Watching Rachael Ray yesterday she had Katie Holmes on who is co-starring in an upcoming movie called The Giver it caught my attention because of her description of the plot and it was based on a book so I looked it up.
In a perfect world where there is no conflict, racism or sickness, every member of society has a specific role, and 16-year-old Jonas is selected to be the Receiver of Memories. As Jonas uncovers the truth behind his world’s past, he discovers that many years earlier his forefathers gave up humanity in order to have a stable society.
It is set in a society which is at first presented as a utopian society and gradually appears more and more dystopian.
The society has eliminated pain and strife by converting to “Sameness,” a plan that has also eradicated emotional depth from their lives.
All “fairness” and “equality” and central order stability. Everyone is the same. No one is different from another and everything is “harmonious”.
Sounds like a Liberal Wet Fantasy Film doesn’t it? Or at least Wish Fulfillment.
Wouldn’t your garden variety liberal just love the idea. The fact that utopia turns into a dystopia wouldn’t likely dissuade them because the Agenda is The Agenda and they’d do it with the best of intentions so it can’t be their fault, in the end. Right?
They’d do it right. Why? Because they are just that good, and righteous, and perfect. And you’re not.
Jonas (the main protagonist) is selected to inherit the position of “Receiver of Memory,” the person who stores all the past memories of the time before Sameness, in case they are ever needed to aid in decisions that others lack the experience to make.
Additionally, the Giver is able to break some rules, such as turning off the speaker that listens to peoples’ conversations in their homes, and lying to people of the community. As Jonas receives the memories from the Giver, he discovers the power of knowledge. The people in his community are happy because they do not know of a better life, and the knowledge of what they are missing out on could create major chaos. He faces a dilemma: Should he stay with the community and the safe, consistent but shallow life it offers, or should he run away in pursuit of a life full of love, color, choices, and knowledge, but also potentially full of danger?
Lack the knowledge to make decisions, gee that sounds like Liberal Education and Liberal power fantasies. They sheep don’t know any better so they just do as they are told. They are told it’s better this way.
The society in which Jonas lives remains harmonious by way of a rigidly structured culture. Jobs are assigned to each individual according to a laborious evaluation of their skill, (each of which has its own level of honor, so as to motivate the children to put forth their best efforts), and family units are generated when husbands and wives are matched, according to personalities that will balance each other out.
Two children are allowed per family unit, one male and one female, but the parents do not conceive these children themselves. Instead, children are born to designated “Birthmothers” and then family units can apply for each child. After a family unit has served the purpose of raising the children in a stable environment, it ceases to exist; the parents proceed to the housing facility for childless adults, and the children become involved in their work and start mono-generational families of their own, forgetting their parents as they grow older.
The Community maintains this process using pills which suppress certain emotions, mainly sexual desires, which they refer to as “Stirrings”. If any citizen violates the more severe rules three times, or a baby of “inadequate quality” is born, or an elderly person becomes “well-aged,” then that person will be “released”. The book’s characters use this term to suggest a mere dismissal from the Community, though the reader eventually discovers that it is in fact a euphemism for execution/”mercy killing”/euthanasia; “released” people are injected with a fatal poison, (whether in disgrace, or in celebration of an elder’s fully lived life,) and sent to live “Elsewhere”.
Death Panels, anyone?
Young adult fiction author Debra Doyle was more critical stating that “Personal taste aside, The Giver fails the Plausibility Test”, and that “Things are the way they are (in the novel) because The Author is Making A Point; things work out the way they do because The Author’s Point Requires It.”.
Sounds like ObamaCare and most liberal “wants” to me. They want what they want, when, they want it, because they want it. And they want to force you to want it to, for the sake of “harmony”, “equality” and “fairness”. 🙂
From Banned Books world.com:
And yet the American Library Association lists the trilogy of The Giver, among the most frequently challenged books of the 1990’s.
“Challenged” mean attempts to ban it.
During the mid-to late 90’s some of the most common objections were over violent and sexual scenes, infanticide, euthanasia, and “sexual awakening.”
Notice they missed the whole liberal fantasy of “equality”. 🙂
In 1995 a parent in Franklin County, Kansas, challenged it for themes of murder, suicide, and “the degradation of motherhood and adolescence.” The book was eventually removed from school libraries, but remained available for use at a teachers’ discretion.
Mind Control, not so much.
Charges in Johnson County, Missouri were that The Giver “desensitized children to euthanasia.”
So does ObamaCare and Abortion!! 🙂
A parent in Sidney, New York, publicly objected to the usage of “mind control, selective breeding, and the eradication of the old and young when they are weak, feeble and of no more use.”
Did they cheer for ObamaCare (or HillaryCare back then) though, would be the question? It is the liberal mecca of New York, after all.
The list of challenges this decade alone comes from Marshall University. A few of the reported incidents, in order of year, are as follows:
2001- Banned for violence, “occult themes”, and sexually explicit material.
But I bet they teach Banana on a Condom or worse. 🙂 Because after all, “they are going to do it anyways”. 🙂
2005- Challenged in Blue Springs, Missouri, when parents called the book “lewd” and “twisted.” They demanded the work be removed from 8th-grade reading lists across the district.
Notice the sex is all these people can focus on??
2007- Parents in the Mt. Diablo School District in Concord, California, were offended by descriptions of pill-popping, suicide, and lethal injections given to babies and the elderly.
I wonder how they feel about ObamaCare, Abortion, and Legalized Marijuana? 🙂
Lois Lowry, the author: “I think banning books is a very, very dangerous thing. It takes away an important freedom. Any time there is an attempt to ban a book, you should fight it as hard as you can. It’s okay for a parent to say, ‘I don’t want my child to read this book.’ But it is not okay for anyone to try to make that decision for other people. The world portrayed in The Giver is a world where choice has been taken away. It is a frightening world. Let’s work hard to keep it from truly happening.”
But it’s a happy Liberal world where everyone is “equal”, everything is “fair” and there is not strife or conflict because everyone is the same. And we all believe as they do (or are forced to) so their is no conflict. No homophobia. No racism. No sexism. No ability to tell them they are wrong.
How great would that be, for a Liberal? 🙂
The fact that the star of the movie version is the screamingly liberal Meryl Streep, I doubt they will see the irony in their production. Doublespeak and Doublethink will prevent it’s practitioners from seeing the irony in their own actions.
Fascinating. We are already living in the Prologue of this book.