Banned Books discussion

title really explains it all. why is it considered challenged or why is it banned?

According to this:

http://bannedbookschallenge.blogspot....

because of the use of euthanasia and suicide

even though, as the above article points out, it makes those tactics seem bad, not good.

i also have another question:
"Utopian society that relies on euthanasia and suicide to create the perfect community"
i dont see that in the book (i'm only a blissfully unaware teenager, so i obviously wouldn't quite yet haha) and how do they use suicide to create a perfect community? i am extremely confused. although that is very interesting, how DO they create a perfect society? please explain!

Kenza, Have you read the book yet? I don't really want to answer here because it is something of a spoiler.

yes, i have read it, i read it today haha

i see the euthanasia, but the suicide? sorry this must seem very obvious- im not v observant.

Hmm, Well, I was thinking of the euthanasia too. It's been a long time since I've read this book. Perhaps those that ban books lump those two together as one; maybe for them it's the same issue?

Lisa wrote: "Hmm, Well, I was thinking of the euthanasia too. It's been a long time since I've read this book. Perhaps those that ban books lump those two together as one; maybe for them it's the same issue?"
euthanasia seems the obvious one, as jonas 'recieves' later on in the book the answer.

There wasn't any suicide in "The Giver." All the old people who ended their lives did so willingly with assistance. That's the definition of euthenasia, not suicide. Suicide is by definition ending one's own life for the sole reason of being too depressed to go on. The old people in the book who ended their lives did so because that was just the way things were done in their society, not because they were depressed.
There was also murder involved, though. The killing of the babies just because they did not measure up to the society's standards.

Joseph, That's not so. Euthanasia is considered a form of suicide. Edit: By many in our society, not by me.

Joseph wrote: "There wasn't any suicide in "The Giver." All the old people who ended their lives did so willingly with assistance. That's the definition of euthenasia, not suicide. Suicide is by definition endi..."
um i know that euthanasia does not mean suicide (im not that stupid). i was taking an excerpt from the website that lisa sent me which was "Utopian society that relies on euthanasia and suicide to create the perfect community"

this is the definition the Apple dictionary gives.
euthanasia |ˌyoōθəˈnā zh ə|
noun
the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The practice is illegal in most countries.

no, suicide is simply
"the action of killing oneself intentionally" and it may not have to do with depression at all.

Kenza wrote: "no, suicide is simply
"the action of killing oneself intentionally" and it may not have to do with depression at all."

You're right, I meant to say OFTEN due to depression. Somehow that one word got left out, sorry.
What I was trying to do was separate euthanasia, helping someone kill themselves, from suicide, someone killing his/herself by his/herself.

In "The Giver," if I remember correctly, there were some people who were given the jobs of helping the old to end their lives. That would be euthenasia, not suicide.

Kenza, I did not mean to be criticizing your wording, I meant to be nitpicky about the people who were giving suicide as a reason for banning the book.

In any case, to get back to answering your question, the society in "The Giver" used euthenasia to "improve" its society by ending the lives of those who were of no longer any value to the society and so had become what they saw as nothing but an impairment. They thought why keep them around if they could not give anything back to the community any more. That's why they killed the babies that did not measure up, also. They thought if they did not look like they were going to grow up big and strong and valuable, why bother with them? Just kill them and devote valuable time and energy to raising the babies that would be of value.

Well, we're actually talking murder, but in our society, euthanasia, if it's initiated or approved by the person dying, is considered a form of suicide by some, those same people who no doubt want to ban The Giver.

Joseph wrote: "Kenza wrote: "no, suicide is simply
"the action of killing oneself intentionally" and it may not have to do with depression at all."

You're right, I meant to say OFTEN due to depression. Someh..."
oh, haha yea. i see. and its such a brutal part of the book. i just didnt see how suicide fit in, and now i see it didnt at all :)

Lisa wrote: "Well, we're actually talking murder, but in our society, euthanasia, if it's initiated or approved by the person dying, is considered a form of suicide by some, those same people who no doubt want ..."

in the book, yes, it is basically murder, but with the elderly, some of them probably werent even quite sure what it would do to them.
and in our society, well, it's not exactly suicide all the time, but u cant compare because it IS illegal in the US.

