The Giver by Lois Lowry

The Giver is a book some say that everyone should read. It's a book that brings up ideas of what life could be like if mankind gave up on certain ideas that so far most people believe are essential. Ideas like personal freedom, creativity, and human rights are nonexistant in the world of The Giver. What would life be like without these most basic things? Well,  Lowry tries to tell us in her novel.

This is the story of Jonas, a 12-year-old boy who is chosen to be the receiver of all the memories of all the ages. The Giver is an old man who has held these memories for the people so that they do not have to experience things like war, illness, loneliness, greed, or many other unpleasant, painful emotions and physical weaknesses. But by taking away memory for all, this also means that the Giver is the only one who holds the good memories, too; memories of pleasure such as sledding down a hill on a wintry day, feelings of love and companionship, feelings of joy or success. All of these have been given up by the people for all time so that their society can be "happy" and "productive" without any conflict whatsoever. Jonas, then, is to be the new holder of all of this, good and bad. The question becomes this: once Jonas knows the fundamental truths of life, such as how the people of this community are "released" from society, can he handle it? Will he see utopia as just that, or will he wish to put back all the memories so that the people can once again feel all that there is, and be all that they can be?

Lowry's book is a fascinating study in society that made me eternally grateful for things like free will, democracy, religion, individual creativity, and the joy that can come from daily living. In Jonas' world, people can't even see in color, their job is chosen for them, they don't choose their own clothes, and they don't keep their own babies to raise. There really is nothing except for the community and its ongoing peacefulness. When someone loses his usefulness or is not seen as a good addition to the community, they are "released" by the others.

Some find the book too ambiguous because it does leave almost everything up for interpretation. This didn't bother me too much until the end. The ending, too, is ambiguous, and this always bothers me a lot. I like a novel to "end." I like to sit and wonder about characters and places, but I don't like to wonder about what the author thinks happens to them. The author should know, right, so why can't she tell us?

To me, the big question in the book is this: If we know nothing of pain or sorrow, can we really feel joy to its fullest? If there is no evil, can we clearly see the good in people? If the plan is a contant status quo, can there ever be improvement? My answer to all of these is "no." What would your answer be?