第三名
姓  名 楊森崴 學  校 高雄市立高雄中學 年  級 二 年 十 班

 

 

The Giver

Be careful what you wish for. In the novel The Giver, author Lois Lowry presents an ostensibly flourishing version of human society, a utopia in which exists “[a] life where nothing [is] ever unexpected. Or inconvenient. Or unusual. [A] life without colour, pain or past.” While it is immediately noticeable that this world is not the one we are used to, the harmony experienced by its residents lends desirability to the off-kilter nature of this world. Lowry understands that a place where such consonance exists would appeal to most people, yet the reader knows well that something must be lurking under the surface. What is lurking under the surface points to what I believe is the crux of Lowry’s commentary on both her utopia and concept of utopia generally: What would we have to change to live together in perfect harmony?

Would we have to relinquish emotions? A by-product of humans living in harmony is the reduction of self-interest, and what better way to get rid of this self-interest than to remove the emotions? One way this is done in the novel is by requiring all residents of this society to start taking a pill each day at the onset of puberty to get rid of “the Stirrings”. Although this name appears to be a euphemism for sexual attraction, the pill also seems to reduce pleasure in general. Such a function would be helpful to control the masses in a utopia, but as Lowry shows time and time again throughout the book, it would not likely be a place where we would want to live.

Would we have to change our speech? In the world of The Giver, verbal self expression is constantly censored under the guise of “precision of language”. At times, this demand for precision has a reputable side. For example, at the age of four, the main character, Jonas, is chastised for saying that he is “starving” instead of “hungry”. This exaggeration is viewed by the community as a lie, and this is fair enough. However, the language of emotion had also been changed to reflect the absence of emotion inflicted on members of this society. When Jonas asks his father if he loves him and his father brings up precision of language instead, Jonas’ mother responds to Jonas: “Your father means that you used a very generalized word, so meaningless that it has become almost obsolete.” Not only would speech in a true utopia likely need to be censored to ensure an absence of offense, but some of the words we hold most dear, words expressing love and beauty, might no longer have meaning due to the extent of our oppression.

Would we have to compromise our humanity? In The Giver, all members of society are expected to be productive and compliant. When this does not occur, they are “released”. In the world of The Giver and indeed of any utopia, something has to be done with people who were threatening the system. “Release” in The Giver means murder, be it an infant who fails to thrive or an older person who becomes a burden to society. Although murder would not be necessary per se in a real utopia, The Giver makes the reader think more deeply about this unavoidable aspect of utopia and wonder what in fact would be required. If not murder, then what? Banishment? Prison? How is utopia “perfect” when humans are still made to suffer?

It is safe to say the knee-jerk reaction of most people when asked if they would like to live in a utopia would be a positive one. Being that as it may, deeper analysis of any proposed utopia quickly reveals flaws in its execution. Perhaps mankind is too selfish to live together in true peace, or perhaps upon further thought, we care more for our own experiences in life than we do for those of others. While The Giver shows but one notion of what a true utopia could look like, it makes us think more about what is truly most important to us and what we are really willing to give up for unity.