The Giver Research Paper

My name is Heidi, no need to say I am in English Department, Faculty of Alsun. As our main theme is Utopia and Dystopia novels I tried to find a novel that combines between them both, which is The Giver (1993) by Lois Lowry. Through my research, I tried to illustrate that the claim that Dystopia and Utopia are the each other’s opposite is not merely true. In other words, they are both subjective. Even though they have their own definitions, what to one person may consider ideal, might be another person’s nightmare. Through The Giver, my aim was to prove how many dystopian worlds have derived from utopian ideologies. It is hard to see the difference between the two which make people wonder what differentiate a good or bad society, which was

Then I focused on how living in a dystopian society will cause degradation of individuals. In The Giver, everything seems so perfect and ideal to the extent that whoever reads the novel dream of living in such a perfect utopian society where there is no war, poverty, emotions, and starvation. Yet in return, they gave up on many things that define their uniqueness, individuality, and humanity. I wanted to prove through my research that there is nothing called perfect society or utopia at all and any attempt to set up one can do more harm than

First, they believed that ignorance is a bliss, living in ignorance would make them avoid being affected with the idea of feeling pain or suffer. However, how can living in ignorance, lacking knowledge is a bliss or perfect?! Second, they achieved equality but in return, they gave up on their humanity. People strive to maintain “sameness” where everyone is equal and same. However human beings were created free, spontaneous, different and unpredictable. Thus, any attempt to change any of the above-mentioned traits will lead them to lose their humanity with it. Third, the committee of elders (the government) controls every aspect of the community’s private physical life, under the claim that they know what is the best for them. The community did not have the right to take decisions, choose their spouse or even their job. They followed the rules blindly with ultimate trust in the government’s decision. So, again how could this be perfect society?! Third, even the way they speak or the language that Jonas's community have been controlled by the committee through acquiring correct and precise language to avoid any word that would cause the rise of their emotions once again such as its acceptable to say “hungry” but not “starving”, there is no use of words that show intimacy or warmth as “love” and “home”.