- This topic has 26 voices and 59 replies.
-
Posts
-
The whole of idea of the Utopian society established in The Giver is nothing new. There are countless books written before and after this book with the same concepts. Books of this type are very popular especially among young adult readers. Personally, I believe this is because as well as giving them an exciting adventure to read it scares them. The ideas introduced in this book are already present in our monotonous every day lives. We say killing innocent children is terrible yet everyday thousands of babies are cruelly murdered. We say that the euthanizing of old people is cruel and senseless; however, as Senseofsanity brought up the healthcare plan that our president has enforced could easily take a horrific turn for the worst. Not only that but little by little the government is enforcing bills and new laws that are taking away the freedoms set up by our founding fathers. However, they are doing it so slightly that we don’t notice and that is a very dangerous situation! Just look at your history books and you will see that Hitler’s Germany bares striking resemblance to the community of Sameness. So therefore, this book and other books of it’s kind are probably censored because they are shockingly possible and probable in our actual lives.
My Question: What other examples of a “Sameness community” can you think of that apply to our world?
In the Giver, everything in the community is predictable. Critics may find that Lowry’s idea of making kids become adults at age twelve too far fetched. They may think that her story of babys and ederly people being killed because they are unique and unable to defend themselves too harsh. A twelve year old is forced to bear the weight of all memories on his shoulder. Critics may question Jonas’s bravery as merely having a lack of choices. He either had to secretly carry all the pain and happiness the memories brought or try to escape the heartless community and give them the chance to have memories. There is only one choice that could make Jonas happy. He did not even get the choice to die if he wanted too. Jonas received honor when becoming the new Receiver. The Giver mentioned that honor and power are two different things. What do you think would have changed in the community if Jonas had power as well as honor? Would critics give as much condemnation if Jonas had choices instead of being forced?
I think that if Jonas had power as well as honor he would be able to help the Utopian community to change for the better. If Jonas had power he could teach the people that there is another way to live. Jonas could use his memories to teach them about color, emotions, love, weather,the meaning of family, the value of life, and many more things which they didnt know existed. I dont think this book would have been given all of the prestigious awards it recieved by critics if Jonas had more choices. This book is very thought provoking the way it was written and if you changed it, it wouldnt be so interesting and engaging.
There are many reasons why The Giver could be a censored book. One aspect this book promotes is the killing of newborn babies if there is a defect. In our society, we feel for kids with birth defects and have concern. In this book, they promote the killing of a baby if it is not perfect, so to speak. The intentional killing known as release, but is normal to them. But, I also believe this book should not be censored because it shows all the problems with this kind of society. Not promoting it. Sure, there are some things that could have been taken out of this book (like the Fiona dream), but it was a very good book that made it’s point in showing the corruption of this type of society. I believe that was the true intention. In The Westing Game, because it isn’t an utopian society setting, like the Giver, and is a normal society, I see why some things could have been censored. It promotes faking your death and a will to play a game. It also promoted aliases. Aliases can be good and bad. Mostly, though, they are used for robbers, kidnappers, liars, etc. Although Sam Westing was using those aliases for fun and for his roles as Northrup, McSouthers, Eastman, and Westman. It didn’t make it right. I see how that could be a bad point. I liked it, though, because of it’s cleverness! Raskin is a fabulous writer, and I believe the book was flawless. But, I do see how some people would want it censored.
RE: aprilmayjune96
I concur! In The Giver, for the people, there really is nothing to compare sadness or happiness with, as you said. You are absolutely right! The citizens of this community have never truly experienced sadness or happiness because they haven’t come to the realization of what they are! Only Jonas and The Giver and the receivers before know what sadness and happiness truly are. Like they know pain, joy, warmth, love, etc. The people of this community don’t truly feel anything. They always share “feelings” at the dinner table, but what are they really sharing? Feelings they have been taught to know? They obviously don’t know what true pain, sadness, and happiness (and more) are. I like what you stated.RE: julianarenee72
I like your opinion on The Westing Game when you said that you felt he was pushing them out of their comfort zones to work together. They, truly, were 16 very different people. It was amazing how they all clashed in different personalities, and, yet, made good decisions together. I love how you brought that up! You wouldn’t think it would be easy for somebody like J.J. Ford to work with Sandy McSouthers… but they did it. Or that Angela could work with Sydelle. But, indeed, they were matched with the perfect partner, and it made lasting friendships. The characters were clashed very well.I 100% agree with you. no offense but when I read your blog I felt like i was listening to my dad. I absolutely think that events from the giver are just scenarios of what is happening all around us. I think they are trying to censor the book because when people read the book and see how unnatural and disgusting the lifestyle is, they will begin to get smart and discover that it’s not that far off from what’s happening all around us. I don’t think they want people rebelling and standing up for what is right in our very liberal world.
Between these two books, I believe that each of them has their own reasons to be censored. The Giver, a book revolving around a perfect world where the government controls everything, can be censored for promoting a Communist-Socialist type leadership where the government controls everything in the community, and the people are given the same treatment, the same amount of food, etc. The Westing Game, a book revolving around a multimillion dollar game in which people neglect their own jobs and families in order to compete, as well as multiple mentions to the stock market and the money you can make and lose, can demonstrate a life centered around greed and gambling. Do you think a Communist-Socialist government can ever succeed?
