Responses to The Giver
What follows is a selection of excerpts from some of your letters about The Giver. Please read the responses below and respond to one (or more) of them by clicking on the comments link at the bottom of the post. This online discussion can include your agreements and disagreements with your peers, and more importantly, an explanation of why you dis/agree , as well as responses to points you find interesting (and why they are interesting). Please have a comment posted by this Friday (2/15) at midnight.
At the beginning of the novel when Jonas’s father mentioned he was a Nurturer I felt that his assignment was to care for others, to hold a child with such love and respect that no one, or thing could understand. As I read the book I realized that Jonas father could not feel love, so therefore Jonas father felt no love for his family unit, newborns, and even Gabe. I often asked myself, how can someone not have any feeling of love, or in Jonas father’s case, any feeling of guilt or sadness? As I was reading, I felt alarmed that no one really questioned where people went when they were released.
A part that was confusing to me was when The Giver said “if you get away, if you get beyond, if you get to Elsewhere, it will mean that the community has to bear the burden themselves, of the memories you had been holding for them” (Lowry 155). Why is it that if Jonas leaves the community the memories will leave Jonas and be released into the community? I wonder how the community will respond to all of Jonas’ memories, the pain, suffering, weather, colors and happiness. I’m also wondering if the community will retain these memories or if they only hold them temporarily.
Finally, throughout the book I was reminded of the film Pleasantville, the tale of the agonizingly perfect black-and-white world “corrupted” by the confused and horrified outsider. The symbol of the absence or presence of color creates a powerful visual statement about the price of living painlessly and the fragility of our world. “We relinquished color when we relinquished sunshine and did away with differences,” the Giver explains to Jonas. “We gained control of many things. But we had to let go of others” (95). In our rush to improve our lives, it would seem to be a point that we need consciously to remember.
I do not understand the ending of the book and it is almost like an upset of the way it ended. Gabe and Jonas escaped but where did they escape to and what happened afterwards?
What appears on the outside, is a calm, orderly society yet practiced on the inside of this community is euthanasia on the very young, those people that don’t conform, as well as the elderly. It is not gender specific.
By using this word release, rather than death, it continues to maintain and restore order in this society. Can you imagine The Giver stating that they would be putting a baby to death at its very early infancy for not conforming.
One particular instance that stuck out in my mind was the way in which children were conceived and given away. If nakedness was nonexistent and touching of another human was considered rude, then how were new children conceived? And if this so-called Sameness society is in fact equal and painless then why should a newchild be released if it has a birth defect or if it is a twin? Isn’t that going against what the people of Sameness believe in?
Reading on I noticed when the Giver and Jonas were thinking of the plan, the Giver said he must go see his daughter, Rosemary, and was not able to go with Jonas to Elsewhere. At this point, I was totally confused. Was he talking about his real daughter or did he consider Rosemary his daughter?
announcements, assignments | Comments (15)15 Responses to “Responses to The Giver”
Leave a Reply
This is a response to excerpt #2.
All the people in the communtiy (except for Jonas of course,) had no concept of love or any other emotions for that matter; so therefore it was as if nothing was wrong, had been wrong or would ever have been wrong in that community. Love to them didn’t exist, and I am convinced that elsewhere didn’t exist either. There may have been animals outside that cluster of communities; but for some reason (maybe my unusual literary taste for hopelessness) I think that elsewhere was a place invented in the minds of the community members to justify the act of release, and that the entire human race existed solely in those neutral, human experience-deprived communities.
I myself found the ending of the book peculiar, yet I was extremely curious as to what Jonas and Gabriel’s futures will hold. I believe Jonas and Gabe escaped into a community were every person in the community felt love, happiness and fear. I feel the music Gabe and Jonas heard at the end of the book was a symbol of hope and love in their futures. I like to think that Jonas and Gabe will live in a community were love is shown and death is not taken lightly. I also think that the community that Jonas and Gabe escaped from will be overwhelmed with fear, loss, and love. I think the community will parish because fear, love and loss are emotions you learn to deal with early in life and someone can not just automatically survive without these prior experiences of emotion. Overall, I hope Jonas and Gabe live a life that they deserve, full of happiness, tears and many other emotions, emotions that make us who we are as a person.
