- This topic has 26 voices and 59 replies.
-
Posts
-
Re:briang1
I believe it could be possible that a Communist-Socialist government could in fact succeed. Look at how long Communism lasted in Russia and other countries. Nobody actually likes living under heavy rule, however, that is the only way they know how to live.Re:emmymolina921
Pretending to be a critic, I do believe that some children and adults would not handle this novel too well. Kids in 6th grade start playing Call of Duty and watch gory war movies, thus the events in this novel would be nothing new to them. However, it may be because they are afraid that the world is going to become like this community.RE: momentomori
An example of a “Sameness community” in our world would be Communist ideas. For example, Russia during its Soviet years had this type of government. In this time in Russia everyone would get roughly the same amount of money no matter what kind of job they had. This just led to chaos and the eventual destruction of the Soviet Union. The Utopian society in the Giver was the same basic principles of “Sameness” which was lost with the release of the memories Jonas held.RE:thatoneguy1
I completely agree with you about your opinion on Lois Lowry. Plus, you are correct in saying that the community in The Giver is emotionless and we are not;therefore, the heartless acts they performed are not relavent to our current society. Who is controlling whom in The Westing Game? The heirs were not forced into playing the Westing Game, they chose to out of greed. No one is manipulating or controlling anyone. I understand that Sam Westing seeked amusement by creating the Westing Game then making himself one of the participants, but I do not understand the cruelty out of it. He never intended for Crow to be arrested, and she in fact was not. Sam Westing, as insane as he was, had a purpose for this game in which I never grasped. Maybe he made it up for Turtle knowing that she had the wits to win. Whatever the reasons, they certaintly were not out of cruelty.RE:craazykat
Haha I never thought that the best part of being a critic is to ban amazing books;nonetheless, I totally agree with you. It is possible that critics see The Giver as too mature for children and The Westing Game as messed up from its manipulations. I personally do not think those are the reasons critics chose to ban these two outstanding novels. As absurd as this sounds, they could possibly see them causing a bad influence on younger generations by putting ideas of accepted murder and manipulation into their heads. Also, I believe the reason critics chose not to ban the series of books on Hitler is because they are using them as a history lesson to remind people of the mass destruction and heartache it caused to the millions who died, survived, and were related to the victims. Overall I cannot find a legitament reason to band these two books, and the only way to find out exactly why the critics did would be to somehow ask them personally.I conclude after reading these novels that the character’s fate is predetermined. Jonas lived in a perfect Utopian society in which he could not even choose his job. Even his future outcome was set by the government. He did not want to become the Receiver, but he could not change what he was intended to do. In the Westing Game Angela’s destiny was so determined by her mom she did not even know if she wanted to marry Denton. “‘How about you, Angela, What do you want?†He [Denton] knew her unspoken answer was “I don’t know (Raskin 129).†Angela after initially canceling the engagement, married Denton, proving that she is just playing the role for which she was destined.
Both novels have areas that could be viewed as inappropriate for an extremely pliable reader such as the idea of euthanasia or “release,†from The Giver, and the idea of Mr. Westing’s game. But in all honesty, these ideas are necessary for the plots. Also, I believe the lessons learned are too valuable to sacrifice for the possibility of it being inappropriate. Is there a way to get around these ideas in the books?
Both novels have areas that could be viewed as inappropriate for an extremely pliable reader such as the idea of euthanasia or “release,†from The Giver, and the idea of Mr. Westing’s game. But in all honesty, these ideas are necessary for the plots. Also, I believe the lessons learned are too valuable to sacrifice for the possibility of it being inappropriate. Is there a way to get around these ideas in the books?
RE: slogger17
I think the novels would have been worse because without the censored parts would they have been as meaningful? In my opinion no.RE: jnpitcher21
I do respect Lois Lowry’s bravery. In fact, without it I believe I would be a different person. Her novels are quite impressionable and need to be read.Re:jnpitcher21
These fictional communities are actually pretty fun to read about. The utopian community is very demented and twisted,but I do respect Louis Lowry’s bravery in writing The Giver because it was ultimately a great book with a meaningful ending. The idea of a man faking his death and pretending to be someone else as read in the Westing Game is creepy, however, it is very exciting to read about and it adds a spark to the story line. Sometimes to make a novel interesting and fun to read, an author has to add something unusual or crazy to spice it up.In the Westing game,Sam Westing fakes his death and pretends to be someone else. Some people find this creepy and scary to think about. The way Ellin Haskin wrote the story makes it very intriguing and exciting. Do you think there is another way she could have written this book to make it a little less creepy, but still keep the mystery?
