Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Post #6: Book 3 Listicle


Five positives of the society in The Giver that are actually flaws

Every dystopian novel is an expression from the author of what the world might look like after its destruction. Like Divergent and Hunger Games, the fairness and control that the government is trying to maintain is in fact an exaggeration what life might be like; The Giver is no exception. Despite the utopia that the character's attempt to create, nothing can achieve this perfection.

1. Politeness is the law

If someone comes across as rude, there is a customary apology and response that everyone in the town uses.  The main character Jonas is given memories by The Giver, so he is the only one that knows honest emotions. During a fight, Jonas’ best friend, Asher grumbles, “I apologize for not paying you the respect you deserve” (Lowry 134). To which Jonas (who knows that Asher could never understand how true emotions feels) wearily says, “I accept your apology, Asher” (Lowry 135).

2. All children are educated in the exact same way

Equal education sounds incredible. All children are given the same chance and environment to learn and grow. However, a world without options for education results in everyone learning to think in the exact same way. Examples from The Giver include: every child goes to the same daycare, every child goes to the same school, as the children grow up they will go through the ceremony of One, Two, Three etc., during each ceremony an age signifying gift is given to them like front-buttoning coats or a bicycle, and finally they graduate from the ceremony of twelve to be put in a chosen job training. Since every child has the exact same process there is no further opportunities to learn through a specific learning style or going away to a college to think differently.

3. Everyone is placed into a job that they will likely succeed at

Playing to everyone’s strengths is the goal of job placement. However, there are many negatives to this system. A person may be placed into a job they hate. A certain percentage of the population always is down casted to be a Laborer. The job is given to a child at twelve where most people don’t have a clear idea of their interests or identities. For example, the most important job of being the Receiver of all memories of the past was given to a girl that couldn’t handle the pressure of her role and left the society.

4. Everything is safe

Meaning there are rules for everything. Accidental deaths are very low in the society in The Giver, but at what cost to its inhabitants? Childhood is very structured, and there no opportunity for children to experience pain or suffering. These experiences are necessary to being human. Everything is safe to the point that if a twin infant is born with a slightly lower weight, the smaller baby is immediately released (killed) in order to ensure the very best quality of life (Lowry 149).

5. The Old are sent to a facility that gives them the care that they need

The best care for the elderly, but if a person becomes unstable they are immediately released. Almost as bad as premature death is that the Old are not living in the same area as the rest of society. All of their wisdom and knowledge is trapped inside the facility they live in with only their caretakers to listen to them. A society without knowing about grandparents (Lowry 124) allows for history and mistakes to repeat themselves especially because most of the histories only exist in the mind of The Giver who is only allowed to share it with the receiver.

Bottom line:

Everything seems good with control. But, as most communist nations could testify, a life of control is not really living as a human. Humans need free will, room to be creative, and the ability to make mistake and learn from them. The society in The Giver may produce momentary peace, but it is far from perfection.
Work Cited
Lowry, Lois. The Giver. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993. Print.

 

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Post #5: Non-fiction


To be considered a work of non-fiction, a book has to be 100% true. Well, unless there are plot holes in a memoir, then the author can fill in some of the details. So, maybe 90%. Also, dialogue can’t be remembered word for word. So, 85% is close enough to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I mean there was no way for Susannah Cahalan, author of Brain of Fire to remember exact conversations when her insane month living a medical mystery involved psychosis and extreme paranoia.

So, really non-fiction needs to be as true as possible (within the author’s power). Main characters, key plot pieces, and relative timeline of a story should be reflected accurately in the work. All other liberties the author chooses to take must be at least addressed in an author’s note or preface to the book. It seems wrong to mislead your readers if that isn’t what actually happened. Non-fiction is essentially a trust exercise between the author and reader. The reader expects the real story. The author wants to give the reader a good story. Both sides have positives.

The intended genre for a book really needs to be clear. To David Shields: sorry, not sorry. For non-fiction, the author needs to give mostly facts with roughly 15% half-truths. It’s basically all true. Pretty much. I mean everyone is human. Anything claiming to be “based on a true story” can be a lot more lax on the facts. As long as some aspects of the story resembles the original plot. It’s not non-fiction but it isn’t completely made up. Presenting a story is very different from teaching a history lesson. An example would be The Help by Kathryn Stockett. Creative non-fiction is just a genre made up by authors who don’t want to admit how much they made up: Truman Capote we are looking at you.

Readers deserve to know what they are getting themselves into. Reading is an emotional investment. As long as the author make the genre clear or explains changes facts, I guess it’s ok. Besides isn't all truth relative?