This is a great discussion. I'm moving it to another folder, though, because this folder is for discussing the books we're reading as a group.

Is it illegal everywhere in the US? It's one of those things that would be jurisdictional, probably at a state level.

Kelly, I do believe it's illegal everywhere in the U.S. It used to be; it's possible laws have changed. Obviously not enforced. Assisted suicide is legal in Oregon and possibly in other states too.

The Giver is actually one of the few books I have had personal censorship issue with. In the fifth grade, I was reading this book with my class when a parent complained about the content. The principal pulled the book immediately. The problem this parent had was neither suicide nor euthanasia but an "attack on the family," to use an oft quoted phrase. Her issue was with the way babies were manufactured (my word; I have no idea what hers was) in a fertility clinic rather than produced by man and wife. She may have had other problems with it as well, but what I remember most (and this was like 15 years ago) was that about babies. Luckily I had a super awesome teacher who let those of us who were interested continue The Giver while the rest of the class read the book chosen by the principal - Shiloh, which I have had a personal vendetta against ever since.
...sorry about the rant, but I'm still mad about the whole experience. Imagine, one parent dictating what every child gets to read.

It's so sad that the principal caved.

I was thinking of assisted suicide, Lisa, by what you said above. But technically "pulling the plug" on someone who is alive but will die without the machines is also a form of euthanasia, don't you think?

Kelly wrote: "Is it illegal everywhere in the US? It's one of those things that would be jurisdictional, probably at a state level."

yes, it seems so. ive looked it up to confirm, and yes, as lisa said, the enforcement depends on the state.

Kelly wrote: "It's so sad that the principal caved.

I was thinking of assisted suicide, Lisa, by what you said above. But technically "pulling the plug" on someone who is alive but will die without the machines..."
well i suppose it is, but in the case of the book, no one had a choice- if they didnt want to die, they still had to. but i got a feeling that some, if not all, of them didnt quite know it was going to kill them, they might still be under the impression they were going Elsewhere.
anyone think the same way? or am i totally off the mark ^-^

well i suppose it is, but in the case of the book, no one had a choice- if they didnt want to die, they still had to. but i got a feeling that some, if not all, of them didnt quite know it was going to kill them, they might still be under the impression they were going Elsewhere.
anyone think the same way? or am i totally off the mark ^-^

I think the old went willingly to be killed simply because that was the way their society worked. Things had been that way for so long no one ever thought for themselves anymore, to question whether or not letting themselves be killed off was right or wrong. Their society just thought that was the right thing to do.

If you read the next two books in the trilogy,
Gathering Blue and Messenger, you'll learn more about what happens to those few who did decide to think for themselves and do go Elsewhere instead of to their death.

Joseph wrote: "well i suppose it is, but in the case of the book, no one had a choice- if they didnt want to die, they still had to. but i got a feeling that some, if not all, of them didnt quite know it was goin..."

oh i see. i didnt know that it was a trilogy, i thought that they were just other books he had written.

Lois Lowry wrote it as a loose trilogy. You don't have to read them all, but reading "The Giver" first adds to understanding "Gathering Blue" better, and reading those two helps to get more out of "Messenger."

Joseph wrote: "Lois Lowry wrote it as a loose trilogy. You don't have to read them all, but reading "The Giver" first adds to understanding "Gathering Blue" better, and reading those two helps to get more out of..."

mmk. ill consider reading. (i probably will ^_^)

I didn't know about the other books, either. I'm thrilled! Thanks Joseph!

Do you folks think the old people really understood what release meant? I got the impression that everyone was as confused as the main character except people in the jobs that actually released people.

Kelly, I agree. The general population did not know what being released meant.

Kelly wrote: "I didn't know about the other books, either. I'm thrilled! Thanks Joseph!

Do you folks think the old people really understood what release meant? I got the impression that everyone was as confused..."

yeah, thats what i was trying 2 say earlier..."but i got a feeling that some, if not all, of them didnt quite know it was going to kill them, they might still be under the impression they were going Elsewhere.
anyone think the same way? or am i totally off the mark ^-^ "

There is at least once instance of suicide in The Giver. I hope I am not too much of a spoiler here. However, there was a trainiee before Jonas and when she couldn't take it anymore she asked for "release" and did it for herself.

