The Virtue of Gratitude in the Novels The Giver and All Summer in a Day
People ought to be grateful for what they have, typically they think their world should be greater, however, the one thing that they don’t recognize is that it doesn’t last forever. Once they recognize those nice things in their life, it’s already gone. In ” The Giver” and ” All Summer in a Day” each author develops a strong perspective (Perspective offers a unique outlook on how our self being grateful to what we have) about being grateful. Both authors develop this perspective through dialogue and imagery, which are intended to make the reader consider the importance of the concept, being grateful for what you have cause nothing lasts forever. One day it could all change, people should be cherished and happy with what they have now.
Lois Lowry develops the concept of being grateful in “The Giver” with the craft of imagery and tone. “From the distance, Jonas could hear the thud of cannons. Overwhelmed by pain, he lay there in the fearsome stench for hours, listened to the men and animals die, and learned what warfare meant,” (Lowry, 151). This illustrates the idea because Jonas was very grateful that he has never been through such pain in his community. The purpose of using this author’s craft to develop the theme is that through imagery the author can describe the pain of the men and animals. The impact on the readers is that it tells them just how agonizing the memories were/are. “Jonas frowned. ‘I wish we had those things, still, just now and then,’” (Lowry, 106). This illustrates the notion because Jonas wants more color and choice. He wishes his life could be more colorful than before, but still, he is grateful for what he has. The reason why the author used this device is that she wants to use tone to show how Jonas wanted and he wished they could have color in their community. But he was still very grateful. The effect on the readers is that it makes them grateful for what they have.
All Summer in a Day
After discussing Lois Lowry’s “The Giver” we’re looking forward to “All Summer in a Day” by Ray Bradbury. For the most part, Bradbury used imagery and tone for the craft, the same as Lois Lowry. “A few cold drops fell on their noses and their cheeks and their mouths. The sun faded behind a stir of mist. A wind blew cold around them. They turned and started to walk back toward the underground house, their hands cut their sides, their smiles vanishing away,”(Bradbury,4).
The author used this craft with evidence to connect the concept. The sun was shining in the sky replacing the “forever” rain, the kids thought that rain would never end. It shows that nothing lasts forever, we should be grateful while things are still there. Using imagery, the author describes the scene putting the readers in the children’s shoes. The second author’s craft is tone. “But Margot remembered. ‘It’s like a penny,’ she said once, eyes closed. ‘No it’s not!’ the children cried. ‘It’s like a fire,’ she said, ‘in the stove.’ ‘You’re lying, you don’t remember!’ cried the children,”(Bradbury 2). This illustrates the idea because Margot was being grateful that she has memories of the sun that other people lack. The purpose of using this author’s craft to develop the concept is that by using tone the author can show how excited and grateful Margot is. She is so grateful and happy to have memories of the sun.
The reason why each author uses different author’s craft is that they want to make the story more interesting and special. If the author just used one author’s craft it would be very boring and the reader won’t be that attentive. If the author chose a different craft, it wouldn’t have much difference because it would still get the concept across, it’d just give readers a different feel. The effect of imagery in “The Giver” is that it tells us how painful the memories were and to be grateful for what we have. The effect of tone in “The Giver” is that Jonas is grateful, even when he really wishes they had color. The effect of imagery in “All Summer in a Day” is showing what it must have been like to have a fleeting moment of happiness and making the reader grateful for what they have. The effect of tone in “All Summer in a Day” is that it touches the reader with how a young girl cares so much for her fleeting memories and is still so grateful. Using author craft is very beneficial for you; it can make the story alluring and it can help the writer better connect the story with their main concept.
Being grateful is a very important part of our lives. In ” The Giver” and ” All Summer in a Day” both authors develop the perspective of being grateful for what you have when nothing lasts forever through the author crafts of dialogue and imagery. You should always cherish what you have instead of longing for more.
The Theme Of Inequality in The Giver By Lois Lowry
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a Russian novelist, “Human beings are born with different capacities, if they are free, they are not equal”. The author of The Giver, Lois Lowry, displays this message across the whole book.
The main character, Jonas gets the job of the receiver, he has to replay messages. There are many dangers of seeking a perfectly equal world, In the book, Fiona’s hair is different, Jonas’s dad does not know what love means, and kids are not allowed to choose which job they want.
By seeking a perfectly equal world, people lose individuality. By losing individuality, someone loses how to express themselves. In The Giver Fiona’s red hair sets her apart from everybody else. This is considered “different” because people living in this community don’t see color. The community focuses on being equal, Jonas notes that: “We’ve mastered Sameness. I suppose the genetic scientists are still hard at work trying to work the kinks out. Hair like Fiona’s must drive them crazy. ” Clearly, the community wants everything the same. Individuality is important for people to express themselves. Expressing yourself is important because then one will be different than everyone else
The poem by Julio Noboa Polanco expresses the importance of individuality by expressing, “I’d rather be unseen, and if shunned by everyone, than to be a pleasant-smelling flower. ” By seeking a perfectly equal world, people lose independence. It is clear that a loss of individuality would occur by seeking a perfectly equal world. Wanting an equal world results in people having no freedom, which leads to a loss of choice. In The Giver the kids in the community can’t pick which jobs they want. People in the community don’t get choices. The narrator says this quote: “Jonas shrugged. It didn’t worry him. How could someone not fit in? The community was so meticulously ordered, the choices so carefully made. ” This quote shows the reader that choices are made for them. If the people in the community can choose what they want to do, then they would be happier.
Lastly, people who want the world equal have no feelings. By losing feelings, one doesn’t know how to react to situations. In The Giver when Jonas asks his dad if he loves him, he asks him to use precision of language. In the Giver, people in the community don’t have feelings. “Do you love me? There was an awkward silence for a moment. Then Father gave a little chuckle. Jonas. You, of all people. Precision of language, please!”. This quote shows the reader that people in the community eliminated all feelings. By having the feeling of love, people would be able to express how they love someone.
