THE GIVER // Nostalgia Tour #1

Rating: Five Stars—ajklsdflk (when words fail to describe how wonderful a book is)

Years and years ago, when I read THE GIVER (click the link for a summary) as a tiny, young person, I didn’t catch much of the detail and depth. Granted, I knew that it was good, and I could sense that it was deep, but my small mind wasn’t large enough to go beyond that. So this time around, I was really excited to delve into the story and figure out why it stuck with me. 

The Symbolism. Oh my goodness, there’s so much I could talk about under this category, but I’ll limit myself to a couple points. For one thing, Jonas’ job and his subsequent isolation from his peers quite accurately depicts the way many children feel growing up. After all, it is a common mark of childhood to feel lonely and separated from the rest of the herd, whether for reasons real or perceived. Alongside this, the pain Jonas must experience in his job mirrors the pain of growing up and losing innocence—the pain of seeing the world for what it really is. Like Jonas, as we become adults, we often learn a great deal of stuff we wish we didn’t have to know, and it weighs on us in much the same way that the Giver’s memories weigh on him. 

Emotions. With their feelings-sharing exercises, the people in THE GIVER seem rather focused on emotions. But for such emotions-oriented folk, they are rather callous and unfeeling. In the same way, they maintain strict rules about avoiding rudeness but do not hesitate to be insensitive. Asher gets laughed at for his inability, as a three-year-old, to differentiate between the words “snack” and “smack”, and while that may not seem like such a big deal, the circumstances around that resulted in a painful period of his life—not something that should be joked about. If these people were truly feeling and truly considerate, they would care about details like that. 

Harshness. Beneath the polite surface, these people offer very little mercy and very little true kindness. Back to the unfortunate trouble with Asher—as a three-year-old, he was punished rather severely for innocent linguistic mistakes that are natural to young children. A society that would put so much pressure on its toddlers is twisted, regardless of how squeaky clean it appears from the outside. This overboard punishment extends to the elderly as well—people who should be afforded leniency and respect at their time of life. It’s quite evident that the government requires perfect behavior, even when that expectation is unreasonable. 

Death. In a community that suffers few accidental or unplanned deaths, you would think this would mean they value life more. After all, they have figured out how to keep people ticking. But this is not the case. It’s quite evident they value life even less now. I won’t expand on the major details, in case you haven’t read the book, but their most unsettling problem is hard to miss, even in some of the smaller circumstances. Take the reference to the little boy, Caleb, who once fell into the river and drowned and was then replaced by another little boy with the same name, as though humans are just interchangeable parts of machinery. 

The System. Their system does work—to a point. They have less crime. The streets are safer. People are more polite and more careful with their language. Everyone makes sure to be politically correct. But all of these “improvements” have come at great cost. In order to achieve this level of peacefulness, humans have had to surrender their humanity—their free will, their emotions, and their thoughts. They have had to remove all the spice of life—sunlight, weather, heat, cold, different skin tones, different features, history, everything. They have become mindless cattle that embrace their oblivion as they calmly wait for the slaughterhouse at the end of the road. And all of this begs the question—is the commonly idealized Utopia just another from of dystopia in the end? 

What about you, my little coffee beans? Have you read THE GIVER? What are your thoughts on the story? Do you agree/disagree with me? What are some points I missed?

Books that Shaped Me // Round One

Source

I don’t reread books often enough. Out of the 118 books I read last year, only 48 were rereads. Now, before you start squinting at me like I’m crazy (which I am) or really bad at math (which I also am), let me just say that I realize 48, in comparison with 70, is not a pathetically small number. But it’s not a large enough number for me either. I love rereading books. In fact, I love rereading books even more than I love reading them the first time around. Each time I reread a story (unless it’s poorly written and not worth a second glance), it gains more meaning and more emotional significance because, for me at least, stories are like scrapbooks for thoughts. Scrapbooks aren’t worth much if you don’t revisit them from time to time and pore over the pages to reacquaint yourself with all the memories you’ve preserved there. 

