The Giver 這本書,志在必行早在10年前就看過了,但當時心不定沒辨法一口氣讀完;但看到本班同學claire 拿著這本書,才勾起志在必行的記憶。志在必行記得看這本書時是躲在百貨公司的按摩椅後面看的。那時在美國打工- 做銷貨員,沒事時,就躲著椅後翻翻書看。前面的故事志在必行是看的很仔細,但在後面的情節是挑著跳著看。志在必行第一次看原文的奇幻文學就是這本由一位美國小學老師送的(他是一位教語言的博士, 當時他追求志在必行,要志在必行好好唸書。但是志在必行並不喜歡他的外在,所以拒絕了他) <此時,意識流在我書寫這段時打斷我的上個思緒了> 沉浸於奇幻世界裡是很不切實際但精神面/創造面卻得到了滿足。也許因為志在必行太愛幻想了 !! 現實對志在必行而言,有時還不太能適應,志在必行的心智狀態常常是處在超現實上。看後心得: The Giver / 怎麼能夠主宰/決定一個社區所有人的未來呢?? 還好上帝給我們的是自由意識,讓我們自已選擇,我們的生命因自由選擇一切得著意義。若只為社區安逸著想而控管所有生命体的自由意識,那有什麼意思呢?? 這本是青少年所看的,可以幫助青少年思考人可以自由選擇- 真棒 !!
1994年美國作家路薏絲.蘿莉(Lois Lowry) 曾出版《記憶受領員》(The Giver)一書,這本以一位12歲男童為主角、敘述一個充滿人性矛盾與掙扎的烏托邦社會的幻想小說,在94年曾獲得全美兒童文學重要大獎-紐伯瑞金牌獎 (The Newberry Medal)。然而,近日媒體報導,這兩年隨著這本書進入中小學圖書館、或成為基礎教育教材,卻在美國社會引起了廣泛的爭議與迴響。
在《記憶受領員》一書中,作者蘿莉透過豐富的想像力,創出一個令人寒心、人人都被緊緊控制的「未來烏托邦社會」。在這個看似祥和的社會中,人人壯有所用、老有所終,自然而然地進入「命定」的工作崗位,一切的爭議、痛苦,以及選擇,都不存在。每個人在童年時期都享有個人的特權和未來應盡的責任,而家庭成員也在精選後具有高度的一致性。
書中敘述早慧的男童喬納斯(Jonas),在他即將進入「12歲成年禮」的前夕,卻發現了自己成人後將「被分派的任務」(assignment)-成為「記憶受領員」(Receiver),並展開一場掙扎與逃亡的過程。
喬納斯的父親,是一位撫育員,負責照顧新生兒,他的母親在司法部工作,然而,喬納斯被公認的天份並沒有為他帶來一般的工作。他「命定」要成為「記憶受領員」,將取代一位長者的獨特任務:把持整個社會成員的「記憶」──所有痛苦的、煩惱的,或者可能導致社會失序的記憶。這位將成為「記憶施與員」(The Giver)的長者,則已經開始將這些記憶移轉給喬納斯。
這個過程深深地困擾著喬納斯。這是他生平第一次接觸到一些普通的事物,像是顏色、太陽、雪和山川,以及愛、戰爭和死亡──在喬納斯看來,這個被視為「解放」的儀式,卻透露出這個烏托邦社會不為人知的謀殺本質。
驚懼之餘,喬納斯開始秘密策劃一場「逃離烏托邦」的計畫,他相信自己可以將記憶還給所有的人,但是他的計畫卻在他決定釋放記憶給一個新生嬰兒時給打亂了,原因是他愛上了這個新生的小生命。
由於不忍和幾經掙扎,在沒有裝備的情況下,喬納斯遂帶著這個小嬰兒展開了一場鋌而走險的亡命之旅…
根據美聯社報導,《記憶受領員》在美國出版幾年後,已逐漸進入各中小學校園圖書館,和成為小學課堂上的教材,但是書中觸及的「自殺」問題,卻成為各方爭議的焦點。包括南卡羅來納、弗羅里達、德州、俄亥俄州和科羅拉多州,都有正反雙方不同立場的意見,為這本書是否挑戰學校教育、以及是否適合兒童閱讀而相持不下。
反對者批評,這本書最大的錯誤在於沒有清楚解釋「自殺」並非解決人生問題的方法。住在丹佛市的漢森就爭論小學老師在他11歲女兒的課堂上大聲朗讀這本書是危險的,因為書中對自殺、安樂死和殺嬰等問題,以一種中性偏正面的角度來描寫。
贊成者則認為,這個12歲男孩的故事可以刺激學生思考一些重要的社會難題和讓學生表達自己的意見。他們表示,這個在看到人們為了生活在一個沒有戰爭和痛苦的世界而付出的代價後,最後做出逃離決定的故事,可以激發學生思考一些問題。
「如果我們只是要等待每個孩子都準備好了(才談這些問題),我們將活在一個和喬納斯相同的世界,」南卡羅來納州政府機構-校園人文藝術圖書館主任史卡爾說。
此外,有一些團體如美國國家家長及教師協會(National Parent-Teacher Association)及國家中小學校長協會(National Association of Elementary School Principals),面對這些爭議則表示將不採取任何立場。本書於1995年由智茂文化推出中譯本。
如果你是喬納斯,可以生活在一個沒有爭議、只有和諧,沒有苦痛、只有喜樂,人人沒有煩惱、一切井然有序的烏托邦社會,而享受所有特權的代價,只是在「12歲的成年禮後」,你必須了解真相,接手壟斷社會中不愉快記憶、避免社會解組的責任,你願意嗎?而生活在和善社會中的孩子們,又是否可以討論這樣的問題呢?(2001/7/6,博客來)
Context
Lois lowry was born in 1937 in Honolulu, Hawaii. Because her father was in the army, Lowry moved around as a child. She lived in several different countries, including Japan. She attended Brown University, where she was a writing major, but left college before graduation to get married. Lowry’s marriage did not last, but she had four children who became a major inspiration for her work. She finished her college degree at the University of Maine and worked as a housekeeper to earn a living. She continued to write, however, filled with ideas by the adventures of her children. In addition to working on young adult novels, Lowry also wrote textbooks and worked as a photographer specializing in children’s portraits.