By seeking a perfectly equal world, there are many disadvantages therefore it is a bad thing. The author, Lois Lowry, wrote this book to show people that we don’t all have to be the same. Everyone is different which is a good thing. Being equal does not have to mean everyone has to be the exact same person.
Comparative Analysis Of The Movie And Original Book “The Giver” By Lois Lowry And
There are many differences between movies that are created by using inspiration from books and the original book. We wonder why they do this, is it to make it more interesting or to add suspense to the audience? Every movie uses inspiration in many different ways.
The giver novel written by Lois Lowry and the movie directed by Phillip Noyce shows many differences. For example Jonas, Asher and Fiona are way older in the movie than the book and show a lot more maturity. Jonas is sixteen instead of twelve in the “ceremony of twelves”. The producers most likely added this change to make the movie more romantic and keep the audience on the edge of their seats. While reading the book you get a mental image of the community being very poor, old and having a very rustic feel. The movie on the other hand is very futuristic, modern and contains technological advancements. For example in the book when Jonas started to get stirrings he had to swallow a pill and in the movie there is an electronic injector that injects them with medicine through their wrists, it will alert them if they forget to take it unlike the pill. The community also had drones and hidden cameras.
In the book Jonas was different from the others and stood out because of his “funny eyes” that him, The Giver and Gabriel shared, in the movie they had identifiable birthmarks on their right wrists, this was how Jonas was determined to be different. Their birthmarks is also where the medicine was injected. When jonas would go to the giver to receive memories in the movie the giver would grab Jonas by his forearms and that’s how to memories would be transferred. In the book Jonas would lay on a table and the giver would press his hands on jonas back to give him the memories. The movie producers most likely did this to make the moment look way more intense and focused. The Giver is very different character in the book and movie, He’s a lot friendlier in the book and doesn’t seem so depressed and grouchy and The Giver doesn’t butt heads with the Chief Elder in the book like he does in the movie. The novel also makes it very noticeable and dramatic that the Giver loses each memory when he transfers it to Jonas, but in the movie it seems that the Giver still has the memories he shares with him. A lot of the memories we saw Jonas receive are different from the book’s versions. Instead of Jonas experiencing pain from a sunburn as his first experience with pain, Jonas gets stung by a bee. In the book the giver transfers a very old memory of war when horses were used and this becomes a memory from Vietnam in the movie which causes Jonas to be brought to the floor in pain, this does not happen in the book.
The Giver is occasionally in too much pain to transfer memories, and when that happens Jonas gets the day off in the movie.It’s in Jonas rules that he is not allowed to share his trainings with anyone else in the community. Jonas asks his parents if they love him and more. The movie highlights that it’s a struggle for Jonas to hold in all of the memories that he has received. He kissed Fiona and teached his sister to dance. He took Fiona sledding and he tried to explain love. This causes him to be noticed by the elders which put him in danger. Fiona also had a big part in the movie. In the book, Jonas has stirrings about Fiona. He eventually kisses her and tries to share many of his experiences with her which was not allowed according to his rules. This changes her character in multiple ways. As a nursery worker, Fiona was also able to to help Jonas escape and to be targeted by the elders for release.
Another difference in the movie from the book is that when asher was playing “war” in the park Jonas got mad because of the memory it reminded him of unlike the movie where a group of kids were playing ball in the park. There was a lot of yelling, screaming and movement in the park which reminded him of the memory he recieved of the Vietnam War. At the ceremony of twelves everyone was assigned different numbers, in the book he was number nineteen and in the movie he was number fifty-three. In the book the biggest number that each group went up to was fifty, so it makes you think that there is only fifty in each group. Unlike the book Jonas was fifty three. The community is way bigger in the movie and had at least one hundred in each group. Asher was chosen to be the recreation director in the book and was picked to be a pilot in the movie. Fiona also had a change in career. Fiona wanted to work at the house of old, this is where she spent most of her free time at in the book. She loved to be around the elders and was a natural and caring and talking to them. In the movie she was interested in being a nurturer, if this wasn’t her job in the movie, the ending would be completely different. She wouldn’t have been able to help Jonas when he tried to take Gabriel with him, or help Jonas locate him at the very end of the movie. If Fiona had a different job in the movie, it would have been very difficult for Jonas to leave the community and successfully bring Gabe with him.
At the very end of the book there was a river. In the movie, there was an edge. After Jonas went over the edge he kept going straight to try and reach the boundary of memories, which held all of the memories. In the book it was much simpler to deliver the memories, all Jonas had to do was cross the river and the memories started coming back to everyone in the community. The book and movie were very different but were both very good in their own ways.
I think it’s very rare that a movie is better than the original book. The first difference I stated was about the differences of ages in the characters. I think this made a drastic difference in how each character felt and acted toward each other, especially Jonas and Fiona. Jonas was sixteen which made his feelings for Fiona more accurate according to our day and age. Jonas is more likely to have passionate feelings for Fiona being sixteen and not twelve. All of the characters being aged up also gave the movie more romantic qualities and made the characters more mature with their decisions.
Another drastic change is how the community is portrayed in the book. While reading the book we get a feel that the community is very old and poor, I thought that the setting was set in the past. When I watched the movie I definitely had the “wow”effect. When the movie showed all of the houses with clean lines and all of the technological advancements. For example, the drones, electronic injectors, the way they dressed and the hidden cameras with microphones. With all of the technology it made it harder for Jonas to escape. For example, in the book it was much easier for Jonas to escape with Gabe unlike the movie were It took a lot of thought and planning for the, to escape.
The community seemed much larger in the movie than in the book. During the ceremonies the ID numbers were changed to much larger numbers giving us the idea that there is a lot more members in each “class”.I enjoyed reading the book this summer. I like that each memory was explained in detail and the book was very hard to put down. I think I prefer the movie over the book but both were great. I like the movie more because it was more futuristic. I also enjoyed the in depth feelings that Jonas and Fiona had for each other.
