Talk:The Giver/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cover images and references

I've added an image of the Bantam Books 1999 paperback edition, which I screenshot off Amazon.com. A discussion thread on some web site I stumbled across mentioned a third, different cover design; anybody know about it?

Also, I've categorized the "Readings and references" list and added a spate of articles I found via Lexis-Nexis. (An academic subscription to which is one of the better things my tuition money gets me, in addition to discount movie tickets.) Some of the articles may be accessible online, but I believe subscriptions are necessary and cost money.

Anville 15:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Trying out a new reference style, which I first saw on The Sirens of Titan. It's fun. Anville 19:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

More spoilers

How did this become a FAC with so many spoilers in the introduction? I won't comment further, because it is plainly impractical to read the article and then hope to read the book, which it does persuade me to do. Septentrionalis 03:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing 'spoiler' with plot information. A spoiler is something that gives away the ending, or some unpredictable twist in the plot (it "spoils" it). Giving general plot is most definitely not the same thing; it doesn't spoil the work. →Raul654 07:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Lowry's Inspiration

About a year ago I heard Lois Lowry speak at a local college, and someone asked her where she got the idea for the giver and she gave a completely different answer than the one mentioned here! She told us that she'd first gotten the idea for the novel when visiting her parents at a nursing home, where her father was suffering from memory loss and her mother still had perfect memory. Essentially Lowry's mother was grieving over a deceased relative but her father was perfectly cheery as he did not remember the deceased relative at all, which got Lowry to begin thinking about memory, the final result of which is The Giver. She also confirmed at the time that Jonas is indeed mentioned in Gathering Blue, but only kids seem to notice him. Andromeda321 03:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

That story is also in the speeches the article currently cites. I chose to write about the Carl Nelson bit because, after all, he's the guy on the cover, and in my estimation, that makes his story a notch more important to discuss. In other words, I picked the topic which had the most "scholarly interest", in my estimation. I'd welcome a good paraphrase of the story you mention, of course. Anville 10:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

A couple years back I had read on an earlier version of this page that Lowry's inspiration came from her memories of living in Japan. If you look on her website FAQ, she directs you to her Newberry Acceptance speech in 1994 where she describes her memories of sneaking out of an American base in Tokyo and exploring Shibuya.

Criticism

At some places in the article I get the feeling there is to come a substantial section covering what critics have said about the quality of the work from a literary standpoint, but it never comes. The only thing covered under "Controversy" seems to be people complaining about it being unsuitable for children. Can't somebody who knows anything about the criticism in question write a little about it? I'm interested in what critics have perceived as logical gaps, etc. and I'm sure others are as well. Miai 12:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Notes are screwed

The notes are screwed. There is no point adding a numbered reference if you aren't going to have a corresponding numbered note. Try printing this high-quality article and you'll soon see the problem that there is with non-interactive media like the printed page. - 203.134.166.99 03:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'm changing it to normal footnotes. Superm401 | Talk 19:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

infobox

I am adding an infobox to this page per WP:NOVEL.

I hope this will not upset anyone, but I'm switching the position of the cover images. The 1999 paperback cover is now the one most commonly seen (I like it better, but that's just me); the original cover is better used where the newer one is now. Daniel Case 18:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Really? Every time I've seen the school-reading section of a bookstore, the paperbacks they sell use the original cover. Whichever order we pick for the images, though, the one in "Origins" should be right-aligned, since the left-aligned position doesn't mesh well with the indented quotations. Anville 11:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the newer cover more and more exclusively used. It's true that a lot of schools have hardbacks that still use the older one. But the newer one is what gets used in bookstores.

I normally prefer alternating the alignment of images, but I think you're right about the indented quotations being an issue here (as it has in other articles). Daniel Case 04:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"coeval" in Fiona's profile

this link refers to a magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.135.99.6 (talk • contribs)

Now fixed. Anville 21:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"How his community's life has become"—mending holes in the Lead section

On May 15, over a month ago, User:Ted87 removed several indispensable bits from the Lead, not least the word "shallow"" in the sentence "As Jonas receives the memories from his predecessor—the Giver—he discovers how shallow his community's life has become."[1] This was no doubt done in good faith—the edit summary says "Removed some spoilers"—and nobody seems to have noticed what a terrible sentence it left, in the most prominent position imaginable: the rhetorical climax of the Lead section. Oddly, the Dystopia, but not the Utopia, was also removed. I've put back these bits, as I feel Ted87 has a too literal notion of what a spoiler is. If anybody doesn't want them there, please rewrite the Lead to make sense without them; avoid just making holes in its fabric. Bishonen | talk 02:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC).

Considering WP:FAR

This is a featured article. I'm having some thoughts of listing it for featured article review at WP:FAR, a process that will hopefully result in improvements, but may also end in de-featuring. I hadn't realized till recently that Raul654 did promote it back in June 2005. A bit surprisingly, I think--I mean, the FAC discussion had three pretty thin Support comments and two very meaty Opposes (from Jun-Dai and me). It's also noticeable that nobody supported any more after Jun-Dai and I said our say. My opinion is subjective, obviously, and it should be noted that The Giver has been chosen to represent some of Wikipedia's best in Wikipedia:Version 0.5. I still feel the objections were very substantial, though. The article doesn't seem to have changed much in response to them. Does anybody have any plans for working on The Giver any time soon, or shall I go ahead and FAR it to get more eyes and more opinions? (Anville has already told me he doesn't have time for any major work at this time.) Bishonen | talk 17:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC).

disappointment

...is the preeminent feeling I get after reading the article, and then finding out it's got FA status. Considering the fact that, apparently, no one bothered to comb over the references very closely when one examines the cited source for the line "On the other hand, some practitioners of postmodern literary criticism suggest that a fully "adult" interpretation of Lowry's work is eminently possible [14].", I'm surprised this article got enough attention to make GA class, really. Normally this wouldn't be an issue, per se, seeing as plenty of articles have these kinds of issues and part and parcel of being a wikipedian would be to fix them without really bleating.