For her first novel, A Summer to Die, Lowry received the International Reading Association Children’s Book Award in 1978. The novel tells the story of a thirteen-year-old girl’s complex feelings toward her older sister, who is dying. Lowry has said that she does not like to include directly autobiographical information in her books, but it is possible that some of Lowry’s experience seeped into A Summer to Die, as Lowry’s own sister died of cancer.
Since then, Lowry has written more than twenty books for young adults, including the popular Anastasia series and Number the Stars, which won the Newbery Medal and the National Jewish Book Award in 1990. She was inspired to write The Giver—which won the 1994 Newbery medal—after visiting her elderly father in a nursing home. He had lost most of his long-term memory, and it occurred to Lowry that without memory there is no longer any pain. She imagined a society where the past was deliberately forgotten, which would allow the inhabitants to live in a kind of peaceful ignorance. The flaws inherent in such a society, she realized, would show the value of individual and community memory: although a loss of memory might mean a loss of pain, it also means a loss of lasting human relationships and connections with the past.
The society Lowry depicts in The Giver is a utopian society—a perfect world as envisioned by its creators. It has eliminated fear, pain, hunger, illness, conflict, and hatred—all things that most of us would like to eliminate in our own society. But in order to maintain the peace and order of their society, the citizens of the community in The Giver have to submit to strict rules governing their behavior, their relationships, and even their language. Individual freedom and human passions add a chaotic element to society, and in The Giver even the memory of freedom and passion, along with the pain and conflict that human choice and emotion often cause, must be suppressed. In effect, the inhabitants of the society, though they are happy and peaceful, also lack the basic freedoms and pleasures that our own society values.
In this way, The Giver is part of the tradition of dystopian novels written in English, including George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. In these novels, societies that might seem to be perfect because all the inhabitants are well fed or healthy or seemingly happy are revealed to be profoundly flawed because they limit the intellectual or emotional freedom of the individual. 1984 and Brave New World both feature characters who awaken to the richness of experience possible outside the confines of the society, but they are either destroyed by the society or reassimilated before they can make any significant changes. The books function as warnings to the reader: do not let this happen to your society.
The message of The Giver is slightly more optimistic: by the end of the novel, we believe that Jonas has taken a major step toward awakening his community to the rich possibilities of life. The novel is also slightly less realistic: although the technological advances that allow the community to function are scientifically feasible, the relationship between Jonas and the Giver has magical overtones. But Lowry’s dystopian society shares many aspects with those of 1984 and Brave New World: the dissolution of close family connections and loyalty; the regulation or repression of sexuality; the regulation of careers, marriages, and reproduction; the subjugation of the individual to the community; and constant government monitoring of individual behavior.
The Giver was published in 1993, a time when public consciousness of political correctness was at a peak, and this historical context is interestingly echoed in some aspects of the society that Lowry portrays. One of the most prominent debates surrounding political correctness was—and is—the value of celebrating differences between people versus the value of making everyone in a society feel that they belong. The society in The Giver’s emphasis on “Sameness” can be seen as a critique of the politically correct tendency to ignore significant differences between individuals in order to avoid seeming prejudiced or discriminatory. At the same time, the society refuses to tolerate major differences between individuals at all: people who cannot be easily assimilated into the society are released. Lowry suggests that while tolerance is essential, it should never be achieved at the expense of true diversity.
In The Giver, Lowry tackles other issues that emerged as significant social questions in the early 1990s. The anti-abortion versus pro-life controversy raged hotly, and new questions arose concerning the ethics of a family’s right to choose to end the life of a terminally ill family member (euthanasia) and an individual’s right to end his or her own life (assisted suicide). Questions about reproductive rights and the nature of the family unit also arose due to advances in genetic and reproductive technology. Books such as Hillary Clinton’s It Takes a Village and increased press coverage of single parents, extended families, gay parents, and community child-rearing raised complex questions about the forms families could take and the ways they could work.
Lowry’s willingness to take on these issues in The Giver, as well as her insistence on treating all aspects of life in the community, has made The Giver one of the most frequently censored books in school libraries and curricula. Some parents are upset by the novel’s depictions of sexuality and violence, and feel that their middle-school and high-school aged children are unprepared to deal with issues like euthanasia and suicide. Ironically, their desire to protect their children from these realities is not dissimilar to the novel’s community’s attempts to keep its citizens ignorant about—and safe from—sex, violence, and pain, both physical and psychological.
留言列表