So I have decided to go back and reread all the books that helped form me—the ones that shaped my childhood self, opened my mind, and taught me to love imagination. I think it’s valuable for me to come full circle. 

As I take this nostalgia tour of my life, I want to share at least a part of it with you. Which means, over the next few months or so, I’ll post more about other books that shaped me, and I’ll review some of them here. I will also try to review the rest of them on Goodreads  because I’ve made an impromptu resolution to post more reviews there. (My Goodreads account has been sadly neglected.) But, as I do this, I don’t want to take credit for the idea of a nostalgia tour. A while ago, Victoria at Stori Tori’s Blog wrote a lovely post on her top ten most influential books (which you should check out). And even further back, Veronica Roth did her own nostalgia tour which struck me as a brilliant idea (before you ask, yes, I love her blog, and I’ve probably read the whole thing five times). 

All that being said, I’ve set my Goodreads 2016 reading goal to 175 books. If I can do more, that’s wonderful, but I want to read at least 175. And, more importantly, I want at least 88 of those books to be rereads. I could talk forever about the value of rereading, but I plan to do a post on that subject soon, so right now I’ll just share with you seven of the books that impacted my younger self. Who knows, maybe some of these were important to you as well. 

A WRINKLE IN TIME

Before I read the book, I watched the movie several times and fell in love with the feel of it. In fact, the only reason my younger self even touched the book (the edition my mom owns has a seriously ugly cover) was because I loved the movie so much. Although the movie and the book are different in terms of smaller plot points (as far as I remember—it was a long time ago), I still recall them both sharing the same tone—the same deep, inexplicable sense of unease. The best way I can describe the atmosphere is as a darker, more concentrated form of that spine-tingling coziness I feel when the rain is falling hard outside and the wind is shrieking around the corners of the house. (Here’s a link to Veronica’s lovely, but spoilery, review.)

THE GIVER

This was another book that felt heavy with a deep sense of unease (although it’s a different sort of unease). It was the book that taught me not to take people and society at face value—it taught me to distrust the appearance of beauty and peace and perfection until I’ve seen beneath the surface. I don’t remember much of the actual events, beyond the major plot points, but I do remember Jonas’ conversation with his parents about love and how they only understand love through selfish terms. (Veronica discusses this same conversation in her review, so you should totally check that out.) In this story world, true love has become a foreign concept, which is terrifying to put it mildly. More than that, the sterility of the environment branded itself on my mind—the way these people are basically cattle, and the way they celebrate their bondage. In other words, this book is one of my top priority rereads. 

THE HOST

I reread and reviewed this one last year, so my memory is a lot fresher on the details (I still plan to read it again this year). It’s one of the few books that has kept me up past my self-appointed bed time. It is also one of the very few books that can lay claim to making me cry. The aspect of this story that grabbed me the most is the way it handles the question of what it means to be human (and the way villains can be genuinely nice and considerate but still do awful things). 

THE TALE OF DESPEREAUX

This book is one of my most beloved childhood stories. On some deep level, I felt that I really connected with Chiaroscuro and the way he has an ugly heart because it’s been broken and he’s had to stitch it back together (metaphorically speaking, of course). As a young thing, I also wanted to be like Despereaux—someone brave enough to break the mold and do noble, courageous things in the face of a society built on fear. 

WATERSHIP DOWN

I reviewed this one just recently, so I may or may not reread it this year. We’ll see. But this list would be missing an important element if I didn’t include it. After all, Hazel taught me a lot about good leadership skills. 

