[ SECRET POST #1981 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #1981 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.


__________________________________________________



21.


__________________________________________________



22.


__________________________________________________






Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 68 secrets from Secret Submission Post #283.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[velvet_mace]

Funny, all I could remember is thinking how much the society wouldn't work and all the practical flaws. I mean they retired their breeding women after only 3 children. Which means that 2/3rds of all female characters would have to be breeders just to keep the population even. Which since the breeders never raised the children means that there wouldn't be enough female parents to raise the children, unless the parents raise more than 2 children each, which didn't seem to be the case. And this didn't take in account loss from accident and euthanasia or just the random chance that the gender ratio of newborns turns out to be less than 50/50. Realistically this society would dwindle to nothing in a few generations, even if the society never had to cope with things like flood or famine which their brainwashed, unimaginative minds were not conditioned to cope with.

And yeah. Just couldn't buy into it other than it being a kind of a philosophical sermon that doesn't take in account for a lot of reality.

[spicandspan89.livejournal.com]

Wow, I never considered any of this. You're totally right - the worldbuilding left a lot to be desired.

[(Anonymous)]

The "transferring of memories via touch" thing didn't tip you off that this wasn't supposed to be super-realistic?

[velvet_mace]

That's just a magical power up -- it doesn't mess with basic math. I mean, think about it, believing, say, that one day we will be able to have a magical device that allows us to talk to people no matter where in the world they are instantly, that functions as a book, allows you to pluck music out of the ether and play it on demand whenever you feel like it, takes pictures and instantly shares them with all your friends and even fucking unlock your car from across town, even that is easier to believe that 2+2 = 5

[(Anonymous)]

But in The Giver, there's not even a magical device that leads to the memory transferring, or any kind of interface whatsoever.

The Giver touches Jonas, Jonas receives memories. Hell, it doesn't even seem to be any skill involved, as Jonas is able to transfer memories to Gabe pretty much without even trying.

It just seems silly to me to complain about the book being unrealistic when it is so obviously not meant to be realistic. I don't see how you would be ~tipped off~ by unrealistic population statistics when there is literally magic in a supposedly sci-fi setting.

[(Anonymous)]

Wait, you've never looked at any fantasy or sci-fi series and gone, that makes no sense? Just because Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern involves flying dragons and all-consuming spores from space doesn't mean plenty of people don't debate the frequency of green mating flights and their effect on the Weyrs or the turnover rate for dragonriders to account for Hatching rates during a Pass. Illogical fantasy elements don't mean the whole society can be illogical.

[(Anonymous)]

I've seen things in fantasy and sci-fi that didn't make sense, but that didn't change my entire comprehension of the work.

This is what velvet_mace said, "Just couldn't buy into it other than it being a kind of a philosophical sermon that doesn't take in account for a lot of reality."

But that's implying that unrealistic population statistics (of all things) made her think that the world was unrealistic and basically a philosophical sermon...and not the fact that everything the Giver does is pretty much entirely magic with absolutely no basis in reality and no explanation given that exists only to illustrate a philosophical sermon.

It's using a silly justification to come to a conclusion that is already present in the text. A conclusion that seems disparaging in tone despite the fact that that was the point of the book.

[velvet_mace]

I love fantasy and Sci-fi -- but I think a lot of my love has to do with the writer understanding just what is the premise they are working with and keeping things logically consistant. Otherwise it's just a mess that is really hard for me to buy into.

For me, the lack of understanding the basic 3rd grade math implications of the society really jarred. It would have been totally easy to fix: simply have the breeders have 10-15 kids rather than 2-4. The fact that the author didn't take even the simplest steps to reality check their premise throws me in doubt that they really thought through the consequences of anything in their world. And lo and behold, the world doesn't make sense, not even if you accept the deliberate magical premise.

Which for me makes me start looking at what the philosophy behind this is, because it's presented like this book has some real world relevancy and isn't just an angsty fic. Take 1984 -- there you have a world where you take something that actually exists as a problem in society (totalitarianism) and combine it with technology and made a logical postulation of the society that would develop. But there was none of that here.

And then the book just seemed incredibly shallow to me: angst for angst sake, terrible things happen and it's all sad for no good reason. And while I accept loving angst as a narrative kink, it doesn't make me rate the Giver as being particularly better than any other story.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree about the population issue (I'm the same anon that replied below). It makes no sense to have women forced into giving birth and then only use them for three children (which, imho, is no worse than any of the jobs anyone else has; there's less "honor" but no one chooses their job and everyone receives what they need). That necessitates a large turnover rate. Sure, it solves the problem of having enough Laborers but if you're going to exploit the Birthmothers, why not exploit them in a way that solves your population problem? Why have nuclear families that at best create no population growth? There's two child deaths recorded in the book. At least one of the children is replaced, but because of the Birthmother rule, you still have negative population growth.

I find the world-building interesting. It is flawed, sure, but the symbology of age, the repression of sexual urges, and the concept of having your job chosen for you are still as intriguing to me as they were when I read it in middle school.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

You know this is basically Baby's First Look Into Dystopian Sci-Fi and Philosophical Themes in Literature, right? Comparing it to 1984 is pretty hilariously disingenuous.