Which was my first instinct, too, until I checked the talk page and realized this thing had a slew of important labels, so I thought I'd mention the fact here. So, for example, if you read the reference for the abovementioned sentence, you can ctrl+f either lowry or giver and neither show up. More importantly, it's actually an article titled, "How to Deconstruct Anything," and mostly makes fun of the whole practice.

Here is a blurb from that article, when he describes a convention in which he parodied the way he sees this particular kind of academic going about its business:

"Then we set about attempting to add something that would be an adequate response to the postmodern lit crit-speak we had been inundated with that day. Since we had no idea what any of it meant (or even if it actually meant anything at all), I simply cut-and-pasted from my notes. The next day I stood up in front of the room and opened our presentation with the following:

The essential paradigm of cyberspace is creating partially situated identities out of actual or potential social reality in terms of canonical forms of human contact, thus renormalizing the phenomenology of narrative space and requiring the naturalization of the intersubjective cognitive strategy, and thereby resolving the dialectics of metaphorical thoughts, each problematic to the other, collectively redefining and reifying the paradigm of the parable of the model of the metaphor."

Now, you might say, "why is this important? Just strike the sentence and be done with it." And this too tempted me before I decided to write here; however, seeing as the literary criticism portion seems to have gone some pouring over here in the talk page, it gave me no small surprise and pause to see that such a sentence, which attempts to assert an important point, namely that this work can be serious for adults[one of the sharper critiques offered in the literary criticism section of the giver article], had a reference that was completely bogus. I'm ready to remove the sentence, but I figured I'd give people a. a headsup, b. see if someone wants to argue its preservation after reading the cited piece, and c. a bit of whining that people should pay closer attention to both references and, apparently, the whole FA process regarding some sort of quality control. Again, I wouldn't say something so stringently, but this thing is going on 0.5, spoken word, FA, and all these other accolades, so this is a basic bit of work that should've been nailed on the head. R. 18:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced remark

In addition, some literary scholars have questioned the originality of the novel, citing similarites with Ayn Rand's novella, "Anthem", which is in turn seen by other literary scholars as remarkably similar to Yevgeny Zamyatin's We.

Source, please? I don't doubt that somebody has said this — it's the sort of thing "literary scholars" are paid to say — but unless I overlooked it, the source isn,t in this article's bibliography. Anville 10:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

At some point, every dystopian novel has to be accused of ripping off Zamyain. It's a rule, apparently. Dayv 13:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

There are parallels, though, that are unmistakeable. Not so much in terms of specifics (the two cultures control human sexuality in distinctly different ways, for instance), as in the underlying philosophy of a Community that so extensively promotes the collective needs over the individual member. Has someone ever asked Lowry (more to the point, in a forum where this would go on record so her answer could be cited as a source for this article)?

Also, is anyone as struck as I am by the possibility that Lowry might have read "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" at some point? Jonas, after all, literally walks away from his Community at the end, toward the mountains, just like the title characters of the Le Guin story. Has anyone ever asked Lowry about this?

When I was student-teaching this novel last fall, I gave my cooperating teacher a copy of the story with the suggestion that we could use it as a preread to set up the novel. She was intrigued by the idea but ultimately nixed it because she didn't think the class (ninth graders) were mature enough to handle the (mild) sex and drug references in the story without degenerating into a giggle fest.

On a side note, another controvery that might be worth including is what age to teach it at, if you could find sources. There's a feeling among some secondary-school English teachers that it's used too much and taught at too early an age. Some districts teach it at sixth-grade level, and that's where you get the kids having problems (particularly with the euthanasia scene) and the parent complaints and requests to remove it from curricula. You also get some instances where it's taught in both middle school and high school in the same district, often without the two schools being aware (this happened in the district where I was, too). Daniel Case 19:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, when I saw her speak I did ask her if there was a connection to Anthem because there's a comment in the book about a very intelligent person becoming a garbageman and running away from the society as a result. Lowry's response was she never read Anthem, though she did read The Fountainhead in college, but a lot of people ask her if there's a connection. Andromeda321 15:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Lowry went to college in the mid-fifties, didn't she? And what college student in that era didn't read The Fountainhead, or at least enough to fake it?

If the garbageman story is the only connection, I'd have to say that the link is so tenuous as to be forgettable. Without The Giver in front of me, I have to paraphrase from memory, but that story appears when Jonas, Asher and company are having lunch just before the Ceremony of Twelve. "I heard about a man who was absolutely certain he would be assigned Engineer," says Asher, "and the Committee gave him Sanitation Laborer. He jumped in the river, swam away and joined the first community he came across."

"Oh, come on," says Jonas. "They tell that story every year. My father says he heard it when he was an Eleven."

"It's true, though," protests Asher stubbornly. "If you don't like your Assignment, you can apply for Release and go Elsewhere. It's in the rules."

And that's the end of that. The main point, I believe, is to set up why it's unusual that Jonas can't apply for Release. It also allows Lowry to get in a little joke about Asher's inability to swim and his imprecision of language. What's more, little exchanges like this sketch in the children's characters: that is the sort of story passed down about coming-of-age ceremonies, whispered from one generation to the next. I heard legends like that right the way through college, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I find it entirely plausible that Lowry invented this passage (and others like it) by listening and recalling the way children actually speak. By Occam's Razor, then, we need not suppose it to be a case of literary influence, allusion or anything like that.

I'm surprised, really, that people bring up a little incident like the garbageman story to try and connect The Giver with The Fountainhead or with Objectivism in general. I mean, superficially speaking, doesn't the Community just sound like the place an Objectivist would hate? No room for individuality, no sex, no way to hear So-and-So's Fifth Kazoo Concerto? On a very trivial level, one could make the case that The Giver is an Objectivist novel, just on its thematic content.