I partially agree with you, likeaboss115, that The Giver promotes Communism through the leaders controlling the lives of the people, however; I do not agree that Sam Westing was committing identity theft, because the men whose identity he stole were not real, and were actually himself.
I completely agree with you, julianarenee72, that the idea of killing newborn babies simply because they are twins is horrible, and that Lois Lowry is using this as merely an example of the drastic measures taken to create a perfect society. This idea can be a justification for censoring the book, however; I believe it helps prove the point that perfection as a community requires extreme changes and major restrictions.
RE:briang1
To answer your question:
I do not think a Communist-Socialist government can ever succeed. Although, it would help the poor because they would be provided with the same amount of food and money as everyone else. On the other hand,the wealthy would have to sacrifice their money and possesions in order to be equal with everyone. I think people would not work as hard at their jobs because they would get paid no matter what. A person barely working would get paid the same amount as a person working extremely hard. People would lose the desire to work hard because they are not getting rewarded. No one would be special or unique in that society. There would be no motivation to be a good person. When the citizens of a country lose the desire and the ability to make their country a better place; a government cannot succeed.In The Giver, one of the main reasons this book has been banned is because it was seen as a mature book. Many adults feel as if the scenes where they euthanize babies and when Jonas has Stirrings are inappropriate for children. Also people think it is morally wrong, why? Is it because people are being euthanized today and they want it out of public? During World War II, Hitler euthanized poor innocent lives and we read about it in books everywhere. Those books have not been banned. Also The Westing Game may have been banned do to Sam Westing deceiving everyone into playing a game. Why would critics want to ban these award winning books? Because critics do have fun banning amazing books.
RE:slogger17
To answer your question:
I think the books would have been worse if the censored parts were removed. For example, the killing of the twin baby in the Giver shows the negative effect of a society where everyone must be the same. I agree with you about how Sam Westing used those aliases just for fun and for is roles as Northup,Eastman, Westman, and McSouthers. It wasn’t right, but it made it a very entertaining book.In the Westing Game, the characters are all competing to win money from a man who is supposedly dead. Critics may find it a bad message for people to read about a man who faked his death in order to play games with people’s minds. Critics may think Sam Westings character went too far when he created fake identities for himself. Do you think critics would censor this book as much if Sam Westing had really died and had hired people ,instead, to play the roles of Northup, Eastman, Westman, and McSouthers?
The Giver and The Westing Game both have material that would be supposedly promoting bad influences such as the community that Jonas lives in killing these “imperfect babies”, but the community has no emotions so you can’t really blame Lois Lowry for putting that in her book since we do have emotions in the real world. The Westing Game on the other hand promotes controlling others to do things that would be cruel or some kind of amusement, which is really bullying.
RE:briang1
I do not agree with your thinking of The Westing Game promoting greed as Sam Westing was trying to expose the greed within his heirs by making this game.
In my opinion, the community in The Giver would be, without a single doubt, the worst possible place to live out of any fantasy land. Even though the society is virtually crime free, the essentials of a truly happy life are purposely sucked out of the picture. If Lois Lowry is sincerely promoting a way of life excluding love, uniqueness,and reality then I understand why her novel is being targeted for ridicule. On the contrary, as a fictional utopia their way of life is amazingly thought provoking and enables a sense of appreciation to come to all who read about it. Some critics see Lowry as promoting her make believe utopia, and others understand and are grateful of her imagination. Personally, I appreciate her courage to publish such a far fetched idea of life, but not everyone feels as I do; therefore, her novel will never fully escape criticism. The Westing Game is merely an enjoyable, action packed suspense novel about a far from normal man who could arguably be suffering from multiple personality syndrome. Maybe the idea of a man intentionally creating a fake murder and mystery will for himself creeps people out. Other than critics believing that Ellen Raskin is corrupting the minds of children by introducing them to unordinary people, I cannot find a reason for this novel to be highly critique. What is your personal opinion on these author’s fictional communities? Do you respect Lois Lowery’s bravery, or do you see it as something else? Can you find any other reasons for The Westing Game to be ridiculed?
I agree with briang1’s post about how the novels The Giver may be promoting a Communist society and The Westing Game encouraging people to gamble or be greedy. My thoughts when I first read The Giver was how similar Jonas’ community was to Communism; a place where there were virtually no choices and strict about discipline. The Giver is a novel that would most likely seem to be censored in America, where freedom and the ability to choose who you want to be is important. However, I think that Lowry was just implying that human behavior (racism, poverty, and other world problems) is what caused the world to become “Sameness.” It also makes sense why America would censor The Westing Game because it possibly feeds the idea of greediness into young teens. Considering that her father was a bookie, Turtle knew an awful lot about betting and the stock market. She became very obsessed with it that she got in trouble at school multiple times. This may seem like the author is approving of illegal gambling or underage gaming. A Communist-Socialist government would need some major modifications in order for it to work and actually bring forth results, but Democracy still seems to be the best solution.
- The topic ‘The Giver and The Westing Game: Forum Question Three’ is closed to new replies.