|
Post by guinevere on Apr 19, 2004 0:56:44 GMT -5
I wanna know what you think about this book...I read it today (during lunch, breaks and before dinner) and was blown away.
the reason I read it is this: a woman on another forum said she reads everything her daughter*s middle school teacher assigns and then SHE decides if daughter can read the book (I told her she was way overboard)...and this book was soooo bad, she complained to the teacher and when that didn*t work, she organized a bunch of parents (none who had read the book--they just listened to her opinions of the book) and the school ended up dumping the book from their mandatory list.
so if you*ve read it, what do you think? what is your opinion of the "book burning" woman? I*m really pissed when stuff like this happens..
|
|
|
Post by potterknowitall on Apr 19, 2004 7:51:15 GMT -5
By Lois Lowry? I read that as part of English class in Grade 6, and I loved it. I think I was the only one who did, though I find it terrible that the school removed the book because of some ignorant parents who just got swept up in a moment, but... why? What was so unacceptable? I really can't see how this would be "wrong" to read in school.
|
|
|
Post by En on Apr 19, 2004 10:48:00 GMT -5
What did she think was so bad about it?!
I thought it was one of the greatest young adult novels in history. Hands down. It has the political complexity of Orwell, the immortal tone of Tolkien, the poignancy of Bellow or Arthur Miller -- and the readability of Marguerite Henry, Susan Cooper or Katherine Paterson. Ten years after you read it and think it's a story about a boy who thinks people are wrong and that a child is worth saving, you read it again and think it's about the politics of conformity. And then you read it again and think it's about a man trying to help a highly-strung, sensitive child cope with budding and extraordinary powers of observation. Every time you open the book, it's a new book for you, a new book written to you at that moment, for you at that point in your life; and that is exactly what makes good literature.
What do I think of that woman? Obviously she was afraid that she was just like all those conformity-mad, oppressive, controlling, manipulative politicos in the book and that her kid would figure it out if she read it.
|
|
|
Post by Will on Apr 20, 2004 21:29:55 GMT -5
-blinks-
Yes, I remember reading this one in middle school... 7th grade, I believe. I must say, it was utterly fascinating and I loved it. I found myself trying to picture a world without color, pain, "mistakes", true emotions... How could a pill erase dreams of desire? How could there be people who watches you, observes you as a child and then decide your profession? How could they take away love? Real love? It was amazing and mind-blowing. Feeling a sun burn for the first time... Music... being a strange new... thing?
And I also remember the ending. My class tried to figure out just what happened to the boy. Did he die? Live? I never liked cliffhangers, endings such as that, but this book... was an exception.
|
|
|
Post by guinevere on Apr 21, 2004 21:21:44 GMT -5
her main concers were: 1.) the father killing the smaller twin...
2.) the end--not knowing if the boy and the baby lived or died..
and after I read the book, those complaints seem weak., I*m surprised she wasn*t offended by the boy*s "stirrings" or the fact he was spending time alone with an old man-- or he disobeyed his parents and stopped talking his meds... (all capital crimes in her mind, I*m sure)
|
|
|
Post by En on Apr 21, 2004 23:03:57 GMT -5
Wha?! Okay, yes, the father kills the twin, and the whole point of the book is that that's what the boy is rebelling against. That's why he thinks the system is wrong, and that's why he takes the baby.
About not knowing what actually happens to the boy and the baby: like Willow, I don't mind not knowing. The point is that he made the choice to try, the choice to attempt to save the baby and do what he believed was right. Nobody ever really knows how a big decision will turn out; look how often people start out all crazy about a new president or minister and then get all disillusioned, or how often people who took a risk in the arts (Peter Jackson, Kate Hepburn) produce the most amazing work... it wouldn't be true to life to tell what happens to the boy and the baby. The book isn't a moral fable. It's a book about not knowing what's going to happen, but choosing to act on faith and the best knowledge we have.
*snort* Yeah, an old man helping a boy along with artistic awakening. That's scandalous stuff there, ain't it? Almost liiiiiike... Ulysses by James Joyce.
guin, I'm with you. I think this woman didn't understand what she read, and therefore I don't think she should be deciding whether or not to give a teacher a chance to help her daughter understand it.
|
|
|
Post by Simply Panda on Apr 24, 2004 2:31:49 GMT -5
I loved the Giver... i read it in 8th grade. (most of the people I knew read it in 4th for school, but i didn't live in the district at the time) Hmmm... I really should read it again though. I'm sure I would pick up so much more.
Have y'all read anything else by Lowry? Number the Stars? Gathering Blue? both are also excellent...
Oh... and about banning books... I make it a point to read books that are banned in certain places... they often turn out to be the best. ;D lol... that's how I got started on Harry Potter
|
|
|
Post by RainFrost on Apr 25, 2004 9:21:30 GMT -5
I read the book just this year and thought it was excellent. I was a little dissappointed in the ending though I know some people loved how it ended but *shrug* I guess I just was really curious about how it would end and thought the end would be solid. But thats ok...still awesome book. What I don't fully understand is why that closeminded mother thought those were liable reasons to ban the book.
1.) the father killing the smaller twin...
2.) the end--not knowing if the boy and the baby lived or died..
?
Does she realize that almost any classic you read someone dies (except for like Winnie the Pooh)? Gone with the Wind? Snow White? Cinderella? Ok maybe you won't consider some of those great classics but you get my drift...
And also...not knowing how it ends with the boy and baby living....so what? How is that a good reason for the book to be banned?