Note that I say, "on a very trivial level". Jonas really makes a sorry Objectivist. He runs away, not to go on strike or gulch in the woods, but to restore feelings to his Community, knowing that he may well die in the process. By the time they escape the search planes and he has to bicycle through the snow, he doesn't even care about himself anymore — he only cares that Gabriel may suffer. Filthy, stinking Altruist! Again, I don't have the book in front of me, but near the end, when The Giver and Jonas are formulating their plan, Jonas wants his friend and mentor to leave the Community with him. The Giver says that he has to remain behind to help the others. "Giver, you and I don't need to care about the others!" Jonas exclaims.

The Giver doesn't even say anything, just stares at Jonas silently, smiling sadly. "Of course they had to care," says the narrator. "It was the meaning of everything."

I am a physicist, not a philosopher. Therefore, I'm not intimately familiar with the ways a well-trained Objectivist reasons, justifying X or Y from the basic postulate that A equals A. (My generation doesn't have time for long books; we have to get by with "Become an Objectivist in Ten Easy Steps".) I can only really judge the system based on the Objectivists I met during my bright college days, and on that basis, I find it interesting just how many works get claimed as Objectivist or having Objectivist themes. Look at the movie The Incredibles, which I liked quite a bit, actually. Some people said that it was full of Randian ideology; the director heard the allegations and went, "Huh?" The Randian partisans I know think nothing of claiming works in this way to aggrandize themselves and their principles, but perhaps they are not the best of the breed. I suppose that's a natural tendency for any member of a hyper-self-aware subculture: the reductio ad absurdum of this trait must be the Futurama episode where Star Trek fans rename Germany "Nazi Planet Episode-Land". By the bye, I Googled for pages mentioning The Giver and Anthem together, and all I got were listings of dystopian novels, plus an Amazon.com user review which got mirrored on a few other pages. And this article, of course.

If you absolutely had to pick a book and say that Lowry ripped it off, I think a much better choice would be Madeleine L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time. Compare Camazotz and the Community, and then we'll talk. I hasten to add that, again, I don't think any similarities are the result of theft or even intentional allusion. I raise this point merely because comparing The Giver to A Wrinkle in Time or even Huxley's Brave New World sounds more fruitful. As some Dead White Male once said, "No man is the literary Adam." (I found that comment in Borges's This Craft of Verse, but I can't remember who said it originally.)

On a tangential note, have you guys listened to the audio recording of this article? I love the BBC accent; it just seems the way an encyclopedia article should be read. I'm also curious to know if anybody else thinks "Brazil" every time they hear the name "Lowry" said in a British accent.

Anville 08:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I think Jeanne DuPrau ripped most of this book off for her Ember. But that's just me. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 01:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

more spoiler tags needed

In the section titled Ambiguity, there are some quotes from the author that talk about the ending of the book. If those quotes remain, then there should be spoiler tags around them. If we leave it as is, the ending will be ruined for some. TakingUpSpace 13:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Liar Paradox

The Liar Paradox article has a mention of this book. Someone recently edited the mention in a way that seems suspicious to me, but I cannot be sure since I haven't read the book. Could someone knowlegeable please review the change?

Older Edit: "In the book The Giver, the main character is given permission to lie upon becoming of age. He wonders about asking other adults if they received the same instruction."

Newer Edit: "In the book The Giver, the main character is given permission to lie upon becoming of age. He wanders about asking other adults if they received the same instruction." —PHaze 16:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be "wonders," since he never asks anyone, and certainly doesn't travel about asking them. I'll change it back. Thank you. —ScouterSig 16:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Scouter —PHaze 20:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should have ongoing protection?

This seems like a good potential target since 'The Giver' also refers to the second image from goatse.cx Klichka 03:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this article suffers from frequent vandals because it is a common school reading assignment, at least in the U.S. Though the site you refer to may be "infamous", I suspect it is far less mainstream than the Lowry book. --Knulclunk 16:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Communism?

Hi. I find that the "Community" has some of the characteristics of communism. Services for the people are much favoured over freedom, almost nothing is known about the outside world (if there is an outside world), objects are given and taken away by the community, people all have pretty much the same things, showing lack of private property, everyone is stricly controlled to be pretty much the same, information seems stricly controlled, etc, although it is somewhat different from communism. Is this true? Should we have a category like "Fictional semi-Communist semi-Utopias"? Or would that be too POV or OR? Could Dinotopia fit into that category? Oh, btw, why would they enthuansize people and call it "Release"? Shouldn't they "release" them to another country? Wouldn't the community be too small to be the whole world? Attempting to "flatten" the whole world would take tremendous effort, and the only place where the mountains could be dumped is in the ocean, which would cause sea levels to rise. If they drained the ocean, the water has to go somewhere. Attempting to dump it in the magma would cause huge problems. Besides, if they did all that and controlled the envrionment accross the whole world, tens of millions of animal species would go extinct. I know they farm in the Community, but withought important animals, many plants might go extinct as well. I asked a friend, "why couldn't they release them to another place, as in an actual place?", and he/she repiled, "government corruption". Do non-human animals actually exist in the community? This is not meant to be a rant, just some questions. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

References to Brave New World, and other Dystopian novels.

one thing I did notice is that the black and white vision that everyone has, and blandness in life, drew from Brave New World. What do you guys thing? Ive barely started brave new world, but I can already see where Lois Lowry drew inspiration from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finalblink (talk • contribs) 03:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section and Socialism

Under the section on the book's controversy there is a short list of commonly cited reasons for the The Giver's status as a controversial or banned piece of literature. Within the list it mentions the novel's depiction of a socialist government. Now while those concerned about this aspect of the novel might see the parallels between the government within The Giver and actual socialist governments, I think this sentence needs to be reworded. While there are certainly some parallels between some existant or formerly existant socialist governments and the government portrayed in the book, the actual name of the government's form in The Giver is never made exclusively clear and could theoretically be defined as anything from Fascism to Corporatism. Thus, I think it would best serve the neutrality of the article if the sentence were changed to something along the lines of "The novel's depiction of suicide, euthanasia, a perceived socialist government, and infanticide are typically cited as concerns."

