver in one book.
Dude, you gave me stuff to think about. I've read the book like three times and now want to read it again after hearing your take to see what I notice.
I’m a little confused. Isn’t the point of their society that everyone is assigned a role? Technically no one has to earn their role if other people are just deciding. They assigned it to Jonas because the Giver/old receiver noticed that Jonas had the ability to “see beyond.” All the elders watch the kids for years, so they could theoretically notice certain propensities or personality traits that might be more fitting for certain roles. However, the ability to see beyond is how he “earned” that position. It goes further to say that Rosemary also had that gift. Jonas had it for color and Rosemary had it for sound/music.