I wouldn't even realize they would ban it. At my school we are pretty much forced to read the Giver. Was the school just afraid of the parents and did not want any trouble from them? Was that the real reason or did the school really decide those were good reasons to ban a book?
|
|
|
Post by potterknowitall on Apr 25, 2004 11:02:57 GMT -5
Soupy, the deaths that you are talking about are completely different from the death in the story. In Cinderella, the father just dies a natural death and gets buried in the family crypt or something In this, a newborn child is murdered by the father in quite a matter-o-fact manner because it would be confusing to have two people looking alike, and then sent down with the garbage in a tubberware container. You can't really group those together as similar.
On the same note, however, while the death is a bit... sterile... why did she not object to the way that the old folks were killed? Or that pilot who screwed up and flew over the neighbourhood? Either way, the way that the people were murdered is a HUGE part of the story. I mean, it needs it to illustrate how calloused they were and how much they didn't/wouldn't think for themselves.
Who wants to be that her children watch far worse on TV without even having a moral or message in the end
|
|
|
Post by RainFrost on Apr 26, 2004 21:05:10 GMT -5
RainFrost, its RainFrost...
But thats beside the point, ok I know I gave crummy examples when I typed them down, but its not like the death was a vulgar and brutal one, it was a major part of the story which helped the boy rebel against what he was taught all of his life and to go to a new place where he could have a different life with feelings instead of the black and white world (literally) he was used to.
I was also wondering something...I know the elders had some wrong ethics with killing the weak or old ones (because that is like what wolves and other non-sentient beings do) and I know that without color in their world it was probally quite blah, but they did it originally to try to stop racism and the people never knew what they were missing if they never saw color....arg...just ignore me now...I tend to just argue with myself about different sides of something. Ok my original point with the beginning of this paragraph was that the elders were not really evil characters. They tried to do what they thought was best, while trying not to starve their race by having a controlled population they seemed to have of de-humanized everybody in the same process.
|
|
|
Post by En on Apr 27, 2004 1:25:09 GMT -5
Well, and that's the point. If you try to deal with difference by making everything the same, then everyone who's still different threatens your new order, and... people who dislike difference enough to eliminate it can very often be people who are capable of disliking different people enough to eliminate them.
What made the boy special, and more importantly moral, was that he saw difference -- and he learned that love involves celebrating difference, involves pain as much as joy, is complicated, and is best when complicated.
And if that's not a positive message, I don't know what is... but I find it sad, even tragic, that this woman who is doing something out of a positive impulse to get involved in her daughter's education is eliminating a chance for her daughter to read something different. Exactly like the elders, ne? Meant well, but did something that shallowed, rather than deepened, the human experience.
|
|
|
Post by Soupy's Back! :) on Apr 27, 2004 21:08:49 GMT -5
Hmm.. the giver. I read the book a few times. once in 5th grade, once in 7th. i thought it was pretty good. It was a look into a totally different world, kind of exciting. It was just so inhumane of them to kill that poor baby twin. but they didnt really know of what was humane, now did they?
|
|
Calantha
Gryffindor Alumni
My name is Luck, this is my song, I happened by when you were gone
Posts: 4,493
|
Post by Calantha on May 12, 2004 19:48:00 GMT -5
That’s…interesting. I get watching out for what your kid reads…maybe…on their own, but not for what the read during school. The mother should be able to give enough respect to the teachers to be able to trust their choice in literature.
I first read the book in fourth grade and then I just revisited it over the weekend because I needed a quick read. Everyone who has read it that I know say they loved it too. I love it because it’s the book you can reread and still pick up things. Boo-hiss to that mother for stopping her kid from reading it…sounds like that mother might fit in well with the society Lois paints, eh?
It would be different if the child’s death were to be praised, but the reader clearly is able to see that it is wrong. And as far as what happens to the boy… Well, I just finished reading Gathering Blue, which is The Giver’s companion novel. Not about Jonas’ society he lived in prior to his escape, but the ending. Well, I won’t give it away, I’ll just say that she leaves hints that a character may be Jonas and the reader should take it for what it is. If the kid’s mom wants to start spewing arguments against a book, perhaps she should do a little research first…say…oh…if there is a companion novel.
I love The Giver, and for that matter, Gathering Blue as well. Those are not the books you should hold back from children, they both teach independence, morality, courage, and accepting people for their faults and who they are, particularly Gathering Blue and it is presented in a casual, almost hidden way, so that the people reading it don’t feel as though they are being lectured too. Why you would want to get rid of such an amazing teaching tool is beyond me, unless you were afraid of the things it taught or you were afraid of your kid maturing. Sounds like Mom was on a bit of a power trip to me. Poor kid, hope they got to read it anyway—now they probably think that it’s a bad book and should never be read or something. Sometimes people never cease to amaze me, and not always in a good way.
|
|
Rikku
Ravenclaw Alumni
Posts: 2,467
|
Post by Rikku on May 29, 2004 13:46:16 GMT -5
I, like Rain and Soupy, had to read this book in 7th grade, and I liked it. It was a really good story. And about the mother thing, there was a parent in 3rd grade who wouldn't let the teacher read us Hp and the sorcerers stone. So basically they're everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by queenjess on May 2, 2005 19:21:51 GMT -5
My 6th grade teacher read it to us in class...I thought and still think that it is one of the best books. There's nothing really bad about it persay except perhaps the 'releasing' of people. But it's not like they slaughtered the people and explained it explicitly...jzz...
If you liked The Giver check out 1984 by George Orwell.
|
|