An Analysis of The Three Forms of Control in the Communities of Lois Lowry in The Giver and Plato
Imagine living in a society where life is predictable, orderly, and tranquil. Everything – from birth to education to occupation to retirement to death – is laid out meticulously, and every citizen lives free from pain, want, and inconvenience. Sounds utopian, right? However, there is one catch. In order to realize this utopia, life must also be devoid of color, emotion, and choice. Such is the existence of Jonas, a budding adolescent who, though he has grown up accepting and cherishing his society, emerges from the shadows of his metaphorical cave into the light of freedom and reality. Although Jonas remains a fictional protagonist in The Giver by Lois Lowry, his life in many aspects reflects that of a denizen in Callipolis, as described by Plato in The Republic. Through her depiction of Jonas’ struggle between loyalty to societal values and enlightenment for his community, Lowry subtly hints that any carefully envisioned society (including Plato’s Callipolis) can only exist at the high cost of freedom and choice. The question that remains, therefore, is whether or not the trade-off is worth it.
Both Lowry’s and Plato’s communities are defined by three forms of control: population control, education control, and vocational control. In Jonas’ society, rules state clearly that “two children – one male and one female – [are assigned] to each family unit,” led by spouses carefully paired by the governing Committee of Elders (Lowry 8). From puberty onwards, all citizens regularly swallow pills that suppress Stirrings, or erotic desires. Only the Birthmothers bear children, presumably through artificial insemination, and “there [are] always fifty in each year’s group, if none had been released” (Lowry 11). Release to Elsewhere, as Jonas later learns, is a euphemism for infanticide or euthanasia, routinely used when infants fail to meet development standards or when the elderly reach a given age. In The Republic, Plato similarly envisions a city regulated by a complex system of eugenics. Socrates explains to Glaucon:
The best men should have sex with the best women as often as possible, whereas for the worst men and the worst women it should be the reverse. We should bring up the children of the best, but not the children of the worst, if the quality of our herd is to be as high as we can make it. And all this has to happen with no one apart from the actual rulers realizing it, if our herd of guardians is also to be as free as possible from dissension (Plato 459d – 459e).
To cast a veil over the actual intents of this breeding program, Socrates suggests a lottery process that would match men and women of compatible classes with each other. Then, after birth, all children will be reared communally, with no distinction given to parents and their natural children. Once past the age of childbearing, men and women are allowed free sex with non-relatives, on the condition that any embryos accidentally conceived must be aborted.
In addition to regulating population, Lowry and Plato also utilize education control through surveillance of thoughts, words, and actions to maintain order and predictability. After birth, children in Jonas’ community are placed in classes corresponding to age, and are trained during the day by Childcare specialists and school instructors. Rulers of the community exercise a mysterious, Big Brother-like surveillance over it, issuing public chastisement when community rules are broken. Special attention is also paid to teaching children the precision of language – in other words, conforming the use of words to standard, measured meanings understood by the community. Once, when Jonas was a Four year-old, his teachers had explained that “the reason for precision of language was to ensure that unintentional lies were never uttered” (Lowry 71). In eliminating even the smallest of lies, the community not only ensures uniformity, but also devises a regimen whereby even the smallest use of the smallest of words is self-checked by each member. The mandatory, honest sharing of dreams at breakfast and sharing of feelings at dinner also guarantees scrutiny of every citizen’s actions, words, and feelings. Jonas aptly reflects his community’s homogeneity of speech and thought when he ponders, “How could someone not fit in? The community was so meticulously ordered, the choices so carefully made” (Lowry 48). In his Callipolis, Plato likewise establishes strict censorship for guardians in training: outlawing objectionable stories of Greek gods while presenting sanitized stories of “good” gods, restricting elaborate and mixed styles of imitative poetry (in which the poet writes in the voice of another character) while allowing austere styles of simple poetry (in which the poet narrates straightforwardly), banning rhythmically and harmonically discordant music while permitting Dorian and Phrygian modes of music, excluding reed instruments while including the lyre, cithara, and panpipes, and prohibiting unacceptable works of art while authorizing wholesome crafts. Socrates makes clear the intentions for his censorship of the elite guardians’ upbringing when he remarks, “Anyone with the right kind of education…will have the clearest perception of things which are unsatisfactory…Being rightly disgusted by them, he will praise what is beautiful and fine…he will feed on it and so become noble and good” (Plato 401e – 402a). In his pursuit of the ideal city, Socrates, who himself so values the art of questioning and inquiry, ends up creating a society that is trained to fit a rigid mold, as he clearly states, “They would absorb our laws as completely as possible, like a dye. We wanted them to possess the right character and upbringing, so that their views on danger and other things would be color-fast, incapable of being washed out” (Plato 430a). Although Socrates undoubtedly describes Callipolis’ education in an esteemed and lofty manner, he does not realize, or perhaps purposely overlooks, that such a controlled community may not ultimately prove ideal or desirable in every way, as Lowry later suggests in The Giver.