Z FOR ZACHARIAH

Growing up, I often fantasized about what it would be like if everyone else on earth were to disappear suddenly and leave the world to me, myself, and I. Aside from the danger of wild animals (if those were still around), this thought was very appealing to me, and it was especially fun to imagine ways to stay alive. (My plans involved eating all the perishables in the abandoned grocery stores and gas stations first, and then rationing the other stuff, like flour and canned goods. For shelter, I figured a grocery store would make the best living arrangement because I could build walls of cans and have plenty of room to store all the food I’d scavenged in my travels.) Z FOR ZACHARIAH was a way for me to appease that desire for solitude in a harmless way—to experience what it feels like to think you’re the last remaining person on earth. So many fond memories. 

I’m also very upset about the movie version that just came out because, from what I’ve seen in the synopsis, they kept approximately two of the major plot points, chucked everything else, introduced a new character and a love triangle, changed Ann’s relationship with Mr. Loomis, altered the ENTIRE point of the story, and just generally did their level best to ruin it. Like, I can’t even tell you how upset I am. As much as I would love to see one of my all-time favorite books played out on the big screen, I think it will be better for my blood pressure if I just skip this one and wait until someone honors the actual story. Although, come to think of it, it might be satisfying to watch the movie just so I can rant more effectively about it. *sulks*

LIFE AS WE KNEW IT

You can read my review for this one here. LIFE AS WE KNEW IT appealed to me in the same way that Z FOR ZACHARIAH did. It has the same sort of idea—a worldwide catastrophe has culled the population (though potentially not as much, in this case), and survival is now a higher priority than entertainment and culture. (I have only read one of the sequels, and I only own LIFE AS WE KNEW IT, so I want to get my hands on the rest of the series this year, if I can.) This story also has somewhat symbolic significance to me in that I read it during my biggest library binge phase. At that time, I didn’t own all that many books, and I hadn’t read all that many either. Sure, I had had my school library before that, but this time I felt freer and wilder, like the world was opening up before me. I think that’s really when my love of reading turned from a little candle to an unfortunate but beautiful house fire. (Saying this, I realize I should probably, at some point, write a post explaining why I’m no longer quite so enamored of libraries.) 

Well, that’s it for today, little coffee beans. What are some of the books that shaped you? What are some of your all-time favorites? What are some books you plan to reread this year? If you’ve watched Z FOR ZACHARIAH, what is your opinion of it?

Book Review: MATCHED by Ally Condie

Warning: As always, I try to stay relatively spoiler free. But it doesn’t hurt to proceed with caution. Also, if you're wondering where Dystopian Discussion: Part Three is, I'll be posting it on Wednesday.

 

Rating: Two Stars—Meh

 

 

 

Oh dear, I so wanted to like MATCHED. The cover was beautiful, the premise was intriguing, and the writing was decent. It even made the #1 slot on the New York Times Bestseller List, so I couldn’t go wrong. Right?

I’ll admit, it wasn’t AWFUL awful, and literature is terribly subjective anyway. Ally Condie is reasonably good with words—that’s not why I disliked the book. And Cassia’s (our main character’s) grandfather is such a great man—even though he doesn’t have more than a few scenes, I feel I got to know him well. At the very least, I got to know the parts of his personality that mattered. On top of that, I liked Cassia’s brother and parents. While they don’t have a great deal of substance to them, they are interesting, compelling, and sympathetic.

Another aspect that interested me was the inclusion of poetry. When I found out that MATCHED features Dylan Thomas’s poem “Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night”, I was all like SIGN ME UP, PEOPLE. And then, when I discovered MATCHED also mentions an Alfred, Lord Tennyson poem, I donned my party hat, tossed confetti in the air, and hurled myself at the Ally Condie bandwagon.

I was sorely disappointed. And since misery loves company, I feel inclined to share my complaints with you lovely people. You’re welcome.

The Pills. While the pills they carry around in their little cases aren’t a hugely original concept, I saw potential there, especially when the narrative hints at Em’s potential addiction to the green pill (a chill pill, if you will). However, just as Condie introduces this thread, she lets it slip through her fingers. Even though it’s a small detail, not overly essential to the plot, I think this might be what disappointed me the most.

