Apologies for the delay in creating a new post. A virus carried by the World Wide Web led everyone in my town to believe that they were howler monkeys; meanwhile, poison in the rivers made all our toes fall off and left us vulnerable to takeover by a rogue group of terrorists who had made housecats into an army of darkness.
Or I got lazy. You pick.
In either case, I promised a review of Lois Lowry's Son, and I am here to deliver. It's been a month or so since I finished it, but I doubt it has changed much since then.
It began in the Community made famous by her earlier novel, The Giver. Taking the perspective of a young girl assigned to be Birth Mother, it began by leading readers through the Community's systematic process of creating new human life. Mother and child were separated, as is the custom in the Community. Atypically, though, the mother couldn't seem to forget the child she had brought into the world. She found the boy in the Nurturing Center and forged a connection with him, which led to her following him out of the Community when he...
OK, no spoilers. Suffice it to say that she followed him into danger and spent a very, very long time trying to re-connect with him.
The lingering question is, is it a fitting sequel to The Giver - perhaps one of the first dystopian novels in modern YA fiction? Does it do the series justice?
At first.
The first third of the book is truly compelling. We look through the eyes of a teenage girl assigned to the "job" of being pregnant and then delivering a baby, then continue on with her as she tries to forget the strongest bond known to humankind. The Community is just as disturbingly sanitary as it was in The Giver, and the people just as unconsciously restless and unfulfilled.
But after the main character leaves the Community, things get weird. Supernatural events start to happen; mystical personages appear and alter things with magic spells and the like. And to be honest, I felt a bit betrayed. I had picked up a dystopian novel set in an altered society that I could believe was probable, given certain developments in human history. Then Lowry changed the rules, and I was in a fantasy world or on some alien planet. I wasn't sure, and I hadn't signed on for this.
Don't get me wrong; I love fantasy and sci-fi. But I also like to know what to expect, and this wasn't it. I felt like the social constructs of the Community were no longer a commentary on our own, but a made-up world I couldn't relate to. I wasn't sure what was going on, or what she was trying to say, and I can't say that I liked it.
Perhaps if I'd known what was coming, I would have felt better about it. But in all honesty, I wish I'd stopped when mother and baby left the Community. Up until then, it was golden.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Monday, April 1, 2013
On Dystopia
I was going to call it "What's New in YA," but I avoided the moniker for two reasons. First, it sounded unbelievably cliche and boring. Second, I don't plan on posting solely about new works. There are a lot of older YA books that are still relevant and have a profound impact on the genre. Take The Giver, for example.
First published in 1994 (according to an Amazon review), it chronicles the painful and ecstatic and life-changing journey of a boy chosen to be the only one in his community to understand human emotion. Protagonist Jonas lives in a society that has been carefully planned. People are assigned to their jobs, their spouses, and even their children. But when the time comes for his job selection, he is given the title of "receiver." He soon discovers that what he is to receive is all memory of humanity - the past that the community has left behind, and all of the pain and pleasure that came along with it.
At the time of its publication,The Giver was lauded by audiences and experts for its unique structure and thought-provoking concept. It is still an outstanding literary example, of course. Now, though - almost 20 years later - it fits nicely into a genre that didn't exist at the time of its publication. The young adult dystopian novel.
Dystopia is everywhere in YA these days. From The Hunger Games to Uglies (both of which will be addressed in later posts), YA authors seem almost obsessed with the idea of examining what will happen when humanity destroys itself and has to start over. Maybe this is because the genre targets the young, who have the most invested in the direction the world is headed. Maybe it has more to do with the authors themselves and their desire to envision a different future - an endeavor that almost begs for an adolescent protagonist. Or that these stories present the chance to "hold the mirror up to nature" and show the world what could happen if we're not careful. Or if we're too careful.
So, what about the new Lois Lowry book - the sequel to The Giver? Does it stand up to the high standards set forth in the original? Is it more or less dystopian? Stay tuned...
First published in 1994 (according to an Amazon review), it chronicles the painful and ecstatic and life-changing journey of a boy chosen to be the only one in his community to understand human emotion. Protagonist Jonas lives in a society that has been carefully planned. People are assigned to their jobs, their spouses, and even their children. But when the time comes for his job selection, he is given the title of "receiver." He soon discovers that what he is to receive is all memory of humanity - the past that the community has left behind, and all of the pain and pleasure that came along with it.
At the time of its publication,The Giver was lauded by audiences and experts for its unique structure and thought-provoking concept. It is still an outstanding literary example, of course. Now, though - almost 20 years later - it fits nicely into a genre that didn't exist at the time of its publication. The young adult dystopian novel.
Dystopia is everywhere in YA these days. From The Hunger Games to Uglies (both of which will be addressed in later posts), YA authors seem almost obsessed with the idea of examining what will happen when humanity destroys itself and has to start over. Maybe this is because the genre targets the young, who have the most invested in the direction the world is headed. Maybe it has more to do with the authors themselves and their desire to envision a different future - an endeavor that almost begs for an adolescent protagonist. Or that these stories present the chance to "hold the mirror up to nature" and show the world what could happen if we're not careful. Or if we're too careful.
So, what about the new Lois Lowry book - the sequel to The Giver? Does it stand up to the high standards set forth in the original? Is it more or less dystopian? Stay tuned...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)