![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly(It's the second if you don't count Gathering Blue, of course.)
I read The Giver in middle school*, and enjoyed it enough even through the glaring plot holes and the fact that Lois Lowry really can NOT do basic math. I did like Gathering Blue, still do. But the only redeeming part of Messenger is that it allowed me to say "Hah!" in my head to my English teacher who didn't like my view that Jonas *could* have survived, the ending might *not* be totally allegorical.
So I was dubious about Son, but since it's being billed as the conclusion and I always do like finishing what I start, I decided to try it out.
The book can be divided into three parts. There's the part that takes place in the community more or less at the same time as The Giver, there's the part that happens when our main character leaves the community in response to Jonas fleeing, and there's the part that joins up with Messenger.
I really, really loathed Messenger. Overbearing symbolism, oppressive religious themes, literal devil walking around being literal - ugh. There's more of the same in the third part of the book. Not worth it.
The second part of the book, since I'm working backwards here, is pretty much what Jonas' leaving would've been like if he hadn't already had some idea what he was getting into. Interestingly, although Jonas went one way and went through a whole host of communities that presumably are just like his own and run on the same pattern, Claire went the other way and only had a short boat ride and a storm before she landed among strangers living a more primitive lifestyle. Question: Obviously these people trade with Jonas' community, so why haven't they at any point tried to trade for the significantly more advanced technology? This question will never be addressed or answered. Other question: Since they *do* trade with outsiders, why don't they *actually* give away their reject babies and criminals, at least when it's convenient to do so?
The first part was by far the most interesting because it cleared up some questions about The Giver, while raising so many more. And at any rate, it should solve all those people complaining that the mere existence of "Birthmothers" in a dystopia means that Lois Lowry hates motherhood. It won't, but it should.
Apparently somebody pointed out that the math doesn't work for reproduction and it's stated clearly that multiple girls become Birthmothers at any given year. Which is great... except that the numbers still don't work out right unless *most* girls become Birthmothers. And apparently no thought is given to their careers after the fact other than "they'll go wherever we need a space". It's not "You'll do your interest after a stint having babies", which would be reasonably consistent.
Unfortunately, even within the first part, things don't always hang together, especially if you try to combine it with The Giver like you should. It's a story that works as a short allegory, but not really as a four book (three book?) series.
* Please, middle school teachers, resist the trend to assign your kids only meaningfully uplifting, aka "depressing" books to read. That's bad enough in high school and college without pushing it onto younger kids. There are plenty of good, quality books out there that promote thought and discussion without ending in tears. It's not that I'm against sad books for kids, I just think that when it comes to school assignments they should have some more variety. And since they probably won't get that variety from their other teachers, please, let it start with you!
I read The Giver in middle school*, and enjoyed it enough even through the glaring plot holes and the fact that Lois Lowry really can NOT do basic math. I did like Gathering Blue, still do. But the only redeeming part of Messenger is that it allowed me to say "Hah!" in my head to my English teacher who didn't like my view that Jonas *could* have survived, the ending might *not* be totally allegorical.
So I was dubious about Son, but since it's being billed as the conclusion and I always do like finishing what I start, I decided to try it out.
The book can be divided into three parts. There's the part that takes place in the community more or less at the same time as The Giver, there's the part that happens when our main character leaves the community in response to Jonas fleeing, and there's the part that joins up with Messenger.
I really, really loathed Messenger. Overbearing symbolism, oppressive religious themes, literal devil walking around being literal - ugh. There's more of the same in the third part of the book. Not worth it.
The second part of the book, since I'm working backwards here, is pretty much what Jonas' leaving would've been like if he hadn't already had some idea what he was getting into. Interestingly, although Jonas went one way and went through a whole host of communities that presumably are just like his own and run on the same pattern, Claire went the other way and only had a short boat ride and a storm before she landed among strangers living a more primitive lifestyle. Question: Obviously these people trade with Jonas' community, so why haven't they at any point tried to trade for the significantly more advanced technology? This question will never be addressed or answered. Other question: Since they *do* trade with outsiders, why don't they *actually* give away their reject babies and criminals, at least when it's convenient to do so?
The first part was by far the most interesting because it cleared up some questions about The Giver, while raising so many more. And at any rate, it should solve all those people complaining that the mere existence of "Birthmothers" in a dystopia means that Lois Lowry hates motherhood. It won't, but it should.
Apparently somebody pointed out that the math doesn't work for reproduction and it's stated clearly that multiple girls become Birthmothers at any given year. Which is great... except that the numbers still don't work out right unless *most* girls become Birthmothers. And apparently no thought is given to their careers after the fact other than "they'll go wherever we need a space". It's not "You'll do your interest after a stint having babies", which would be reasonably consistent.
Unfortunately, even within the first part, things don't always hang together, especially if you try to combine it with The Giver like you should. It's a story that works as a short allegory, but not really as a four book (three book?) series.
* Please, middle school teachers, resist the trend to assign your kids only meaningfully uplifting, aka "depressing" books to read. That's bad enough in high school and college without pushing it onto younger kids. There are plenty of good, quality books out there that promote thought and discussion without ending in tears. It's not that I'm against sad books for kids, I just think that when it comes to school assignments they should have some more variety. And since they probably won't get that variety from their other teachers, please, let it start with you!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-10-26 06:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-26 08:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-27 03:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-26 10:14 pm (UTC)If a person of any age doesn't already love reading -- then the first duty of a teacher is to show him something he will love to read. Once the habit is established, then he'll muddle on into the more 'worthwhile' things eventually. If you turn him off reading itself (by forcing sad or difficult books on him), then he'll never read much of anything at all.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-27 06:10 pm (UTC)I say, the teachers can just stop assigning all these 'meaningful' books in which people are subjected to violence, abuse and emotional trauma. That includes in high school and college - it's not okay to say "Oh, you're 18 now, so you 'should' be able to read highly-triggering material without being triggered by it."
Seriously, it's not even a matter of the books being 'sad' - though 'sad' can be bad enough. But these days the 'meaningful' books cover the entire range of terrible things that can and do happen to real people, and while these may be wonderfully validating to kids who've lived through those terrible things, inflicting them on kids who haven't is abusive. The world is full of wonderful books in which terrible things are NOT happening to innocent people in graphic detail; let the teachers stick to those.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-27 06:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-27 07:14 pm (UTC)Forcing someone to witness harm done to another is doing harm to that person. That is abuse, and it is unacceptable. Why is it all right to make children read about people being subjected to violence and abuse, but NOT okay for them to read about people having a lovely time in bed together, even if they're married? By damn, it's not all right with me.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-28 01:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-28 04:26 am (UTC)The list is incomplete, I can think of a few more without major character (or pet) deaths in them, so even if the school uses the exact same criteria as the Newbery awards (I always spell it wrong as well) by drawing ONLY from that booklist they should be able to cobble together a middle school booklist that's not morbid. Why people insist and insist on not doing so, I just don't understand.