I don't think it is the job of wikipedia to determine the type of government in The Giver. However, it could be described as a totalitarian socialist oligarchy. Totalitarian, because of the control of the government. Socialist, because there is no class, and the economy is completely controlled by the government Oligarchy because it is ruled by Elders, presumably an elite group. I doubt it is fascist, since it is neither nationalist nor expansionist. Rds865 (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

hey

i think this book was really boring.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.158.47.3 (talk • contribs) .

The talk page of an article is for discussing the article, not neccessarily the subject of the article. Mr. Granger 22:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

don't worry, some people are stupid and can't see the significance of books. You'll be alright unsigned user. --206.176.110.227 (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

the author's theme/message

This is my thought of what Lois Lowry's message/theme was: Conformity and harmony may be safe, but it may not be a good thing. If everything is the same, it will be boring and colorless, just like Jonas's community. Being individual, special, and proud is the best instead of being the same as everyone else. Memeoreis are also another thing that the author is trying to explain. Memories are forever. They give people wisdom, knowledge, experience as well as feelings. Another thing the author is trying to explain is that without the sadness, without the pain, there is no happiness and real enjoyment in life. People need to have the pain in order to really appreciate and enjoy the happy, the good, and the best times, moments, and memories in life.

Sophiedingdong (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I also thought that the author was trying to give out the message that euthanasia is bad and that people should be given a chance to live even if they are weaker than the norm or disabled. This is represented in Jonas' horror when the practice of 'release' is clarified,and he takes drastic measures to try to reform the society.

BlackCat January 10, 2011

Request for Semi-Protection

I've gone ahead and put in a request for semi-protection on this page. There's been a lot of IP vandalism in recent days. Henrymrx (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that request was declined. I'd like to ask other watchers to keep an eye on this page for a while. Henrymrx (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested protection again. Henrymrx (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Got a 1-month semi-protect on the article. Watchers, please stay vigilant. We might need to keep an eye out for SPAs. Henrymrx (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It is written in the 3rd person.

I usually don't see articles mentioning what point of view it's written in. Should it be removed or is it still considered relevant? 24.192.75.54 (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Translator?

Why is Blake Brown given as translator, when the book was originally written in English? Kdammers (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconded... If it was originally in another language, which one? Hawaiian?  æron phone home  13:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Gabe only other one to receive memories?

This is never stated in the book. The only 2 people he tried this on was Gabe and Asher. I thought Asher wasn't able to receive the memories because Jonas didn't touch his bare back, like he did with Gabe. --Ted87 (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

ok. asher was not able to recieve memories because he does not have "light eyes"!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.81.176 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

does anyone remember when the Giver gave Jonas the bad memory of the elephants being killed, then jonas goes home and sees his father and sister talking about her comfort object (elephant). and jonas trires to tell them about it, and they wouldnt believe him, how elephants used to exsist. then he put his hands on their shoulders, and his sister said "stop jonas your hurting me!" that was the other time he tried to pass a memory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.225.208 (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Profession of Jonas's mother

The article has recently been changed to indicate that Jonas's mother is a lawyer. However, I remember her being a judge (as is said earlier versions of the article) but I don't have a copy of the novel available right now, so I can't double check. Could someone investigate, please? --GrafZahl 13:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Just did, she's a judge 70.111.205.97 13:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!--GrafZahl 09:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What page ?

I'm just reading that book and I thought that it said she was a law enforcement officer. Ill check and tell actual + page here tomorrow.: Thanks!--64.252.0.37 01:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

On page 8 of my library copy it says "Next, Mother, who held a prominent position at the Department of Justice, talked about her feelings." It continues to describe an offender who had been brought before her for a second time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrak14B (talk • contribs) 17:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is what we should add into the article.

1. That The Giver's instructions were acknowledged by the Speaker like this: "One moment Reciever. Thank you for your instructions."

2. The information of the "failure" 10 years ago, which explained the failure of the previous Reciever-in-training. 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 03:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the failure ten years ago was explained as the Reciever-in-training's release. And it was said by the Giver that the community hammered out the rules after the failure. And that release is actually known as death, when Jonas was sent into the "Hall Of Closed Records" as said on chapter 20. 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 13:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section

This is poorly organized and confusing. It mentions controversy, but does not give evidence of it. the only criticisms seems to have to do with the birth mothers, but the point is unclear. since 50 children are born a year by 50 mothers, and assuming the number of new mothers is equal to that of the retiring mothers(ones who have born three babies) every third year only 16 new mothers are needed. it has been a long time since I read the book, but I believe, once starting their career the mothers don't begin birthing right away. Rds865 (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the section's a bit lopsided. It centers mostly on the positive reviews of the book, very little being given to the negative side. Earlier in the article, it's stated that the book is on some banned reading lists; maybe that should be mentioned in the criticism section. 72.49.239.160 (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The criticism section is incredibly lopsided. However, I'm having trouble finding any actual reviews of the book from notable publications. I've found one from a fellow author, which I'll include for the sake of balance but will continue to search for more.

