The thirty-first book that I’ve finished reading this year is Lois Lowry’s “The Giver”. Living in a self-sustaining utopian community, Jonas is about to attend his Ceremony of the Twelve, where he will be assigned his life-time job. To his surprise, rather than being assigned, he was selected as the successor of the most important role in their community — the Receiver of Memory. What is the responsibility of this role, and why will it be painful?

Though categorised as a children’s book, The Giver has many identical qualities to teen and adult dystopian fiction, where citizens are assigned tasks rather than given the choice of their own, books are rarely accessible and people, who are able to develop genuine feelings, often acquire a lustreless perception of the world. Only a select few have the opportunity to discover the truth, and yet they often agonise at this discovery. These books often pose two contrasting situations for the reader to muse upon: sameness vs differences, choice vs passive acceptance,??memory vs experience…each has its own benefits and disadvantages, which I will analyse below.

To understand sameness vs differences, perhaps we could look at two related concepts: collectivism vs individualism. Collectivist societies prioritise the greater good of the community and are willing to sacrifice individual benefits; thus, newchildren who do not pass the test and the elderly are ‘released’ in Jonas’ community to prevent overpopulation. They also avoid magnifying their idiosyncratic differences to fit in smoothly, believing that a unified whole is the ultimate perfect world. On the other hand, individualistic societies prize individual differences and encourage expression of personal thoughts, embracing diversity, believing that new ideas arising from different viewpoints will lead the way to a brighter future. Clearly, Jonas’ society is collectivist (and quite an extreme form of it); though there is no war, no hunger and no pain, life is rather monotonous and minds are suppressed. Meanwhile, the lands Elsewhere, where Jonas is close to arriving towards the end, may nurture societies unlike his that are perhaps more individualistic.

The discussion of collectivism and individualism also gives rise to another relevant topic: choice vs passive acceptance. To accept the status quo and obey whatever orders issued from above ensures safety. There is no risk of failure, or bearing of responsibility when something goes wrong. However, many new possibilities are shunned out. On the other hand, having a choice opens up new opportunities previously unheard of, though if results turn out to be undesired, one must bear the brunt of responsibility on one’s own shoulders. Either situation is a double-edged sword, though some may prefer one over the other depending on their temperaments.

Another controversial topic in this book revolves around memory vs experience. When Jonas receives memories from the Giver, he does not actually experience them physically, only mentally. Thus, the memories that he received are rather ethereal, and he loses them when they are passed on to another. Though he often puts these memories to physical use (e.g. thinking about fire on a snowing hill warms himself up), they are still not the same as his true experience on the snowing hill, which should stay with him for longer. Of course, memory is fairly unreliable, often coloured by personal hues, so it is also interesting to ponder upon why the community set up the role of the Giver and the Receiver; can they really trust the memories of one, rather than the collective? Perhaps that’s another one of their self-deceiving practices.

The metaphor of ‘giving’ and ‘receiving’ memory is also amusing, coining memory as some sort of commodity that can be exchanged between people. I cannot help but draw parallels with the akasha system in Sumeru City, where knowledge can be given and received, in a similar fashion to memory. Similarly, such knowledge and memory can also be tampered with. Of course, memory is a very important commodity; we depend on memory to make future decisions, and we search through our memory for people who we can no longer meet in real life. Perhaps that is why the Giver and the Receiver are such honoured positions in Jonas’ community. Despite their revered job, though, they feel terribly lonely that they are unable to share their thoughts and feelings with others around them, as the others would not understand. Is this role really worth the recognition? Either way, they did not have a choice; they were selected. Now, it is time to make a change.

Overall, the community in this book gave a similar vibe to that in Midsommar; the chanting in unison, the assignment of roles and the ceremony of ‘release’ are analogous and eerie. Nonetheless, The Giver is much less grotesque, and thus serves as an apt gateway for young readers to enter dystopian literature. I would definitely recommend this quick but thoughtful read to young and old readers alike.