I loved the Giver.

[conuly]

Well, I did when I read it first. Eventually, I saw some serious logical problems with it - for example, it's implied that only one person can take a certain job every year. If that's the case, there can only be one Birthmother every year - and there's no way, if each Birthmother has three children, that they can have 50 children yearly. But really, I digress.

If you're going to complain about a book, do so logically. It does no good to complain that a book promotes euthanasia when, in fact, the main character decides to leave the safety of the village in order to protect somebody from this fate. And it certainly makes no sense to call it especially anti-male when women are shown in no special positions of authority.

Comments

[cumaeansibyl.livejournal.com]

I think maybe it's that only one person from any given subgroup of children can take a certain job every year, and that there are several subgroups in a community -- also that the people from previous groups may still be around. But I dunno.

[conuly]

In that case, there's no way that each subgroup can have 50 children yearly.

[eofs.livejournal.com]

Wow, that review makes very little sense. I must say I like:

After reading this book I am very concerned about the type of a future our young people, who have been brain washed with this philosophy, will enforce upon future generations. Reading this book has caused me to remember a movie seen in childhood called HITLER"S CHILDREN. Ideas from scenes in that movie are reflected in this book, The Giver. History relates well what one man (Adolph Hitler) did with such ideas.

It summarises to:

1) This book will make people who read it take the ideas and enforce them in the future
2) The ideas remind me of ideas I saw as a child in a film
3) Hitler killed people (I call Godwin's law)

Yet there's no mention of her exposure to ideas at such a young age leading her to try and recreate the Holocaust.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

I love how it doesn't seem to occur to people that The Giver is an example of a bad society. I understood that when I read it in fifth grade, but maybe children have better logic skills than adults do.

I think the reviewer gave himself away when he said "godless."

And then I read the section on feminism. No wonder that nitwit didn't get the point of the book. I don't think said nitwit would get the point if it poked his eyes out.

[hopefulnebula]

You gotten to this part yet? Somebody'd better tell the people in Childfree that they're all gonna get breast cancer! *rolleyes*

[hopefulnebula]

What gets me is "his *unnatural* father." So they're against adoption too?

[wodhaund.livejournal.com]

AHA!

I remember reading that book years and years ago, but I COULD NOT for the life of me remember the title! ;____;! Thanking you!

[azarias.livejournal.com]

Have you looked around the rest of this guy's site? Comedy gold.

Like the section on date rape. (http://www.trosch.org/the/daterape.htm#feminism)

Whether the use of restricted force -- without a threat being made -- would be considered rape, could be considered dependant upon the presence of the following considerations in relation to the female:

# Was she in the stage of her cycle wherein she was giving off pheromone's?

That's right, girls. Ovulation's punishable by rape.

[l33tminion]

"Her ovaries were asking for it?" Oy, vey...

[conuly]

Yeah, and his balls were just begging to be punched.

[l33tminion]

Some people merely don't get the difference that there is a difference between depiction and promotion, fiction and indoctrination, fantasy and fact. It's no coincidence that that sort of person is usually very religious...

[sporks5000.livejournal.com]

1) Talk about paranoia! I though the whole point of this book was that it was supposed to be a negative-utopia (dystopia?) for children. It was supposed to fit in with all the great classics such as 1984 and Brave New World which send the glaring message "DEAR GOD! WHAT EVER HAPPENS DO NOT LET OUR SOCIETY BECOME LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!![this space intentionally left blank] !!!!!!!!" It follows all the classic plot points of such:

a. Main character is part of a society
b. main character has an awakening where he/she realizes that he/she does not want to be part of this society any longer.
c. Main character attempts to leave the society and fails in a way that is at best unsatisfying and at worst devastating.
d. The society continues to thrive.

2) And feministic? Where do get even the most remote idea that the society is feministic in any way? I read this book earlier this year and have no recollection of any females in any positions of power what so ever, and yet this person goes on about the society being totally feministic. As if there's anything particularly wrong with that in the first place!

3) I recall children talking about reading it when I was younger and I remember them discussing how the society in the book was bad and wrong. Clearly children who read the book are far better equipped to understand the point that the author was trying to make than the person who wrote this review.