The most striking resemblance between Jonas’ world and Callipolis lies in their respective regulations regarding residents’ vocations. In Jonas’ community, “Like the Matching of Spouses and the Naming and Placement of new children, the [lifetime] Assignments [are] scrupulously thought through by the Committee of Elders” (Lowry 49). Whether assigned to be a Storyteller, Sanitation Laborer, or Doctor, denizens trust the Committee to decide their futures in order to keep the community functioning like cogs in a well-oiled machine. Correspondingly, Plato divides the people of Callipolis into three main classes: guardians, auxiliaries, and producers. Raised together, rulers and auxiliaries are respectively responsible for ruling over the people and defending the city. Their education, as described above, is designed to hone their natural dispositions for aggressiveness towards enemies, gentleness towards their own people, and inclination towards knowledge and philosophy. Furthermore, those selected to be rulers undergo additional training in mathematics and philosophy. Socrates sums up these requirements by saying, “The person who is going to be a good and true guardian of our city [must] be a lover of wisdom, spirited, swift and strong” (Plato 376c). Like the Committee of Elders in Jonas’ society, the guardian class in Callipolis, is only “its smallest group and element” (Plato 428e); most inhabitants belong to the producer class, which includes blacksmiths, painters, doctors, lawyers, and more. To ensure stability within the city’s hierarchy, Socrates proposes propagating a useful myth partially of Phoenician origin. Mother earth, as the fable elaborates, fashions each individual with a certain form of metal: gold, silver, bronze, or iron. Those with gold in their souls are created to be rulers; those with silver, auxiliaries; those with bronze or iron, farmers and other skilled workers. Neither are the soul’s elements necessarily hereditary – children born with elements different from those of their parents must be relegated to their appropriate divisions in society. If ever any individual mixed from the wrong metal rules over Callipolis, the oracle foretells imminent ruin of the city. Indoctrinating every citizen to accept “the task he is naturally fitted for” is essential in maintaining the class hierarchy of Callipolis, which is why Socrates later explains: “The overseers of our city must keep a firm grip on our system of education, protecting it above all else” (Plato 423d; 424b).
Interestingly, Socrates relates this very notion of class divisions to his definition of justice in The Republic. He expounds, “Doing one’s own job, and not trying to do other people’s jobs for them, is justice…which gave all the others [i.e. virtues of self-discipline, courage, and wisdom] the power to come into being, and the thing whose continued presence keeps them safe once they have come into being” (Plato 433b). According to Socrates, justice is achieved when society’s elements function in their rightful niches. Even though he does not define justice as a policing force, Socrates’ definition of justice for Callipolis clearly shows that tight oversight and regulation of society – through population, education, and vocational control – is needed for justice to be attained. This justice represents the culmination of the ideal city, and, although not completely analogous, can be compared to Lowry’s concept of Sameness, the meaning of which Jonas discovers when he receives his life assignment to be Receiver of Memory. As Receiver, Jonas inherits the community’s collective memory, which the people relinquished in days past when they decided to go into Sameness. Jonas’ mentor, the previous Receiver, reveals, “Our people made that choice, the choice to go back to Sameness…We relinquished color when we relinquished sunshine and did away with the differences…We gained control of many things. But we had to let go of others” (Lowry 95). Like justice in Callipolis, Sameness in Jonas’ society succinctly describes how utopia is achieved, through fixed supervision of society and its members to ensure that order and harmony prevails. Not only does the community dispense of suffering, unpredictability, and inequality in their creation of a peaceful society, but they also abandon depth of emotions, vibrancy of life, and freedom of choice in their acceptance of Sameness, thinking that this trade-off is worth it. However, when Jonas receives memories of vivid colors, intense joy, indescribable beauty, and warm love, along with memories of animal cruelty, physical agony, and excruciating death, he yearns for his community to experience deeper meaning and richness in life. With surmounting frustration and loneliness, Jonas hatches a plan with his mentor to return to his community the memories he has acquired, in the understanding that doing so could possibly cost Jonas his life.
In many ways, Jonas’ journey is parallel to that of the enlightened philosopher in Plato’s cave allegory. In the allegory, prisoners live entire lives chained inside a cave, unable to see anything besides shadows reflected on the cave wall. When one of the prisoners breaks free, he is initially overwhelmed by the outside world, but eventually realizes that his former cave is simply a meaningless shadow of reality. Those still in the cave misunderstand and mock his newfound enlightenment, but the philosopher ultimately ends up governing his people due to a sense of duty, because he is aware of a greater reality that his people do not comprehend. In The Giver, Jonas is the philosopher who, upon his training as Receiver, stumbles from the shadows of the cave, his literally black-and-white community, into the dazzling brightness of the sun, a new reality of color and rich memories. As Socrates describes, Jonas is at first confused, and takes time “to acclimatize himself…to see things up there” (Plato 516a). Later, Jonas also vainly tries to transmit his awareness to Asher and his sister, but finds himself misunderstood, much like the philosopher from the cave whom others said “had come back from his journey to the upper world with his eyesight destroyed” (Plato 517). Like the Receiver before him, Jonas, because he has seen and understood the light, is fated to return to the shadows of his former cave and govern his people in wisdom. As if exhorting the future philosopher-kings of his ideal city, Socrates speaks: “We produced you as guides and rulers…So you must go down, each of you in turn, to join the others in their dwelling-place. You must get used to seeing in the dark. When you do get used to it, you will see a thousand times better than the people there do” (Plato 520b – 520c). Jonas, however, refuses to accept his lot and govern his community as Receiver of Memory. Unlike the enlightened philosopher in Plato’s allegory, Jonas recognizes that his community remains in chains precisely because he is the only one allowed to bear the memories of generations. As his mentor pitifully remarked, “They can’t help it. They know nothing” (Lowry 153; italics in original). In Plato’s allegory of the cave, the enlightened philosopher returns to rule his people, who remain chained in the darkness. Jonas, however, makes the difficult decision to leave and betray the community he has always known and accepted, risking his life to free them from the captivity they do not yet understand. Knowing that freeing his people would drastically undermine the orderliness and harmony upon which his community is built, Jonas nonetheless chooses true meaning in life, along with its potential chaos, over uninterrupted Sameness and its imprisonment. As he and his mentor acknowledge, “It’s true that it has been this way for what seems forever. But the memories tell us that it has not always been. People felt things once…like pride, and sorrow…and love…and pain…things must change” (Lowry 154-155; italics in original).