Interesting discussion on this book.
And I have to agree with apol about their being at least one suicide in the book. Didn't the trainee before Jonas, who was actually the old Giver's daughter (I believe) commit suicide when she couldn't take what the position entailed?

The Giver is a very thought provoking book. I look forward to reading the other two in the series.

Yes, the previous trainee committed suicide. I haven't read the sequels but they are on my to-read list. Has anyone else read them?

I read Gathering Blue and thought it was interesting. It did not live up to The Giver in my mind, though.

Erin, your observation about the intentions behind the banning of books is marvelous! If only teachers, principals & school boards could develop the courage to reason with the complainant & open a dialogue rather than fear them & have a knee-jerk reaction by banning the book, thus bringing attention to the very thing that they wished to shield children from. It seems to me that many who dictate to the public schools about what is taught are the ones who end up home-schooling anyway.

I think the whole point is that they don't want their kids to think about these things at all. That's why religious zealots (not specifying which religion here, at this level they are all the same) (and I'm not saying religious zealots are the only ones who do this) home-school their kids and don't let them watch t.v. but sometimes let them play violent video games (I know one such family that let their kids play grand theft auto which is ghastly.) They don't want anything contradicting what they are teaching their kids because they are afraid their children will "stray" and come to a different conclusion than they did. They are most threatened by ideas which sound reasonable (hence the lack of fear that their kids will turn into murdering car thieves from playing the above game). I find it very sad.

Not only sad, but dangerous. These kids graduate from high school and arrive at college and university totally unprepared for challenging reads, open discussions etc. Or, they might think that they can act the same way in university as they could in high school, simply stating they will not read a book they don't agree with (or they will try to get books banned from university curriculums as well).

My mom grew up in a very controlling household and when she got to college she couldn't handle it and had a "nervous breakdown" and flunked out of school. (She'd be a straight A student.) My grandfather had to pull strings to get her into another university.

Did your grandfather ever realise that it might have been your mother's strict and controlling upbringing that caused her troubles? I hope so.

No. But he was definitely more tolerant with his grandkids. Made my mom really jealous.

Well, I'm glad your grandfather was more tolerant with the grandchildren. Too bad, that he couldn't have at least apologised a bit to your mother (and his other children), but I know from personal experience that parents often believe not only that everything they do is right, but that it is all done "for the best." My family was (and is) pretty controlling as well, though with them, it is not so much control of reading materials etc., but "discipline through rude verbal comments" (and you never heard about your successes, just your failures).

I know from my own experience that another reason this book is challenged is because of the description of "the Stirrings," the pills to quell them, and Jonas's dreams of washing Fiona. When I was teaching 7th grade, a high school teacher asked me why I taught it to 7th graders, saying critically, "doesn't it take about 'the stirring'?" Thankfully, the challenge was never accepted and I continued teaching the book.

David wrote: "I know from my own experience that another reason this book is challenged is because of the description of "the Stirrings," the pills to quell them, and Jonas's dreams of washing Fiona. When I was..."

Lol, like middle school kids don't think about "stirrings"...

Sure, keep the "kiddies" ignorant!! All that does is cause problems and unhealthy sexual development. We should get out of the Dark Ages.

The most important lesson for me from the other teacher's comment about the stirrings, was that it was that it revealed that she hadn't actually read the book. "Doesn't it talk about the stirrings?" This gave me a great starting place asking her if she's read it, etc. I find that entering the conversation with inquiry rather than with argument made a much more productive conversation. I think this is true with many challenges on books. People act on what they have heard, and, I believe, are doing so out of a desire to help and protect, but often do not have all the information. SO now, when challenged about a book, I find it most effective to find out what information they have and what information they need.

That's so true and it is true about many books that are challenged or banned. "Concerned" parents might count the number of swear-words in a book or they might make a decision based on hearsay or maybe having read a description or editorial, but they often have not actually read the book in question. Why should anyone take seriously the complaints of individuals who are not willing (or maybe too lazy) to read the book(s) they deem offensive etc.?