 

In a messed up society like Cassia’s, even those who do not necessarily believe themselves to be unhappy are, on some subconscious level, bound to realize that not everything is all right. Everyone in MATCHED is sickeningly content with their lot. Apart from Cassia’s grandfather, no one even seems to consider questioning the system. So I thought it lent believability that people like Em are quietly drugging themselves, potentially trying to numb the parts of their minds that want to fight, however suppressed they might be. I wanted to see how everyone was deeply dissatisfied, despite not realizing why. If that were the case, the world of MATCHED would have felt so much deeper, so much more real. Because, really, it doesn’t count as a dystopia if nearly everyone is happy. Unfortunately, Condie doesn’t follow up on this pill addiction—doesn’t even mention if this is common, or if Em’s dependence on the chill pill is unusual. All we get is a brief scene where Em has an anxiety attack because she has become too dependent on the pills to calm her down when she’s stressed. Nothing deeper. *sad face*

At this point, all of you who disliked the book are probably wondering why on earth I’m missing the most obvious, most glaring issues. All right, all right, I’ll mention the love triangle. Happy now? (I’m just messing with you—I’ve been desperate to rant about this ever since I got, like, fifty pages into the book and saw what was coming.)

The Icky Love Triangle. So let’s break this down. In the beginning, we have Cassia and Xander—best friends since diapers, or whatever—riding on a train to their Matching Banquet where they will be assigned to their future spouses. Bascially, Cassia is over the moon, nervous and excited, but most of all happy. Then, tada! She’s matched to Xander—how lucky can you get? (Warning: The banquet scene may leave you craving chocolate cake. Read at your own risk.)

At the ceremony, Cassia is given a microcard containing information about her Match, as is customary. Later, when she finally reviews this card, something unexpected happens. At first, Xander’s gorgeous mug appears, but then (GASP), another boy’s face appears for the briefest instant before the portscreen shuts down. So what does Cassia do, once an official has come to her and explained that it was just a glitch, that the boy she saw (Ky) is not intended for her, and that she really is matched to Xander, her best friend?

Well, if she were sensible, she would just brush it off and continue on with her happy, heartsty life. After all, she has everything she could possibly want. Everything. But is she grateful for her good fortune? NO. No, she actively decides to fall in love with Ky, a boy she never thought about and hardly noticed before he showed up on her portscreen. She throws away her beautiful, shining future with both hands just for an illicit romance with a guy she hardly knows. Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall.

Now, I realize I sound cranky (it’s because I am), so let me explain myself a little more eloquently. I would have been fine if Xander were just some snot-nosed freak or an upstart, pompous pig. I would have been fine if Cassia had already been in love with Ky, but found herself matched to Xander, a boy she couldn’t care less about. I would have been fine if she’d broken the rules, cheated on her match, and defied the government because she loved Ky too much to let him go. But I wasn’t fine with this. Xander is great for her—he is brilliant for her. Goodness, they’ve been friends their entire lives—that goes for a lot. At any point she could have decided to shrug off her passing curiosity about Ky—because, given the circumstances, it’s understandable for her to be curious. Instead, at every turn, she goes out of her way to pursue Ky.

Basically, I spent the whole time wanting to whack her in the face with a dictionary. Awful, horrendous things could have happened to her, and I wouldn’t have batted an eyelash, because she would have brought all those things upon herself (I promise you, I’m not this callous in real life). And I’m not saying I never forgive characters when they make stupid decisions, but it’s one thing for a character to flub up a little—it’s quite another when someone, like Cassia, puts on her stupid hat, buries her brain alive, and proceeds to dance on its grave for the ENTIRE NOVEL. Pardon me—I have the sudden urge to stab myself in the eye with a knitting needle.

Pacing/Tension. Unfortunately, Cassia’s nonsense is not the only issue I had with this novel. I honestly didn’t care that it was slow-moving—I don’t read books like WAR AND PEACE, ANNA KARENINA, and CRIME AND PUNISHMENT because I expect them to be fast-paced. But pacing and tension are two different things, and I prefer my reading material to have at least one, if not both. With MATCHED, there is hardly any driving force. The romance just plods along, and even the climax hardly feels like a climax.