S. Luke 07:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Giver by Lois Lowry is number 14 on the list of most challenged books in public libraries. That should probably be mentioned in the criticism section. Link: http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.cfm

65.189.175.112 (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the original revisions to the article, it seems that the balancing "bad" reviews were removed and the Anita Silvey comment was butchered so much as to be non sensical (certainly the book was "one of the 1990s science fiction novels" as the current article states. The quote from the cited book is (thanks to Amazon's "Look Inside" feature): "The Giver has proved to be not only one of the greatest novels of the 1990s for children but also one of the greatest science-fiction novels for young readers of all time." Is there any reason we cannot include the actual quote instead of trying to re-word it? Also (to balance the "On the one hand" language that currently has no "other hand"), the original "Literary significance and criticism" section included the following: "One example of a negative review from an SF writer is from Debra Doyle, who wrote: "The Giver fails the SF Plausibility Test for me. I don't see how a society like the one depicted could be attained/sustained in anything other than a metaphorical world. And even considered as fantasy, rather than sf, the book is too damned obvious. Things are the way they are because The Author is Making A Point; things work out the way they do because The Author's Point Requires It." The original source seems to be no longer available (as is typical with web-based sources). Any idea why this was removed and who made the section the non-sensical mess that it is? Straffin (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Film?

Why does the link to The Giver film (in the disambiguous page) link to here? Shouldn't there be a seperate page for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.177.30 (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Who put that here?? It was highly inappropriate. SweetNightmares (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit requests from 71.111.179.123

Edit request from 71.111.179.123, 24 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Change from: "Transportation is mostly limited to bicycles; however, cars and airplanes exist in small numbers for the main use of transporting food, possibly from other communities." To: "Transportation is mostly limited to bicycles; however, cars, airplanes, and buses exist in small numbers for the main use of transporting food and children to and from other communities on field trips." See text, pages 5 -6: Lily's angry about a boy from a visiting group of Sevens who had to leave early by bus.

71.111.179.123 (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.111.179.123, 24 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Change from: All the land near the Community and around the other, similar communities clustered about the nearby river has been flattened to aid agriculture and transportation. Although the community has access to meat from unknown sources, all animals have been removed, including the fish from the water. Citizens' only exposure to the notion of animals is through the presence of stuffed animals, however, society has no understanding of what they represent, believing them to be simple, non-existent objects. The word "animal" is used to describe a foolish person, with no understanding of the connection between the two. A vaguely described system of weather control is used so that the weather remains constant. It is implied that genetic engineering has been used extensively to manipulate human beings so that they are all colorblind, and physically conform with Sameness. They even have the same color eyes, as Jonas is seen as different because of his light colored eyes.

To: All the land near the Community and around the other, similar communities clustered about the nearby river has been flattened to aid agriculture and transportation. Although the community has a salmon hatchery, all other animals have apparently been removed. Citizens' only exposure to the notion of animals is through the presence of stuffed animals, however, society has no understanding of what they represent, believing them to be simple, non-existent objects. The word "animal" is used to describe a foolish person, with no understanding of the connection between the two. A vaguely described system of climate control is used so that the weather remains constant. It is implied that genetic engineering has been used extensively to manipulate human beings so that they are all colorblind, and physically conform with Sameness. They even have the same dark eyes, as only Jonas (and a few other exceptions: Gabriel, The Giver, and a female Five/Six named Katharine) is seen as different because of his light, pale eyes.

71.111.179.123 (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Mostly done -- I'm fairly certain you wanted to link to weather control, not climate control. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.111.179.123, 24 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Change from: The novel forms a loose trilogy with Gathering Blue (2000) and Messenger (2004), two other books set in the same future era.

To: The novel forms a loose trilogy with Gathering Blue (2000) and Messenger (2004), two other books Lowry calls "companion novels," set in the same future era and general location.

71.111.179.123 (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing sites that call them companion novels and I'm seeing sites that say Lowry called them that on teenreeds.com, but I'm not seeing any links to a specific page at teenreeds and I'm not finding a page that says that on teenreeds. If you find a reference, please repost the edit requested template, or create a user profile here and edit it yourself. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.111.179.123, 24 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Change from: The Community is run by a Council of Elders that assigns each 12-year-old the job he or she will perform for the rest of his or her life, with a ceremony known as the Ceremony of Twelve, where all Elevens (eleven-year-olds) turn into Twelves. Its people are bound by an extensive set of rules touching every aspect of life, which if violated require a simple but somewhat ceremonious apology. In some cases, violating the rules is "winked at": older siblings invariably teach their younger brothers and sisters how to ride a bicycle before the children are officially permitted to learn the skill. If a member of the community has committed serious infractions three times before, he or she may be punished by "Release". "Release" is a procedure which is hinted at by the characters throughout the book. Originally, it is thought of as a process where the "Released" is sent to live outside of the community (known as Elsewhere in the book), but still in a good place. Eventually, it is revealed to be a system of euthanasia through lethal injection, employed not only as punishment, but also to ensure a monotony of means by which death occurs. The book is told from a third-person limited point of view. The protagonist, Jonas, is followed as he awaits the Ceremony of Twelve. Jonas lives in a standard family unit with his mother (a judge), his father (a "Nurturer") and his seven (later becomes eight) year old sister named Lily. As he anticipates the Ceremony of Twelve, which is the last ceremony, he has a dream. He has to tell his family unit what his dream is and he explains how he dreamed that he was in the House of the Old (where he was before), alone in the bath house with his friend Fiona. He tries to explain how in his dream he wanted her to take off her clothes so he could bathe her though he feels angry at the same time, mostly due to her laughing in the dream and feeling slightly embarrassed while telling the dream, not knowing why. After he told his family this, his mother tells him to take pills to suppress the "stirrings", or the beginning of sexual attraction, which is totally eliminated in Jonas's world, even for Birthmothers, who are impregnated via artificial insemination. When the day of the Ceremony of Twelve arrives, each of the eleven-year olds is called up by their number, which corresponds to the order in which they were born, (Jonas is nineteen) and is given their Assignments. However, the Elder skips Jonas' number and proceeds with twenty. After everyone has been given their Assignments, the Elder calls up Jonas and apologizes for the confusion. It is revealed that Jonas has been chosen to be the next Receiver of Memories. The Elder reveals to him that training will involve physical pain that the community has never felt before and that ten years ago, another selection was made but it was a failure. He is selected to be "Receiver of Memory" at the Ceremony of Twelve because of his unusual "Capacity to See-Beyond", which is the ability to see color (or in other cases, hear music, which is referred to as "hearing beyond"), which the other people in the community cannot. This is noted in the fact that Jonas has lighter colored eyes, which only a few people, such as Jonas, The Giver, Gabriel, and a six-year-old girl, have.