In her portrayal of Jonas’ community, with all its parallels to Plato’s Callipolis, is Lois Lowry conveying a deeper message of what an ideal society truly is, or is not? By presenting a twist on Plato’s well-known allegory of the cave, is Lowry suggesting, perhaps, that the very society Plato constructs in The Republic is, in fact, the antithesis of meaningful human existence? In his dialogues, Socrates remains insistent that only certain individuals have the potential for philosophy and true enlightenment; thus, to achieve justice and prevent disorder, Callipolis must remain governed and regulated the way Socrates describes. Socrates, however, sees himself as On the contrary, Jonas rejects his community’s Sameness even as he and his mentor realize that “the community…will be thrown into chaos” for a period of time until they adjust to the new memories they acquire (Lowry 156). Even if restoring freedom of choice and vividness of life means inevitably sacrificing the bumpless efficiency of the planned community, Jonas reckons that this costly trade-off is worth it. Instead of returning from the light to rule over people who remain chained in the shadows, Jonas does everything he can to drag them “right out into the sunlight” (Plato 515e), no matter how much they will initially resent his efforts. While Socrates teaches that individuals without gold in their souls should not receive the education and freedom reserved for philosopher-kings, Jonas grasps that freedom of choice is what makes humans human, even if that freedom further complicates life.
Plato ends The Republic with an air of satisfactory triumph, having developed an ideal city containing in its hierarchy what Socrates and his friends have defined as justice – each person dutifully living out their allotted assignment and contributing to the greater order and structure of the city as a whole. As a consequence of attaining this justice, however, the people of Callipolis surrender their freedom of choice (or, at least, freedom of choice as defined in today’s terms), which necessarily results in a loss of individual significance and autonomy. Instead, each member of society exists only to serve the greater order, in submission to the community’s elite ruling class, as the inhabitants of Jonas’ society lived. Certainly, the freedom of choice also comes with the possibility of wrong choices and their ramifications (Jonas notes this early on when he comments, “We really have to protect people from wrong choices” [Lowry 98]), but disposing of these risks at the cost of true human fulfillment is simply not worth it. Plato’s Callipolis ends as a utopia, but Lowry’s community more realistically ends as a dystopia. In her book’s ending, Lowry chooses not to directly depict the outcome of Jonas and his community, but she does clearly imply that Jonas, through his escape journey, reverses the trade-off his community had made generations “back and back and back” (Lowry 113). Even today, as leaders seek to create Callipolis’s in our own societies, may we consider carefully the very same trade-offs that Plato and Lowry set before us.
Analysis of the Theme of Sameness in Novels The Giver and Divergent
Manipulation of Restriction of Divergence by Government Control
The Giver by Lois Lowry and Divergent by Veronica Roth are both dystopian novels that depict a society that seems perfect at first, but really is an illusion of perfection. A dystopia is a futuristic, imagined universe in which oppressive societal control and the illusion of a perfect society are maintained through corporate, bureaucratic, technological, moral, or totalitarian control. The Giver follows the life of a boy named Jonas as he lives in a perfectly organized community where the Council of Elders dictate a person’s life and the idea of “sameness” is valued. He is specifically chosen as the next “Receiver of Memory”, a position given to a person who is capable of handling the memories of life that the community had abandoned in order to avoid pain and conflict. Through his training with The Giver, the one who transmits the memories to the next Receiver, he begins to discover knowledge of a better life full of color, choices, and emotions. Divergent portrays the world that Beatrice Prior lives in, a society where an individual’s life is defined by the faction they choose. Beatrice finds out that she is a Divergent, someone who possesses multiple virtues, and does not belong in any of the five factions where only one virtue is honored in each. While hiding this fact, she soon realizes that her society isn’t so perfect and why people like her are a threat to the system. Both societies restrict individuality; however in The Giver restriction is represented by the idea of “sameness” while in Divergent it is the five factions. The governing power in The Giver is able to enforce “sameness” because it had been the norm for generations, so the government would be able to reassure the public if a sudden change were to occur. The governing power in Divergent lies within the factions themselves since citizens have been raised to believe that their faction and the honored virtue of it defines them as an individual.
In The Giver the community values the idea of “sameness”. According to Google, sameness is lack of variety; uniformity or monotony. The Giver depicts “sameness” as the elimination of difference in the community. In order to achieve this Sameness, individualism is discouraged, and rules and discipline made by the Council of Elders matter most. By celebrating group birthdays, allowing only one kind of clothing and haircut, assigning spouses, jobs, children and names, and eliminating sexual relations, Jonas’s society stifles the things that allow for individual differences. Negative emotions such as jealousy loses its importance, thus eliminating competition and conflict as well. Things such as color, choices, and music had to be eradicated for “sameness” to occur. Citizens aren’t aware of the sacrifices that had to be made, but they have no doubts about their current life styles because this had been the norm for generations. Only The Giver and Jonas, who have access to the memories and knowledge of what life was like in the past, question their current society. On page 97, Jonas explains his frustrations with not being able to pick out his own clothing. He says, “‘If everything’s the same, then there aren’t any choices! I want to wake in the morning and decide things! A blue tunic, or a red one?’ He looked down at himself, at the colorless fabric of his clothing. ‘But it’s all the same, always.’” Jonas’s aggregation is understandable; yet he is the only one who dares to be discontent with the lack of choice. These thoughts would never enter a citizen’s mind because “sameness” provides the community with a false sense of happiness.