World-building, Flat Characters, and Cruel Cassia. Furthermore, the world struck me as too small, too penned in. There are hints about unrest around the fringes of our happy little society, but since we’re reading about Cassia, we pretty much stay where we are, smack dab in the middle of a paper doll town filled with lollipop people. Like some of the other characters, both Xander and Ky are flat and far, FAR too perfect. Also, it bothered me that, while Cassia has decided to actively pursue Ky, she doesn’t have the decency to let poor Xander go. Honey, if you don’t want him, don’t keep running his poor, darling heart through the wringer. If you’ve decided on someone else, then give Xander up for goodness sakes.

My Last Gripe. On top of that, the entire book seems like a poor rewrite of Lois Lowry's THE GIVER. We have arranged marriages (which work much better in THE GIVER because emotional control smoothes out many of the hitches Condie conveniently ignores), euthanasia, nice bad guys, freakishly content people, a tight community with scheduled activities and curfews and whatnot, and etc…

So yeah, I might have had a few problems with this book, and I’m not sure whether I’ll read the sequels, CROSSED and REACHED. Who knows, maybe I’ll give them another chance, since I hate leaving trilogies unfinished. But they’re definitely not high on my priority list.

However, the cool thing about books is that, while some people will hate a certain novel, others are bound to love it. And I know at least one of my friends is head-over-heels for MATCHED. That being the case, you’re welcome to disagree with me, but if you want my opinion, I’d say you’re better off reading THE GIVER.

Dystopian Discussion: Part One

Disclaimer: I do not necessarily recommend every book I discuss.

I could be wrong, but it seems that when dystopian literature is mentioned, the first example that comes to mind for many people would be THE HUNGER GAMES by Suzanne Collins. Even almost seven years after its publication, I still find it stocked in the highly selective Walmart book sections. But there are so many other dystopian novels out there, the market has become flooded, and publishers are less willing to buy these works unless they stand out above the rest. Let’s face it—it’s a small subgenre with only a limited amount of room to breathe—even the most creative specimen is going to share traits with its fellows. So the goal, for writers, is to give their work a fresh twist that makes it unique.

 

 

In THE HUNGER GAMES, every year the government mandates that twenty-four kids (a boy and a girl from each of the twelve districts) must be forced to fight to death in an arena until one survivor remains. These Hunger Games are televised for all to see—both to entertain those in the free capitol, and to intimidate those who live in the oppressed districts (in order to prevent another uprising).

I have heard and seen many people speak of THE HUNGER GAMES as though it is the end all be all of dystopian literature. I agree that it is a remarkable piece, and I have read it multiple times. I’m desperately in love with the feel of it, especially the arena itself. However, staunch supporters of the HUNGER GAMES trilogy who claim that Veronica Roth borrowed from the series when she wrote DIVERGENT, INSURGENT, and ALLEGIANT, might want to pause and think before complaining too loudly. Because, unfortunately for Suzanne Collins, fans of Koushun Takami’s BATTLE ROYALE may have the same thing to say about THE HUNGER GAMES. And rightly so.

 

 

 

While BATTLE ROYALE is much gorier (and I’m going on summaries here, like this one, because I haven’t read the book yet), and while it is set in Japan rather than North America, the basic premises are shockingly similar. After all, BATTLE ROYALE centers around a bunch of school children forced to fight to the death in an arena—a fight that is eventually televised in order to intimidate those who might have considered rebelling. Sound familiar?