As a side note, I'd bet that this person is one of the people who insist that Harry Potter is specifically anti-Christian despite it's complete lack of mentioning Christians what so ever with the exception of Christmas which is usually portrayed as rather pleasant.

[cumaeansibyl.livejournal.com]

I think maybe it's that only one person from any given subgroup of children can take a certain job every year, and that there are several subgroups in a community -- also that the people from previous groups may still be around. But I dunno.

[conuly]

In that case, there's no way that each subgroup can have 50 children yearly.

[eofs.livejournal.com]

Wow, that review makes very little sense. I must say I like:

After reading this book I am very concerned about the type of a future our young people, who have been brain washed with this philosophy, will enforce upon future generations. Reading this book has caused me to remember a movie seen in childhood called HITLER"S CHILDREN. Ideas from scenes in that movie are reflected in this book, The Giver. History relates well what one man (Adolph Hitler) did with such ideas.

It summarises to:

1) This book will make people who read it take the ideas and enforce them in the future
2) The ideas remind me of ideas I saw as a child in a film
3) Hitler killed people (I call Godwin's law)

Yet there's no mention of her exposure to ideas at such a young age leading her to try and recreate the Holocaust.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

I love how it doesn't seem to occur to people that The Giver is an example of a bad society. I understood that when I read it in fifth grade, but maybe children have better logic skills than adults do.

I think the reviewer gave himself away when he said "godless."

And then I read the section on feminism. No wonder that nitwit didn't get the point of the book. I don't think said nitwit would get the point if it poked his eyes out.

[hopefulnebula]

You gotten to this part yet? Somebody'd better tell the people in Childfree that they're all gonna get breast cancer! *rolleyes*

[hopefulnebula]

What gets me is "his *unnatural* father." So they're against adoption too?

[wodhaund.livejournal.com]

AHA!

I remember reading that book years and years ago, but I COULD NOT for the life of me remember the title! ;____;! Thanking you!

[azarias.livejournal.com]

Have you looked around the rest of this guy's site? Comedy gold.

Like the section on date rape. (http://www.trosch.org/the/daterape.htm#feminism)

Whether the use of restricted force -- without a threat being made -- would be considered rape, could be considered dependant upon the presence of the following considerations in relation to the female:

# Was she in the stage of her cycle wherein she was giving off pheromone's?

That's right, girls. Ovulation's punishable by rape.

[l33tminion]

"Her ovaries were asking for it?" Oy, vey...

[conuly]

Yeah, and his balls were just begging to be punched.

[l33tminion]

Some people merely don't get the difference that there is a difference between depiction and promotion, fiction and indoctrination, fantasy and fact. It's no coincidence that that sort of person is usually very religious...

[sporks5000.livejournal.com]

1) Talk about paranoia! I though the whole point of this book was that it was supposed to be a negative-utopia (dystopia?) for children. It was supposed to fit in with all the great classics such as 1984 and Brave New World which send the glaring message "DEAR GOD! WHAT EVER HAPPENS DO NOT LET OUR SOCIETY BECOME LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!![this space intentionally left blank] !!!!!!!!" It follows all the classic plot points of such:

a. Main character is part of a society
b. main character has an awakening where he/she realizes that he/she does not want to be part of this society any longer.
c. Main character attempts to leave the society and fails in a way that is at best unsatisfying and at worst devastating.
d. The society continues to thrive.

2) And feministic? Where do get even the most remote idea that the society is feministic in any way? I read this book earlier this year and have no recollection of any females in any positions of power what so ever, and yet this person goes on about the society being totally feministic. As if there's anything particularly wrong with that in the first place!

3) I recall children talking about reading it when I was younger and I remember them discussing how the society in the book was bad and wrong. Clearly children who read the book are far better equipped to understand the point that the author was trying to make than the person who wrote this review.

As a side note, I'd bet that this person is one of the people who insist that Harry Potter is specifically anti-Christian despite it's complete lack of mentioning Christians what so ever with the exception of Christmas which is usually portrayed as rather pleasant.