The society in Divergent is both similar and different from The Giver’s idea of “sameness”. In the society exists four factions; each of them dedicated to the cultivation of one virtue. At age sixteen, all citizens are required to take an aptitude test to help them determine which faction they belong in for the rest of their lives. This system was built on the foundation that a single individual will only possess one virtue, and it is how the society has been able to govern themselves. A person can transfer out of the faction that they were born in, of course, if they do not hold that virtue. All of the factions help the society function as a whole. The five factions are: Candor, Abnegation, Dauntless, Amity, and Erudite. The Candor believes in honesty and provide trustworthy leaders in law. Abnegation values selflessness in the service of others, and the governing council is made up of entirely them because they are incorruptible. The Dauntless are those who strive to become fearless, and they provide protection from threats both within and without. The Amity are against violence and conflict. They are the counselors and caretakers. The Erudite prioritize intelligence, and they are the teachers and researchers. Though it’s rare, an individual can have more than one virtue and are capable of living in multiple factions. They are known as Divergent. There is one more group that is not part of the social classes or factions, the factionless. They are the people who failed to complete their initiation into whatever faction they chose and live in poverty, doing the work no one else wants to do. The citizens are all raised to believe that their faction is basically their life; what defines them as an individual. They are led to believe that their faction, and the virtue they represent, are the most important in the society and all of the other factions and values do not matter. Our protagonist, Beatrice, questions herself about this during her Choosing Ceremony, the time she is to decide her faction. On page 43 she wonders, “‘In our factions, we find meaning, we find purpose, we find life.’ I think of the motto I read in my Faction History textbook: Faction before blood. More than family, our factions are where we belong. Can that possibly be right?” As far as the readers can tell, Beatrice is the only one so far who seem to have these thoughts. The fact that she is Divergent might have caused her to doubt the rules and discipline of her society.
In the Giver the government controls the community through the idea of “sameness”. This idea had been embedded into their way of life for such a long time that nobody doubts it. It had been the norm for generations, so the citizens are only aware of the lives that they had been taught to have. They depend so much on “sameness” and the government that if a sudden change were to occur, the community would be sent in panic. An example of this is on page 1 when Jonas recounts the time that an aircraft had suddenly flown over the community. He says, “Frightened meant that deep, sickening feeling of something terrible about to happen… Jonas, looking around anxiously, had seen others — adults as well as children — stop what they were doing and wait, confused, for an explanation of the frightening event.” Fear of the unexpected immediately struck him and all of the citizens surrounding him were in the same state. Activity ceased and time stood still for a moment as the community waited for the government, in this case the speaker, to reassure them. All of them are afraid of the unexpected, something that destroys their “sameness”, and assurance from the ones who have control over their society is needed. The government takes advantage of this ignorance by enforcing “sameness”, something that provides a deceiving security and false happiness. In Divergent government control are within the factions. Each faction benefits the society and from each other. However over time faction leaders have forgotten the original purposes of the creation of factions. Some people have begun to think that their own factions are more significant than the others, and plot to overthrow all of the other factions in order to have the most power. Jeanine, the leader of the Erudite solely because of her IQ score, tells Beatrice on page 429 that she thinks the every faction other than her own’s is not necessary and should be eliminated. She says, “‘Currently, the factionless are a drain on our resources,’” Jeanine replies. “’As is Abnegation. I am sure that once the remains of your old faction are absorbed into the Dauntless army, Candor will cooperate and we will finally be able to get on with things.’” Absorbed into the Dauntless army. I know what that means—she wants to control them, too. She wants everyone to be pliable and easy to control.” The protagonist knows that Jeanine’s true intentions are to have control over every faction and make everybody into her puppets. Since she’s very intelligent she is able to make a serum and with the help of the Dauntless leaders, who are trying to boost their own political standings, the injection of the serum into all of the Dauntless faction turns them into pawns who are willing to obey Jeanine’s every command. The balance of power in Divergent has been tipped because of greed for power and control.
Both The Giver and Divergent depict restriction of individuality in their dystopian societies differently yet how governmental control benefits from it are very similar. The Giver shows it through the idea of “sameness”, an idea that eliminates any differences in the community. Citizens have their lives planned out, precision of language or speech prevents abstract things such as love, and nobody is ever singled out. Nobody doubts this way of life because it has been in place for generations and it is all they’ve ever known. Divergent’s society is a bit more lenient, with everyone split up into the five factions depending on what virtue they possess the most. An individual is taught that his or her faction and virtue defines everything that they are. Citizens don’t question this system because it had been created for the good of the people though a Divergent like the protagonist, who is able to possess multiple virtues, starts to question why an individual can only have one quality that defines them. Other people have also began to challenge their society yet for another reason. Jeanine, the primary antagonist, recognizes that all five factions contribute to the society; however in her eyes, all of the other factions compared to her own are unnecessary thus they need to be eliminated. The Council of Elders in The Giver take advantage of the community’s fear of the unknown and unexpected. They are important in the citizens’ eyes because they can bring reassurance to everyone. They can continue to manipulate the ignorance of the community while also providing them with false happiness. In conclusion, both The Giver and Divergent portray restriction of individuality in different ways yet both display how government control plays a role in it similarly.
The Giver Directed by Philip Noyce: a Review
The movie The Giver, was published on August 24, 2014. The atmosphere of the community is like a dystopian community taking place in the year 2048. The people in the community have no idea what “the real world” is actually like, only what they have been taught, almost like a dictatorship. In the community only one person has the privilege to have memories, the Receiver of Memory. Phillip Noyce did a very good job directing the movie and hitting almost every aspect of the book. I thought that the movie was a pretty good copy of the book.
The movie did a pretty good job representing the book and how the society is being represented as a whole. The movie started out with a black and white almost a sepia effect. The outlook of the perspective of all of the characters except for one. The government in the community was almost like a dictatorship, keeping tabs, on everyone and everything they do. The society the people in which the people are apart of is a very censored and an abnormal community. Strict rules were placed to keep order, and “protect” them from harms way.
As far as the adaptation of characters in the movie, I thought there were some drastic changes made in a few of these characters. Odeya Rush (Fiona), Brenton Thwaites (Jonas), and Cameron Monaghan (Asher), were presented as older than they were in the book. At the age of 18, they were chosen there jobs. The receiver, drone pilot, and nurturer. Moving along with the movie, Jonas starts getting more and more stirrings about Fiona. Jonas fantasized over Fiona, his stirrings started growing stronger. Jonas eventually knew that if he could make it to the end, he would not only be helping himself, but showing everyone in the community there is more to the world then what the Chief elder is putting off, or telling them.