To (changes in "bold"): The Community is run by a Committee of Elders that assigns each 12-year-old the job--based on interests and aptitudes--he or she will perform for the rest of his or her productive working life, with a ceremony known as the Ceremony of Twelve, where all Elevens (eleven-year-olds) turn into Twelves, all the same day. Its people are bound by an extensive set of rules touching every aspect of life, which if violated require a simple but somewhat ceremonious apology. In some cases, violating the rules is "winked at": older siblings invariably teach their younger brothers and sisters how to ride a bicycle before the children are officially permitted to learn the skill. If a member of the community has committed serious infractions three times before, he or she may be punished by "Release". "Release" is a procedure which is hinted at by the characters throughout the book. Originally, it is thought of as a process where the "Released" is sent to live outside of the community (known as Elsewhere in the book), but still in a good place. Eventually, it is revealed to be a system of euthanasia through lethal injection, employed not only as punishment, but also to ensure a monotony of means by which death occurs. The book is told from a third-person limited point of view. The protagonist, Jonas, is followed as he awaits the Ceremony of Twelve. Jonas lives in a standard family unit with his mother (a judge), his father (a "Nurturer") and his seven (later becomes eight) year old sister named Lily. As he anticipates the Ceremony of Twelve, which is the last ceremony, he has a dream. He has to tell his family unit what his dream is and he explains how he dreamed that he was in the House of the Old (where he was before), alone in the bath house with his friend Fiona. He tries to explain how in his dream he wanted her to take off her clothes so he could bathe her though he feels angry at the same time, mostly due to her laughing in the dream and feeling slightly embarrassed while telling the dream, not knowing why. After he told his family this, his mother tells him to take pills to suppress the "Stirrings", or the beginning of sexual attraction, which is totally eliminated in Jonas's world, possibly even for Birthmothers, who may be impregnated via artificial insemination. When the day of the Ceremony of Twelve arrives, each of the eleven-year olds is called up by their number, which corresponds to the order in which they were born, (Jonas is nineteen) and is given their Assignment. However, the Chief Elder skips Jonas' number and proceeds with twenty. After everyone has been given their Assignment, the Chief Elder calls up Jonas and apologizes for the confusion. It is revealed that Jonas has been selected to be the next Receiver of Memories. The Chief Elder reveals to him that training will involve physical pain that the community has never felt before and that ten years ago, another selection was made but it was a failure. He is selected to be "Receiver of Memory" at the Ceremony of Twelve because of his unusual "Capacity to See-Beyond", which is the ability to see color (or in other cases, hear music, which is referred to as "hearing beyond"), which the other people in the community cannot. This is noted in the fact that Jonas has lighter eyes, which only a few people, such as Jonas, The Giver, Gabriel, and a six-year-old girl, have, rather than the dark eyes that everyone else has.

71.111.179.123 (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much done. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.111.179.123, 24 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Change from: It is revealed that Jonas has been chosen to be the next Receiver of Memories.

To: It is revealed that Jonas has been selected to be the next Receiver of Memory.

71.111.179.123 (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks.—C45207 | Talk 01:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.111.179.123, 24 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Change from: It is also said by The Giver that the previous Receiver of Memories had applied for release, and had asked if she could inject it herself. The Giver then reveals that he also has a child named Rosemary, who was the previously selected Receiver of Memories.

To: It is also said by The Giver that the previous Receiver of Memory had applied for release, and had told them that she would prefer to inject herself. The Giver then reveals that he also had a child named Rosemary, who was the previously selected Receiver of Memory.

71.111.179.123 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Done Thank you for your copy edits! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

2065

"It is set in a society in the year 2065..." I do not recall any reference in the book as to what time the story took place. Xyzabcxyzabc (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Nor do I. I removed it. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request from 5/27/12

Since my account is not old enough to be autoconfirmed, will somebody who is please fix this grammar mistake: in the first paragraph, between "speaker and lying", there should be a comma after speaker. --Thenewguy34 (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It's more a style choice than a grammar error - see Serial comma. But feel free to discuss it further and seek consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is it banned?

Perhaps a section or note on why this book is banned would be helpful...

Perhaps something that includes the following info (copied directly from http://www.abffe.org/bbw-booklist-detailed.htm#giver ):

Blue Valley School District in Kansas reviewed this futuristic novel about a young man’s growing disillusionment with an outwardly utopian society, following parent complaints that it was “lewd” and “twisted.” Parents also claimed it is “unfit for analysis by students because it is violent, sexually explicit and portrays infanticide and euthanasia.” One parent said, “This book is negative. I read it. I don't see the academic value in it. Everything presented to the kids should be positive or historical, not negative.” The novel, which has been compared to Brave New World, won the Newbery Medal in 1994. Proponents of the ban are asking that the book be removed from the entire district’s eighth grade reading list (1/6/05).

It is banned because of the killing of the baby. (By the injection). It upset some people, and they had it banned in America. xxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.167.6 (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

A book portrays infanticide as evil (that is provable), nor takes this just as excuse to portray infanticide (for it is both an integral part of the plot and an entirely plausible part of a morally, though perhaps not technically, entirely plausible dystopia), and, hey presto, some want to ban it because, surprise!, it contains infanticide.

