Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2012-06-05 06:42 pm
[ SECRET POST #1981 ]
⌈ 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.

no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-06-06 12:33 am (UTC)(link)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.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-06-06 12:47 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-06-06 12:59 am (UTC)(link)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.
no subject
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.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-06-06 02:13 am (UTC)(link)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.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-06-06 02:38 am (UTC)(link)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.
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-06-06 03:59 am (UTC)(link)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.
no subject
ok.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-06-07 01:49 am (UTC)(link)The point. You missed it.