In The Giver, I think the most criticism is focused on the community Elders who controlled every aspect of the peoples lives like socialism. In The Westing Game, people criticize the author for supporting minors to take the blame for a crime the did not commit to cover up for an adult knowing that they would not receive as harsh of punishment.
In “The Giver†Lois Lowry definitely brings up controversial points. The idea of release is one point that might be censored because it reverts to euthanasia and the way the people in Jonas’s community have no self conscience might come across as supporting the idea, but I believe that Lowry was only trying to prove the drawbacks of “samenessâ€. Jonas’s dream of Fiona might also be censored especially when Jonas stops taking the pill that ends the stirrings. Some critics might see this as Lowry saying that it is all right to want the opposite sex, but I think that Lowry wanted Jonas to stop taking the pill so that he was able to really have true “feelingsâ€.
There is not much to criticize in “The Westing Game†other than the fact that Sam Westing had brought a halt to the lives of a group of people only to play a game with them. Critics might say that this is showing selfishness because Sam Westing had tricked a group of people just to have fun before he died. I think that Ellen Raskin meant for Sam Westing to set up this game not for himself but for the people that were a part of his life to get to know themselves in a way they had never imagined.
If you were a critic would you censor “The Giver†and “The Westing Game†for the above reasons?RE: slogger17
To answer your question: “Do you think the books would have been better or worse if the “censored” parts were removed? Why?â€
I do not think “The Giver†or “The Westing Game†would be better with the “censored†parts removed. I believe the censored parts only add to the story. Both books by themselves are amazing; it would not matter with or without the censored parts because they are not a huge piece of the story. I believe the loss of Jonas’s dream might make the idea of “no feelings†a little harder to realize but there are still parts (like when Jonas asks his parents if they love him) that show the fact that his community has no feelings. For “The Westing Game†I believe that if the aliases of Sam Westing were replaced by hired helpers or friends that the story would stay the same because the main point of the game was not for the group to find out about each other but about themselves. So technically both books did not need these specific immoral scenes in them in order for their main point to be seen.RE: jnpitcher21
To answer your question: “Do you respect Lois Lowery’s bravery?â€
I completely respect her and totally agree with all that you said. Some might say that she is promoting this land of fantasy when really she is only getting everyone to think. I believe that Lowry wanted the kids of the future to really appreciate the world we are in now. Though it may be difficult sometimes to make hard decisions and you might want for someone to do it for you, deep down you still want to be you. There is no one that I know that can predict what each and every person is going to do with his or her career just by looking at what they do in their spear time. All in all, I believe that Lois Lowry should be congratulated for taking a step into a sensitive subject instead of being punished.In examining the two different communities described in the two novels, one can see that being controlled isn’t the answer to a happy scoiety. In “The Giver,” the whole community is basically controlled by the Committee of Elders. Their choices are made by this council and they have no say, even if they disagree with a matter. This is the total opposite to our society because America is a free country. We make our own decisions, which bring out our individuality. To take that freedom away would be equivalent to critisizing one’s individual personality and judging them on first impression. The first impression that someone perceives on another shows them what the person likes, but if that is taken away and everyone is the same, what is the reason to live for? No one could live for themselves. A specific example of this in “The Westing Game” is where Grace Wexler tries to control her daughter, Angela’s, life. This always brings gried to Angela when her mother does so. It makes it seem like, why am I here if she is going to do everything and make all of my decisions for me? If our society was made up of sameness, do you think that we would all be happier in that aspect, or do you think that we would all get tired of seeing everything and everyone as being the same?
Momentomori, an aspect of “sameness” in a society that can apply to the world today would be the groups of people in cults. For example, the Ku Klux Klan does everything together. They all share the same views and also dress alike. Their motives in life are of the same and so that is why they get along so well. It is the same for social groups and cliques in schools. They normally all share the same kind of personality, and that is what enables them the ability to connect with eachother better than those of different personalitys would.
rachnelson55, I do not think critics would have censored 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. I do not think so because it is like an attention grabber that comes at the beginning of a story, but instead, it comes in the middle and end. So it really keeps you hooked into the book and makes it much mores interesting to see how one can trully have more than one personality while still being the same person. If he hd really hired people, I do not think that the people he would have hired would have the same manipulative thinking as he did. It was evil, yet beneficial to all.
Momentomori, I completely agree with you that our society could become like this once more if we do not make an attempt to stop things like euthanasia and communism from spreading so quickly within our society. If we do not attempt to make American society safe and honest, or culture could easily adapt into a relapse of Nazi Germany
- The topic ‘The Giver and The Westing Game: Forum Question Three’ is closed to new replies.