Some of the characters were casted very well, and did an accurate job portraying the characters from the book. Others not so much, almost as if they were awkwardly playing their part, or unsure of something. Brenton Thwaites, played the most accurate part, Jonas. Everything about his character, Thwaites portrayed in a very simple and modest version of Jonas. Odeya Rush played Fiona in a more modest, and subtle way. Keeping Fiona accurate but yet, she had a very modern twist. Jonas’ main goal was to prove to everyone there was something beyond their community. On the other hand Cameron Monaghan did not act as if he should of been casted as Asher. I feel as if Monaghan should have been casted as someone else. Everything about his character was almost in an awkward stage, but the awkward stage never left.
Keeping the book in mind when writing the movie, I thought that the movie left out some very important aspects of the book. In the book before every meal they would share a dream they had, talked about the dream, and explained about the dream. The movie also skips over the younger kids having a comfort object. Lilly’s object was what they called a “hippo” which in reality was an elephant. When watching the movie it was moving very quickly, almost too quick. Keeping in mind everything flowed right, but almost made to the point of confusion.
Overall I thought the movie was okay. Everything was portrayed in an all right way, but there could have been ways of improvement. Keeping information the same in transition from book to movie is complicated. Even though thing’s were left out, or new things were added, it gave the movie more of a dramatic effect, and keep the movie suspenseful and yet still entertaining. In the end Phillip Noyce did an alright job on the movie.
Novel Summary: The Giver
The novel “The Giver” begins with Jonas, a twelve year old boy who lives in a utopia where there’s no such thing as pain, war, fear, or hatred. In the community he lives everything is pleasant and as fair as possible. With the upcoming national Ceremony of the Twelve, where he’s bound to be assigned his work occupation for the rest of his life. He is nervous about the ceremony so he seeks comfort from his father, a nurturer, who cares for newborns. Also his mother who’s an official in the Department of Justice.
Jonas is unlike everyone else in the community, he has unusual powers of perception. He is the only one in the community that can perceive flashes of color; for everyone else the world is as deprived of color as it is of pain, hunger, and love.
The next day at the Ceremony everyone is given they’re assigned vocation for the rest of their lives, except for Jonas. He’s is assigned the highly honored Assignment of Receiver of Memory. The Receiver is the single keeper of the community’s collective memories. These are the memories of pain, war, and emotion. Someone is assigned to retain these memories, so the community can avoid making mistakes of the past. Jonas is set to receive all of these memories from a wise old man who calls himself the Giver.
The Giver shares his memories by placing his hands on Jonas’s back. The first memory he obtains is of a sled ride. Later on he receives memories of pleasure and pain, of bright beautiful colors and severe weather, of excitement and fright and hunger and love. Those memories start to make Jonas’s life more meaningful, and wants to share these memories with everyone he loves. Although he can’t, everyone in the community has lost the capacity to feel anything in exchange for a peaceful existence. Jonas becomes more and more frustrated with the community, and the Giver, whos felt the same for a very long time, encourages him. Meanwhile, Jonas’s father is worried about Gabe, a newborn who is falling behind on his health expected goals, and has received permission to bring him home. The baby has pale eyes, like Jonas and the Giver, soon Jonas becomes attached to Gabe. More so, after he discovers that he is able to share his memories with Gabe. Jonas learns that if Gabes health does not increase, he’ll be released or taken elsewhere.
The Giver eventually reveals to him what released actually means by showing him a video of his father doing his job. In the video his father unknowingly injects one twin baby with poison before placing the body in a box. After witnessing that, Jonas became filled with anger, confusion and horror.
Book Review:The Giver by Lois Lowry
The Giver by Lois Lowry
In the book the giver the people in this world do not see color. They don’t know music. They do not know about death. They are told that the people that are release go to a different community. People believe that they spend their lives in that community forever. Everybody seems happy. They also spend a lot of time sharing their feelings within the family group and trying to make each other feel better. One of the games that the children play is a war-like game. They are pretending to have guns and shoot at each other. They don’t think it is something bad because they don’t know what war is.
The main character in this book is Jonas. In the book the main character’s age begins at the age of 11 and the book ends when he is 13. The Ceremony of the Twelves is special for him because he finds out that instead of being assigned a job, he is “chosen”. He is to be trained to be the new Receiver. The Receiver is a sort of historian. He is more than just a historian. The Receiver bears the memories of wind, war, sunshine, savoring, music, and color. This is done to be sure that the people do not experience the pain that can come with having strong emotions.
The old Receiver, who tells Jonas to call him The Giver, transfers the memories to Jonas by a unique method that sounds a bit like how people can read other people’s minds. Jonas then finds out about war, colors, music, snow, sunshine and about pain and joy and all kinds of other intense emotions. He becomes confused and doesn’t understand. In the end he decides that he can no longer live in these communities, with the help of the Giver he runs away but by running away he will help his people because the memories will leave him and will return to the people. This is the only way in which the people will realize that there is more to life.
What I liked about this book is that some ideas are related to some things that happen in real life. The theme of the book is that somewhere in the past somebody tried to create a life with no pain, no war, basically no insecurities. But along the way that life also become a life without much color, a life with few individual choices. The ending of the book is kind of ambiguous because it is unclear if he lives and reaches a kind of world like in his memories, or if he dies. At the end of the book, the author describes a scene in which Jonas sees an image of Christmas, with singing and color. He also sees a sled and uses it to slide down a hill.