The book is certainly negative; as are the Ten Commandments. It is negative because it negatively describes a future which has a negative attitude towards a "life full of adventure and poetical curiosity, such as (at any rate) Western man always seems to have desired" (Chesterton, Orthodoxy).

I do not mean to either praise or rebuke The Giver's value as literature (obviously its moral value can suffer only perhaps from the fact that it is very explicit in teaching morality, which at least possibly can be counterproductive); but it is praise to a book to earn criticisms of that sort. --93.135.36.29 (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Awesome Book!

i thought that this book was one of the best book that i have ever read. I really enjoyed it and would DEFINITELY recommend it to anyone who is looking for a good book. the ending is very good and sad. i love all the characters and everything that happens. except i am sad that he never gets to be with fiona (they sound like a cute couple haha) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.146.18 (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is the end sad? I think I missed a point. In my understanding he finally arrives at a Christmas party. Sad, I think, is something else... --93.135.36.29 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Alleged attack on Utopianism

Did some people suggest the book was outrightly attacking utopianism? Perhaps even political? Colipon+(T) 05:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Lois Lowry?! POLITICAL?  ;)

A little less emotionally, we are indeed in troubled times if we accuse Lois Lowry of politics for -- ! -- attacking "utopianism"?! What the hell is "utopianism"? --VKokielov 05:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Some have alledged North Korea is moving towards a Giver-like society. I don't know. It's probably crazy people with their crazy theories. Colipon+(T) 01:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to be crazy to see the parallel. If you're looking for Sameness look no further than Let's trim our hair in accordance with the socialist lifestyle. Carolynparrishfan 22:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a book with a philosophical outlook evaluating what happiness truly is, etc. etc. and evaluates attempts to attain it, and philosophy affects politics. But I don't think it was written with an ulterior motive in mind. -- Natalinasmpf 01:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe it is an attack on Utopianism... simply a warning of how a utopia can go wrong. It also asks: What is Utopia/Utopian? How far are we willing to go to achieve sameness/utopia? S II 087 7:29, 28 March 2007

Is there supposed to be some convention where all dystopian novels must have some supervillain that controls everything? We can't accuse every dystopian book without a supervillain to be an "attack." 50.131.180.143 (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Probability

Is the rather long section about the probability of having exactly 25 female and 25 male children out of 50 births each year really necessary? I don't see it adding anything to the article. -Parallel or Together? 01:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Back during the FAC process, I was told the article needed more information on how different teachers used the book. While researching this, I was impressed by the variety I found; certainly, I would never have thought to use this book for a probability lesson. Since the details of the math were available online, but only for a paying market, I decided to cook up a free version of the same discussion.

It adds what I was told to add. If anybody feels they don't need to know about it (which is certainly the reader's prerogative), they're welcome to scroll past it. [wink] Anville 10:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I just felt it was out of place, but I didn't scroll past it. I read it. Definitely an interesting way of using the book... -Parallel or Together? 10:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It was a nice section, but very out of place. I think it should be removed. Miai 12:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Another agreeing voice here. It's well written, but far more appropriate for an article on probability and mathematics. All of this information could be summed up in three or four sentences for the purposes of this lterary article. Dayv 13:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I also think it is too long/detailed. And why would a society which used infanticide to a flawed genetic engineering process to achieve population balance. Surely a few extra Releases would do it. Rmhermen 19:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and removed the largest part of it. If anyone cares to sum the contents of what I removed up in a way that would be consistent with the rest of the article, that would be great. I just thought it would be better idea to remove it and possibly insert that content again later, rather than having it take up such a large part of the article during its brief period of fame as a featured article. Miai 01:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

What about saying, "Given the normal ~50% chance of any child being a boy, there is actually only an ~11% chance that fifty births would yield 25 boys and 25 girls. Therefore it seems likely that the society uses genetic engineering to manipulate the sex of each upcoming baby and/or Releases some newborns in order to maintain the perfectly equal ratio." It'd be nice just to mention it somehow. Superm401 | Talk 13:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

When we read The Giver, our science teacher taught us how people can artifially create "designer babies". Since our english teacher liked to tease people, she gave the impression that our science teacher was going to give us "The Talk" (eek!). Anyways, that would probably be a better example of using the book in other subjects. ~Kate (I'm too lazy to log in)

I don't see how this minor problem is really an issue in a Sci-Fi book. The gender of a baby can be determined with actual science we have. the society, obviously does not leave anything to chance, and do not use the natural method of conception. Basically all the babies are test tube babies, and the mothers are most likely surrogate mothers. Forget math, it is about biology. Rds865 (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it was 24 and 26, the chance would be even smaller wouldn't it? 50.131.180.143 (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary

Please see this edit which completely changed the plot summary. Possibly it should be reverted entirely, or possibly a merging of the two versions would be preferred. I'm not familiar with the book, so cannot assist. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The Giver

To whom it concerns. I wanted ask that did u make this book when u were still young — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.174.20 (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Fourth book of the Trilogy and Son

Lois Lowry writes on his blog that (she is preparing) there will be a fourth book for the Giver trilogy, and soon after that she is preparing a book called Son. I have identified these two books, but there's no proof that they're really the same. If they turn out to be not the same, remove the references to Son from here, and edit Lois Lowry as well. If you want to ask Lois Lowry (eg. in email) about whether they're the same, and willing to report back, please mark back here so she does not get multiple queries about the same thing. – b_jonas 10:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the latest entry of the same blog confirms that Son is indeed the fourth book of the Giver trilogy, so the above is now moot. I'll add a reference in the articles. – b_jonas 12:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering, how can a trilogy have four books? Shouldn't that be changed?--ZigZagZoug (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Giver series is named 'Quartet' so it is technically not a trilogy and yes, it should be changed. If I am not wrong, it has already been done so. L. Zheng Wei (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC) 13:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Plot Summary

The beginning of the Plot summary states that "two way speakers monitor every house for rule infractions." The speakers, (which are not cameras), do not "monitor" anything. You are only subjected to things by them if someone tries to contact you or it's a community bulletin or something. It's not like Nineteen Eighty-four. I'm removing that part.