Julie A. MacVean
In regards to the last response of “The Giver”
At this section of the reading I asked myself the same question. Several thoughts ran through my mind. One of my thoughts was that the Giver did indeed plan on killing himself to be with his daughter Rosemary. I believed this because when the Giver was telling Jonas how painful her experiences were with receiving, the Giver seemed to understand where she was coming home. In my opinion he felt that her dying was the best choice, to not have to deal with love, loss, or physical pain. If this is true, if the Giver had a family unit at some point, where are they now? Were they released for some reason? I was very unsure of my own thoughts (which I think Lowry enjoys, driving us crazy with possibilities). I guess there is no way of knowing.
Julie A. MacVean
I also thought that the lack of emotions was frightening, but I saw this as a result of the ’sameness.’ If there are no colors, or words for excitement or death or love, etc., etc., why would we need emotions? I thought the people were more like robots than people. This is confirmed by Jonas’ father not having any reactions to killing Gabe (although some people are like that, I guess, sadly).
I also had a question about why the memories left Jonas when he leaves the community. I consider one theory to be that the community is a closed entity, and when he leaves, anything that he got from there is returned to there? But as far as will the community retain the memories or not, I think that is why the Giver stayed back, so that they would be helped to retain these memories (if the Elders don’t release him first) so that the community could change back to its original state complete with feelings and their own memories.
As far as the idea of what the ‘people of sameness’ believe in, I think they believe in what they have already created, and they do not want anything to conflict with that. As it says on page 48, “the community was so meticulously ordered, the choices so carefully made” If there were two people who looked the same, it would cause confusion and possibly chaos in the eyes of the people in such an orderly community. And certainly, if someone was deformed and needed extra care, that would throw a monkey wrench into their service department, and the physical therapy department would have to be created for them, etc. If they don’t fit in, they have to be released.
In regard to the last letter excerpt I believe The Giver was talking about Rosemary. It’s possible he was somehow her biological father. It’s also possible Rosemary was given to The Giver and his wife as their daughter at one of the ceremonies. Therefore, Rosemary really was his daughter, just not his biological daughter. But she was their daughter and they raised her and they were her parents. Since The Giver had the ability to love he really did love his daughter, Rosemary, and was able to feel sad and upset when she killed herself and he was ready to die and be with her.
As I read the book and found out Jonas’s fathers job as the nurturer I had the same idea that he must be a very caring and loving individual to have that role. After Jonas received his job as the receiver that is when the truth started to come out. I was shocked to find out that his father did not really care about his family and had no feelings what so ever. Like the giver said, they do not understand the feeling of love; I believe that is why Jonas’s father did not feel and feelings of sadness or guilt. I think people were to afraid to question where people went when they were released and if they did ask it was almost like they ignored the question.
In response to the first excerpt about Jonas’ father not expressing emotions or true feelings. After reading this book you come to many realizations that you don’t believe you would have from the beinning. The omission of love and feelings in general is one realization that comes toward the end of the book. Throughout the book you see Jonas’ father become close to Gabe and expericence a bond with him, like he has with his own children. It can’t be a feeling of love because that’s nonexistent, but he does say that he feels bad for Gabe because he feels he will be released if he doesn’t try and help him. I also think in a way he must feel bad for being part of the releasing process. As to the question, why do the people of samness not question the relaesing process is because they can’t. Questioning something as “sacred” or restriced as that is not allowed. I think if the people of Sameness did in fact know what it entailed, they would be subjected to pain, and again, pain is not tolerated in Sameness.
The first response I want to address is the first one listed. I interpreted Jonas’ father’s lack of emotions about the whole “releasing” situation as him not knowing any better. We are raised that euthanasia is wrong, and that particularly the euthanasia or death of an infant is something that is wrong and tragic. However, in The Community, this is not wrong, tragic, or even seen as something to get emotional about. If we were never taught that killing is wrong, we would not be as upset by it as well. Looking at it from the perspective of The Community, the twin poses a threat to the Sameness of The Community (throws off the numbers for the ceremony of the Ones; if the twins are identical, identifying them would pose a challenge, etc.). This Sameness is the very basis of The Community, and therefore the twin/children with birth defects threaten the very foundation of The Community. Also, part of the understanding within The Community is that the Elders take care of everyone in The Community, and that the rules are there for a reason, and shouldn’t be questioned. To the people in The Community, those who are being Released are simply being given another life mission, life purpose, or are simply going somewhere better.
I also noticed the parallels between the film Pleasantville and this book. In the movie, when the townspeople experience a transformational moment or very strong emotion, they become “colored” instead of black and white. Eventually, there becomes conflict between the “colored”s and those who are black and white. This seems to be happening in reverse in The Giver; Jonas’ revelation and leaving The Community will give everyone access to what they are missing out on equally.