Also, disregarding the themes behind an entire book because of a math error seems a bit like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This isn't a book where the worldbuilding is the whole point of the work. It's not. The setting is just an excuse to explore the deeper themes of the book, in a way that's easily graspable for young readers.

[velvet_mace]

Well, what are those themes? And do those themes actually make any sense?

[(Anonymous)]

I would say the biggest theme would be the cost of comfort. Would it be worth it to live in a society that is basically free of all want and hardship, when the price is a society that lacks any sort of deeper meaning in their lives? In fact, what would it take to have a society where everyone was virtually happy with as little strife as possible? It basically questions the nature of humanity in a way that kids can easily digest (and with a handy-dandy very literal plot device and super-literal name).

I seem to remember the nature of morality and the price of personal responsibility are twined together pretty heavily throughout the book as well, though obviously not as deeply as the aforementioned theme.

That's all that I can remember for now, but I honestly haven't read the book in many years (so many that I can't even remember the last time I read it). All the themes are pretty obvious, and don't take a lot to figure out (probably why the book was a big hit with pre-teen literary curriculum for a while. They're deep enough to bring up bigger topics, but obvious enough that kids should be able to identify them without much trouble).

I don't think the book is The Best Kid's Lit Book EVAR, or that it should be free from criticism, but I do think it does a good job at what it sets out to do and reducing it to "angst for angst's sake" is missing the point entirely.

[diet_poison]

Sci-fi has to necessarily exclude magic?

ok.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, because that's exactly what was said.

The point. You missed it.

[rosehiptea]

I thought of that too, about the "breeding." I get that it wasn't supposed to be realistic but... simple math there.

To be fair that's one of the only things I didn't like about the book, as I thought it was excellent overall.

(Also it seems like a lot of the professions had their own secret information, so I think they were slightly better prepared than that, maybe not for a huge disaster but for a small one.)

[(Anonymous)]

I am trying really hard to prove you wrong, and I can't. I always got the idea it was a very small society, but you're right that the population would dwindle and, because of the one child of each gender rule (I may be misremembering that) and heterosexual nuclear families, there can be no way for there to be a gender disparity that allows for population growth. The gender ratio, however, doesn't have to be 50/50: families are allowed a maximum of two children, which means they're allowed to have only one.

The most ridiculous thing, though, is the three-year period the Birthmothers have before they become Laborers. This necessitates at least one new Birthmother every three years, which is a huge turnover rate. You have to have a huge portion of the female population be unsuitable for anything but hard labor. So why are you stopping at three children? You're screwing yourself over. I'm not positive, but I don't think there's anything saying that the Birthmothers can't start a family unit once they become Laborers. If they can't, then you need a higher female birth rate than male just to supply a female for every male in a family unit. I dunno, it's just a really interesting dilemma. You'd think Lowry would have thought it through better.

[(Anonymous)]

Wow, I think I muddled that. Basically:

1 male for every female=family unit
Family unit can have a maximum of one male and one female child

HOWEVER, gender disparity can exist and does necessarily exist IF Birthmothers do not create family units as Laborers, in which case there must be as many females as males PLUS current and former Birthmothers. In this case, the three children may very well be a controlled two female children and one male child per every Birthmother. So it could work if the Birthmothers/female Laborers make up a disproportionately large part of the population.

[spicandspan89.livejournal.com]

Hmm, that seems plausible. Plus, since the Giver outright states that hair colour can be controlled (they were trying to eliminate red hair IIRC - no idea why), choosing the gender of the babies would be a piece of cake.

[velvet_mace]

You are right. If you select for gender (though here I think if you are selecting for gender, why are you allowing twins at all?) you can pull the ratio down to half of all female children being designated breeders instead of 2/3rds. But that still means that 33 percent of your society (all female) is this underclass that is later punished for the crime of making the next generation possible by being sent to the most menial labor without the benefit of the happy family unit. The number of births is still a problem. You have to factor in some attrition for accidents and whatnot. And this means that your basic family unit should be three not two. One male and two female, one of which will ultimately become a parent and the other will become a breeder.

And having twice as many female children than male children aught to have some implications in society.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, my explanation's not a great one. I was actually thinking Birthmothers were chosen for having no above-average skill. There aren't a whole lot of jobs in the Giver's world, and Laborers are absolutely vital. A lot depends on Laborers, who deliver food, do the physical work of building, and probably tons of other things like garbage disposal, gardening, food preparation, and housework. You don't need a ton of doctors, lawyers, and firefighters if the society is small enough. You do need someone to do all the grunt work. I wouldn't call that punishment any more than I would call working in the service industry or a shipyard punishment. It's not glamorous, but it's a necessary job (I've worked in the food service industry for several years and there are definitely people who make it a livelihood). The default, then, is Birthmother/Laborer. The girl who is chosen to be a Birthmother in Jonas' year was noted to be dim-witted, iirc.

I was thinking that the families that only care for one child would almost always be assigned a girl. There's certainly still the issue of too many children, too few parents in that case, but that problem already exists with the family units that only care for one child.