Yoda921 10:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Yoda

Actually, you're incorrect about this. The protagonist rarely considers it directly, but when he first meets the Giver in his office, he sees the Giver flip the switch on his speaker to "off" and he is amazed that there IS a switch at all, and at "the power" (his exact words) inherent in being able to control whether the intercom is able to listen in or not.

--Jrssystemsnet (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Why take away?

Why did you take this reference away? Where shall I put this reference then? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Even the article Animal Farm doesn't do this. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It is doubtful that this reference meets the criteria for a reliable secondary source. Also, no secondary sources are needed for a book plot, as the book itself can be used as a primary source for the synopsis. Furthermore, your link to cassette tape is incorrect because this is not an audio recording described in the book. Elizium23 (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Grammatical error or intentional?

Given the edit history of this page, I'm putting this here rather than changing it myself.

I'm not sure if it's intentional or an error, but it seems to me that the two possessives in the first paragraph should have been written as singular rather than plural: i.e. "society's" rather than "societies'" and "community's" rather than "communities'".

Should this be corrected? BruceME (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Translations

What languages has The Giver been translated into? Which countries has the book been popular in? How has this book been received differently in various cultures?-71.174.183.177 (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Plot Summary- Ending

We should keep the plot summary as is, before Doubletoasted01 edits. The ending is ambiguous and the author's response to the ambiguous ending are best kept in the plot section. Unless we want to edit the ending plot section to something more like: "Jonas, as he lay freezing in the snow with the infant Gabriel, has a final vision of sledding down a hill toward a brightly lit house filled with warmth, love and music."--Knulclunk (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Giver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120401012843/http://www.mnopera.org:80/TheGiver? to http://www.mnopera.org/thegiver

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Why it is unbalanced

The second paragraph is subject to spin. It shows only the good side of the book and no criticism. It could be reworded to be more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.177.25 (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the paragraph does a good job not being biased Even if it's slightly leaning towards the good sideYellowLE333 (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You can't just put criticism there, as it will just discourage people reading the book. You don't want that to happen, do you? KangisLOL (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Rosemary

Under the plot summary, it is stated that Rosemary was the Giver's daughter, and that this "fact" was a revelation, reading almost like some sort of plot twist.

"The Giver then reveals that he also had a child named Rosemary, who was the previously selected Receiver of Memory."

However, I don't see how it can be explicitly stated that the two were in fact literally father and daughter. In this society, the people do not father their own children. The children are born of designated birth mothers, with some unknown amount of genetic engineering thrown in, and then raised by foster parents. Did the Giver track down his own sperm, and trace it to this particular girl? We don't know.

I think this part of the book should be left open to interpretation, and not stated in the summary as a revelation. The Giver referring to Rosemary as his daughter can just as easily be a metaphorical statement of the deep love he felt for Rosemary, much like the love that had developed between Jonas and the Giver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrrmv (talk • contribs) 01:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an apt observation! An illustration of how the book is in many ways a tangled, confused mess; no definite, clear understanding/explanation can be obtained from the contents. As an impressionistic fantasy, it can be an interesting exploration of some profound ideas and questions about life. But although it is specific enough to invite attempts to understand the details, they don't actually make consistent sense in the end. -71.174.183.177 (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)\

The Giver said Rosemary was his daughter, whatever that means.2601:640:4080:3CC0:D092:420:4319:33B0 (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The only other thing is that the Giver discusses what Jonas would need to do if he took a wife and wanted to raise children. There's no reference to Rosemary, or to the Giver's past life, that settles it one way or the other. For example, the Giver said that Rosemary did not go to her dwelling on the day she died. The Giver likely sleeps at his workplace now, but we do not know whether he always did. His spouse, after all, could not have slept in the bed in the alcove, because that would give her access to the books. Possibly the Giver once lived in a house in the Community, but withdrew to his office after Rosemary's death. Even that wouldn't prove, one way or another, that Rosemary was the girl baby given to him to raise. And also remember that the Giver is capable of using the term "daughter" as inexact speech. The answer is insufficient information, and I suspect the author made it that way on purpose.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Giver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080501024447/http://www.loc.gov/loc/cfbook/one-book.html to http://www.loc.gov/loc/cfbook/one-book.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207031123/http://www.fisherandfrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/rt-read-alouds.pdf to http://www.fisherandfrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/rt-read-alouds.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Giver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606203306/http://www.latino-review.com/news/new-trailer-hits-for-the-giver to http://www.latino-review.com/news/new-trailer-hits-for-the-giver
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120904000903/http://www.cathla.org/awards/regina-medal/128-regina-medal-recipients to http://www.cathla.org/awards/regina-medal/128-regina-medal-recipients

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Dystopian fiction

The 1st link to dystopia should link to dystopian fiction. 71.198.89.109 (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Gangster8192 01:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

2nd link Dystopian

The 2nd link ("dystopian") should point to dystopia not dystopian fiction

 Done Cannolis (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

My Name Is Jonas

Weezer song is inspired by book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.208.237.104 (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Audio reading removal/revision

There have been many, many changes to the article. Since the current audio reading in the article was recorded and posted in 2005, it should be removed or remade, because it is not that relevant anymore. PeterPrettyCool (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2020

Change age to 11-12 years old instead of 12 years old.Jonas is never said to be 12 years old, it is just assumed because all babies born in the same year all became ones at the same time. It says in the giver book. Henri245 (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)