Literature review: The Giver
The book The Giver is about an supposedly ideal society, however as the book continues it seems to be more of a dystopia with a totalitarian government. Everyday life is the same and almost never changes because the consequence is so severe, which could be public humiliation to releasing. In our Society you can do almost whatever you want within the law, as long as it’s not toxic to our community. In many ways The Giver’s society and our society are very different and the differences by far outweigh the similarities, similarities between Jonas’ community and our society demonstrate that we’re not completely different. We both have rules and leaders, however our society is so forgiving.
Here are some ways that Jonas’ community and our society are alike. One of the many ways is Jonas’ community is like our society is because we both have a lawmaking process which a group of people head. We also share the fact that we exclude the elderly from society, put them in nursing homes because they are a burden on us. We also share the fact that we both have certain rules that have to be followed with no exceptions, In both societies violence is not allowed. Another aspect we share in common with Jonas’ society that there are serious consequences for breaking rules such as releasing, jail time or hard labor.
Although there are many ways our society and Jonas’ community are the same. There are a lot more ways Jonas’ community and United States are different. One way is that our society you have a choice to work while in Jonas’s community you are given Assignments such as Caretaker of the Old, Receiver of Memory, and others. Also we have color and music while they don’t have these things because it would an abomination to have any type on uniqueness. In our society, we are a little bit more flexible with the rules which makes it unlikely to get in trouble for an honest mistake, but you have to follow the rules strictly in Jonas’ community. You can get in trouble in Jonas’ society just for speaking incorrectly or not eating snacks at school right away. Also everything is paid by the government in turn food and transportation is free, in our society most things we get for “free” are paid taxes.
Honestly The Giver is trying to give the reader a sense of value, so that we should appreciate our life and freedom. It’s very important to remember how lucky we are, and that there is nothing more valuable than freedom. It is to our benefit that many things that you can’t do in The Giver’s society can be done in our society
Givers versus Takers
There is a reason why the biblical phrase “it is better to give than to receive” is so popular. For a long time, authors described successful people in business as having talent and luck, but nowadays according to Adam Grant, they share another quality; they give back (Brandom, 2013, para 1). In this context a dilemma surfaces. One component that distinguishes organized cultures is whether the cultures themselves are framed by giver or taker philosophies. The main reasons that make the giver culture better is the preferences for reciprocity, the mission of the company, and the success of the philosophy.
In the frenetic world of business development, companies differ in their preferences for reciprocity. At this point in time, most businesses are anchored with two extremes: the takers and the givers. In giver environments, employees operate as high-performing intelligence to: help others, share knowledge, offer mentoring, and make connections without expecting anything in return.
At the other end of the spectrum, the norm is to get as much as possible from others while contributing less in return.
Taker employees help only when they expect the personal benefits to exceed the costs, as opposed to when the organizational benefits outweigh the personal costs (Grant, 2013, para. 3). Takers are selfish, and evaluate what other people can give them. Givers, however, are characterized for being selfless, giving more emphasis to what others require from them. Many people limit the giver label to prodigious heroes such as Mahatma Gandhi. Phenomenal acts are not required for being a giver, only strategic acts (Grant, 2013, para 15). Giver and takers are not defined by their affinity for money. Rather, they differ in their attitudes and actions toward other people.
A Company environment starts with the organization’s leadership, and how they create, communicate, and behave to support the mission. In this context, there are two aspects that identify what kind of CEO a company has, and, as
a result of their actions, how the mission is established. The first indication is their speech. The takers tend to use first-person singular pronouns, like “I” and “me,” while the givers use “us” and “we”. The second aspect is the CEO’s character’s reflection on the company. Takers believe that it is all about them. For example, they usually think, “I am the single most important figure in this company”.
When you look at their photos in the company’s annual reports, they have larger photos, and they are more likely to be pictured alone. On the other hand, giver leaders consider the company as a whole, and how everyone is an essential part of it. Due to this perspective, they prefer to be pictured with the entire team. After the type of CEO is identified, the mission of their company becomes clear. It is recognizable that a mission based on giver beliefs benefits the helping nature within the company and assists the employees to freely contribute their knowledge and skills to others.
Giver companies achieve a greater and more meaningful success than taker companies. Both givers and takers can achieve success. Nevertheless, there is a peculiar difference that happens when givers succeed. It disperses and cascades in a way that creates a ripple effect, enhancing the success of people around them.. In consequence, people around them are rooting for and supporting them. Unlike givers, when takers win, there is usually someone else who loses, and people tend to envy successful takers. The principal difference lies in how giver success creates value, instead of just claiming it (Popova, 2013, para 17).
The approach to a giver’s success is determined over a long period of time. The results of the strategies are not immediate; however, it has a long-term repercussion in the company development. In contrast to givers, takers may achieve success, but it is likely to be short-lived and not rooted in meaningful or equitable relationships (Stanger, 2013, para. 4). In fact, the patterns of success based on reciprocity giver’s philosophy are remarkably efficient. In conclusion, givers and takers are philosophies of business interaction, but the lines between them are defined by differences in reciprocity, mission, and work outcomes. Namely, giving culture in a company is the best option which provides genuine support, better satisfaction of the clients, and an increase in the productivity of the employee system.
Brandon. (2013). Why Givers (Not Takers) Usually Win. Retrieved October 21, 2013 from http://www.inc.com/john-brandon/qanda-adam-grant-author-of-give-and-take.html Grant. (2013). Givers take all: The hidden dimension of corporate culture. Retrieved October 21, 2013 from http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/organization/givers_take_all_the_hidden_dimension_of_corporate_culture Grant. (2013). Good Return. Retrieved October 21, 2013 from http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0713/feature2_1.html Popova. (2013). Givers, Takers, and Matchers: The Surprising Science of Success. Retrieved October 21, 2013 from http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/04/10/adam-grant-give-and-take/ Stenger. (2013).What’s The Real Secret to Success? A “Giver” Instinct. Retrieved October 21, 2013 from https://www.stengerandcompany.com/blog/86-what-s-the-real-secret-to-success-a-giver-instinct