The last excerpt:
I think that the Giver meant that Rosemary was his real daughter. The way that he said she was his daughter made me think that she was raised (at least) by him. I say “at least” because we don’t know if the Giver really fathered her or if anyone in the community even knows who fathers the children. Because the Giver remembers everything that the other community members don’t remember it would mean that he would remember who was his given child. (It said that after the children leave the parents they don’t remember their parents and the parents don’t remember their children.) When the Giver said that Rosemary was his daughter he seemed like he had alot of deep emotions invested into what he was saying. Like a parent should have when talking about their children after watch them grow for many years and raising them. I personally think that the Giver meant that Rosemary was his own daughter and not that he just felt like she was his daughter.
in regard to the first excerpt, i believe that the end concern is answered by the preceding observation. it is precisely the lack of feeling, of love and wonder, that prevents anyone from questioning the specifics of “release.” all of the real human identity of these people has been destroyed by the “sameness” that they have opted for in preferance to difficulty. still, we see that it does not entirely neutralize fear. the one hope that is left this society is that very small spark of will-to-live. what we should find truly alarming is the extent to which this insidious sell-out to ’safety’ has infested our own society — which, i believe, is why lowry wrote this book.
in regard to the second comment: can memories really be destroyed? how did the town relinqish them to begin with? we learn as toddlers that, if we close our eyes, things do not really go away. being blind to something does not change the existence of it — just our perception of it. when the receiver is no longer there to keep the memories they will have to go back to the people, who are not at this point able to deal with them. it is a birthing process; as with an infant, they will need to be cared for until they grow into their new life.
third excerpt: i am not convinced that the author really knew either — i think it is up to the reader. metaphorically, they may have found their way to independence, or, litterally, to a new world and rescue. i don’t think it really matters — either way, they have found home.
comment four: i believe that we call that ‘abortion.’
five: painless is not equal — read orwell.
six: i understood that rosemary was his daughter, the same way that all the other children in this society are sons or daughters. rosemary is dead, so we must assume that he will soon be dead also, leaving the hope for life to the young.
With the fourth response, i also agree. The ending was somewhat of an upset to me. The whole book i found very interesting and i could not wait to get to the end, then when i reached the end i was not very happ. I do beleive the author did want to leave the readers to decide in our own minds what happened and wanted to leave a mystery, becaause to the author that is somewhat amusing and lets her see differnt responses. I beleive that in the end they did return to another community but i would not disagree with people if they beleived they died or that it was a dream or symbolic because i can agree with all of those since the ending isnt very clear. The end was inteded for the readers to think about what happened, and i beleive that because it has an ending like that it leaves great chances for poeple of all ages to discuss different options to and ending.
I also did not understsnd the end of the book. I wish that the author had given more detail as to what happened to Gabe and Jonas. I would like to think optimistically and hope that th escaped and found somewhere better to go especially after the long, hard journey that they had to go through.
“I do not understand the ending of the book and it is almost like an upset of the way it ended. Gabe and Jonas escaped but where did they escape to and what happened afterwards?”
I had trouble understanding the end of the book also. I felt that the author left a lot of unanswered questions. I also wondered where they had gone and what happened afterwards. The author made it sound as if 1, both Gabe and Jonas had died or 2,they were actually in a community with love and music. I hope that both had lived, just so they could experience that happiness that Jonas had wanted to have. It’s hard to say what really does happen to them, which is a disappointment.
My comment is to the first entry about the feeling of love. I also had this same reaction/thought. How come no one ever wanted to know what being released was? Also, the assignment, “nurturer”, is not what it seems to be, in a normal life. I thought a nurturer was a person who took care and gave feelings towards a baby or the person he/she was nurturing. This assignment does not mean this at all. But for some reason, the author seemed not make it like it seemed. I thought that was very odd.
Responding to the first comment, I agree when I first read this book I went in with the misconception that even though the community was distorted that people generally had emotions or feelings for one another. After getting further into the novel I realized that people were conditioned to live without emotions. They never questioned their place in society, their family units, or the elders. What struck me the most is that they never wondered why? Why they live in a place with no recollection of the past, why they feel no real emotional connection of love to their spouses or “children”, why they cannot conceive their own children, and why they take pills to control their emotions? I would hate to live in a society where I was forced to be someone else, its unfair to not be able to have a connection to other people, never being angry, sad, loved. I would also hate that someone could decide to “release” me if I failed to meet their or society’s needs. The whole society is fake and fabricated.