Now, Collins claims she had never heard of BATTLE ROYALE before she turned in her own story to the publishers, and I know that it is very easy to rip off another writer’s work without realizing it. After all, we’re swimming in a vat of idea stew, and there’s more than one chunk of potato floating in here with us, so let’s not hit each other over the head with our soup spoons until we find the facts. Personally, I have no opinion on whether Collins is being perfectly forthright or not, because it really isn’t any of my business, and I’m not sure we’ll ever know for certain either way. I’m only mentioning this because it annoys me when people call DIVERGENT a rip-off and act as if THE HUNGER GAMES is the last word in dystopian originality.

Speaking of DIVERGENT.

 

 

In the world of Veronica Roth’s DIVERGENT, we don’t have the Big Mean Government breathing down everyone’s necks. Instead, we have a system devised by flawed individuals in an attempt to fix the human race. By splitting society into five factions, each based on an important virtue, people believe they can maintain peace and harmony. Unfortunately, human nature has begun to exert itself.

What I like about DIVERGENT is that, while it’s based in a dystopian setting, that isn’t the main point. Boiled down, the story is really just about a girl trying to find her place and discover who she is. And I appreciate Roth’s originality in not succumbing to the Big Brother theme. While I enjoy novels that delve into the repercussions of a Socialistic construct, I dislike the tunnel vision of so limited a focus. There are hundreds of ways for us go wrong, and Socialism is only one of them.

Another set that came out around the same time as the DIVERGENT trilogy is the LEGEND trilogy by Marie Lu.

 

 

 

 

LEGEND centers around a boy accused of murder and the girl assigned to track him down. Both are horrendously smart, and both are on different sides of the law. Though I felt the LEGEND trilogy shared too many themes with some of its forebears regarding the construct of the government itself, I appreciated the whole LES MISERABLES vibe I got from the first book, as well as the inclusion of the plague (because I like stories that feature some sort of plague). Also, I expected the sequels to leap onto the “let’s take down the government” train that seems to wend its way through many dystopian novels (see what I did there?). But instead, Lu threw me when she took a different direction altogether (but I won’t tell you what happens because that would ruin the surprise). So, while I would only give that trilogy three stars over all for various reasons I won’t go into for lack of space, I wouldn’t say LEGEND was a cheap knock off.

But now let’s look at Lois Lowry’s THE GIVER and Ally Condie’s MATCHED.

 

 

 

In THE GIVER, we have a different sort of dystopian construct, one I find even more delightfully disturbing than the Roman-inspired gladiator-style fights of THE HUNGER GAMES and the Big Brother style government of LEGEND and the faction system of DIVERGENT. In the GIVER, the evil of tyranny is masked as kindness. In blatant dystopian governments, it’s all out there; you know, for the most part, who your enemy is. But at first the characters of THE GIVER don’t even know they have an enemy. In fact, from the outside looking in, this close-knit society could be viewed as a virtual paradise. Until you look closer, that is. Rather than rebellions and massacres, we’re dealing with things like euthanasia, emotional control, etc. While the higher ups are always watching, people don’t necessarily live in fear since they have been led to believe this is for their own good. (Also, they can’t see color, so now you know you HAVE to read the book. See, I can be very persuasive.)

Unfortunately, it would seem Ally Condie decided to paint a strikingly similar portrait when she wrote MATCHED. While the idea of arranged marriages as a way of life is interesting, it’s hardly original. Aside from the love-triangle, MATCHED uses multiple themes from THE GIVER, it would seem, including euthanasia and constant surveillance—not to mention, the bad guys appear nice, and the society looks the picture of perfection. (Too much happy!) There are other parallels, I realize, and other reasons why MATCHED didn’t feel fresh and exciting, but I’ll get into them later when I actually review the book.

 

So there you have it. I’ve covered the first five books/trilogies on my list, and next week I’ll discuss the next bunch (plus, if all goes well, I’d like to share a few more thoughts concerning dystopian literature in general). Also, just as a heads up, I can’t promise anything but I expect to be a little less busy starting in late July/early August, and I hope to write a bunch of book reviews during that time (my regular content won’t change; you’ll just get to read my yammering more often).

 

All book photos from Goodreads.