The Giver

I put this under the Book Review section, although it's not exactly a review.
In any case, we were supposed to create an essay around 500 words based upon whether the authour of The Giver intended to show that the well-being of the community is more important than the individual's beliefs or values. Here's mine [feel free to criticize, I'd appreaciate it!]:

The Giver, by Lois Lowry, clearly proves that the good of society is of less value than the individual’s beliefs or choices, if good means happiness. In such a controlled society, people are lacking in many emotional needs, such as love and joy. The Giver tells Jonas “Jonas, you and I are the only ones that have feelings” (154). How can you be happy when happiness does not exist? It is impossible to say one is truly living if they do not feel. Even the most basic animals can feel: the survival instinct, motherly instincts, and so forth. Obviously, the health of society and the good of society are not interchangeable.
This is also proven when Jonas has escapes for the oppressive society displayed in the Giver. The book says “Suddenly he was aware with certainty and joy that below, ahead, they were waiting for him” (17. While running away, Jonas was more cold, more tired, and more hungry than he has ever been, and he is still happy, and truly happy, unlike the unknowing members of Jonas’ former community. He has at last fully experienced the joys and sorrows of a true life, and he would choose the life that encompasses pain, as well as pleasure over the life that has neither.
I believe that our lives are a series of choices and their consequences. Everything that means anything to us comes from a choice; the choice to improve the environmental state of the world, the choice of who are our friends, the choice of what you believe in. How then can better circumstances of living be placed above choices, or beliefs? There is no religion in the Giver, which some people dedicate their entire existence to. Jonas, when asked what he thinks of the lack of variety or choice, says “I wish we had those things, still. Just now and then.” The Giver responds “So do I […] But that choice is not ours” (84). Unmistakably, those who understand that they are living hollow lives, void of feeling and emotion, want to live differently. This denial of any option is like refusing to take a gift that someone has looked hard and chosen carefully for you, like you get all these assets and you just throw them away. Because we are human, we can see much more color than many other animals, experience all these complex feelings. It is ungrateful just to lock them away as if they are only a burden. It is disgusting to say that someone’s beliefs should not be their top priority, for their beliefs and choices are what makes them who they are.
Over and over again, Jonas expresses his want for all people to be able to have the memories he can have, to be able to see, touch, taste, and smell as they have never been allowed to. On one such occasion he says, “But why can’t everyone have the memories?” (112). It is downright creepy to just shut off all options as if you can control a human life. It is as if you want to be a god, who has the power to control every facet of life. It is immoral, to say that one can be in charge of what someone else does. It is their life, and of course they will do some things wrong, but it is imperative to acknowledge that we also can do good things and experience good feelings.
As a whole, I like my life. Certainly there have been some times that I wished I was someone, anyone else, but those moments are fleeting and unimportant in the long run. But because they live in such a strict place, those members of the community in the Giver will never know what it is to feel or like as I do.




Advice???



P.S. I really liked the Giver, and would reccomend it to someone of any age.