Talk:The Giver

Wiki Education assignment: English 465 Post-Apocalyptic Science Fiction

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andreanicolecruz (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Neutralplaid, Nyaronya.

The giver - deeper religious analysis

Upon reading "The Giver" and viewing the movie, I have come to see ties regarding biblical references. In example; God wanted to create humans in his image and give them free will but he did not want them to go against his word. This is a trap, to say you have free will but to then tell you there is a door that you cannot open is a contradiction. Lucifer was cast from heaven for saying that God was wrong for not wanting humans to be able to have his knowledge but have free will. In the garden of Eden Lucifer convinced Eve to eat the apple and thus have God's knowledge. Without knowing sin you know nothing. You know what you are told, and what you are told is that there is a door that you cannot open. Lucifer opened the door by giving humans knowledge. The knowledge of the other side of the emotional spectrum; Good and evil Right and wrong Happy and sad War and Peace You cannot have one without the other, God wanted humans to be blind and obey him like sheep without the knowledge to choose for themself. Lucifer is the good guy in the story of the Bible.

Let's correlate this to The Giver

• A society where everyone operates without emotion.

They cannot feel, they are manipulated into taking medicine by those who control the society (God)

• The euthanize children without the knowledge that it is wrong because they have no knowledge of sin due to their lack of emotion.
• The people in the story reside on a raised platform, secluded from the rest of the world it is a Utopia where they are told to stay. (garden of Eden)
• Once Jonas becomes the receiver he is shown the color of an apple... He is shown red. This can be overwhelming when you have never seen color before because you have never had any contrast or even the knowledge that such things existed. He was being controlled and blinded by the rulers of his society. (God)
• He is shown purity and innocence, then shown war and pain. The Giver instills him with the knowledge of both sides of the emotional spectrum.

The Giver is Lucifer Who gave us wisdom and knowledge so we may see right from wrong.

The receiver is humankind Who were being controlled through gods will. Without the knowledge to act on their own.

The Chief elder is God Who gave humans free will but also demanded obedience. 2600:1014:B014:E47B:0:B:C114:A601 (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

It's an interesting thought, that probably contains considerable validity, but we have to base our articles on Wikipedia off what secondary sources have said. Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

hmm. i know this is also late, but i never thought about that. That a really good point!! Babysharkboss2 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2024

"In an effort to preserve order, the society lacks any color, climate, terrain, and a true sense of equality." This implies that the community lacks a true sense of equality, which is actually one of its defining qualities. We should change this to:

"In an effort to preserve order, the society has a true sense of equality and lacks any color, climate, and terrain." Emillixe (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2025

There is a segment in the Twenty Year edition of the book that states that there was an involvement with the FBI. It states: The FBI took an interest in the two hundred-page vaguely threatening letter sent by a man who insisted that br was actually The Giver, and advised me not to go near the city where he lived. 24.246.117.7 (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

And what is the specific change to the article you would like to see?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguate the Chappell Roan song?

I came straight here while trying to search for the song. Should we (either/both) 1. Add the song to the disambiguation or 2. (I have no idea how to do this) Make searching "the giver" redirect to the disambiguation as there are now 2 pretty popular things called "The Giver" Lovetheblahaj (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Is there in fact an article on the song? We can add a hatnote directing to the song or to the album it's on if the. song has no article. Unless there's a showing that the song is as popular as the book, I'd avoid making The Giver a disambiguation page. Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giver_(song)

they exist in very different circles (i dont think the average person whos googling the book cares about the song and vice versa) but the song is pretty popular (i think?) Lovetheblahaj (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I also (tried) to make the song have the disambiguation (its called a hatnote???) message but im so new to this and i think i did it wrong if you could check that it would be lovely. Lovetheblahaj (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

im really not sure what the policy is on when to direct straight to an article and when to do disambiguation. While I think that the book will definitely outlast the song, for now people (might? i have no evidence for my claim) search for both equally for now because the song is so new. Lovetheblahaj (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I think what you did is fine. Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I've modified the hatnote on this article to have a link to the article on the song. I think we should be good then. Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)