Talk:The Giver

Wiki Education assignment: English 465 Post-Apocalyptic Science Fiction

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andreanicolecruz (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Neutralplaid, Nyaronya.

Upcoming Planned Edits

In the coming weeks I plan to make a few changes to this page. Firstly, I plan to tighten up the plot summary so that it is 500-700 words as is wikipedia's recommendation for the synopsis of novels and plot summaries. Secondly, I will be expanding the literary significance and criticism section to include three parts. Firstly, I will focus on reception discussing the initial reception of the book. I will then discuss academic criticism and analysis in an expanded form from what is presently there. I will also be including some academic discussions of its uses in pedagogy. I will also include discussions of why people have attempted to censor the novel to expand on mentions of controversy. Here is a link to my annotated bibliography if anybody would like to see my sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Connorehl/The_Giver/Bibliography?venotify=created Connorehl (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This article would benefit most from additional, sourced, information. Rewriting the plot summary is not urgent and suggest you defer it until you're done with the other things. The present summary may or may not be too long (see WP:IAR) but it serves the reader well, the other sections are likely inadequate. Don't do the plot summary first because it is easy and will give you something to show for your course assignment, do work where it needs to be done and will benefit the article. If all you've done is shorten the plot summary, then you haven't improved the article very much and (depending on whether you're a good writer), the article may actually be worse off.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I appreciate your comments, but I am not rewriting the plot summary, I am tightening it up at points. Secondly, if you check my bibliography, I am mostly planning to use sourced material to expand on the academic analysis and to add sourcing to points in sections where sources were not included for claims. Connorehl (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGL 273 - Children's Literature

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 14 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Connorehl (article contribs).

Some comments on the recent edits:

• First, "While the reception of The Giver has received critical acclaim and has accepted its share of accolades, it has remained a challenged novel by several schools for many generations. Controversies surround the novel's dark themes and topics of violence for young audiences to read has not been well received by parents and educators which has resulted in the novel being banned from academic environments. One of the first moments of The Giver being challenged occurred in 1995 when parents became concerned over the nature of the novel as a whole. Some parents felt that the content in this book was not appropriate for children to absorb at such a young age." is entirely sourced to a Youtube interview with Lowry, which is not a secondary source, but a primary source. I suspect, though, that much of this was meant to be sourced to another source. I don't have time to listen to the video (one reason that they're not favored as sources, they are difficult to verify, see WP:V), but you might want to check this.
• Connoreh, given the online and database resources I know are available to college students, it seems to me you can do better on sources. I know for a fact that there are several journal articles available on JSTOR that concern themselves with The Giver". They are more regarded than interviews with the author, as they provide an independent, learned point of view.
• Additionally, saying things like "some people" or "some readers" etc. is sloppy and likely to attract a tag.
• Just my opinion, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Wewhwalt

I have not made any edits to the page yet. These are from the article as is. If you check my bibliography, I am using many academic journal articles and mostly focusing on the academic analysis and reception of the book as those sections require expansion. Please be polite and do not assume the entire article is mine. I will comment when the changes I have made are put into the page. Connorehl (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I have included my updates to the page. My chief update was to add in a new analysis section which discussed scholarly treatments of the article. I tightened up the plot summary to add concision where possible without removing detail that was important for the reader's understanding. Lastly, I added two scholarly sources discussing censorship to go along with the author's opinion that another editor had put into the article in the reception section. I also edited the reception section for word choice and concision. Connorehl (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The giver - deeper religious analysis

Upon reading "The Giver" and viewing the movie, I have come to see ties regarding biblical references. In example; God wanted to create humans in his image and give them free will but he did not want them to go against his word. This is a trap, to say you have free will but to then tell you there is a door that you cannot open is a contradiction. Lucifer was cast from heaven for saying that God was wrong for not wanting humans to be able to have his knowledge but have free will. In the garden of Eden Lucifer convinced Eve to eat the apple and thus have God's knowledge. Without knowing sin you know nothing. You know what you are told, and what you are told is that there is a door that you cannot open. Lucifer opened the door by giving humans knowledge. The knowledge of the other side of the emotional spectrum; Good and evil Right and wrong Happy and sad War and Peace You cannot have one without the other, God wanted humans to be blind and obey him like sheep without the knowledge to choose for themself. Lucifer is the good guy in the story of the Bible.

Let's correlate this to The Giver

• A society where everyone operates without emotion.

They cannot feel, they are manipulated into taking medicine by those who control the society (God)

• The euthanize children without the knowledge that it is wrong because they have no knowledge of sin due to their lack of emotion.
• The people in the story reside on a raised platform, secluded from the rest of the world it is a Utopia where they are told to stay. (garden of Eden)
• Once Jonas becomes the receiver he is shown the color of an apple... He is shown red. This can be overwhelming when you have never seen color before because you have never had any contrast or even the knowledge that such things existed. He was being controlled and blinded by the rulers of his society. (God)
• He is shown purity and innocence, then shown war and pain. The Giver instills him with the knowledge of both sides of the emotional spectrum.

The Giver is Lucifer Who gave us wisdom and knowledge so we may see right from wrong.

The receiver is humankind Who were being controlled through gods will. Without the knowledge to act on their own.

The Chief elder is God Who gave humans free will but also demanded obedience. 2600:1014:B014:E47B:0:B:C114:A601 (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

It's an interesting thought, that probably contains considerable validity, but we have to base our articles on Wikipedia off what secondary sources have said. Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

hmm. i know this is also late, but i never thought about that. That a really good point!! Babysharkboss2 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

WHAT ARE YOUY SUGGESTING

YOU ARE SATANIC 180.129.27.234 (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Stop yelling Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Trout me, pull the trigger.)} 12:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2024

"In an effort to preserve order, the society lacks any color, climate, terrain, and a true sense of equality." This implies that the community lacks a true sense of equality, which is actually one of it's defining qualities. We should change this to:

"In an effort to preserve order, the society has a true sense of equality and lacks any color, climate, and terrain." Emillixe (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)