I had to do this review for school, so the questions raised are theirs. This is the link to the comments that were made by others about the book :)
1. What is the author’s attitude towards the book? (Did he like the book? Did he hate the book?)
2. How do you know? Quote some of the words which tell you so?
3. What were some of the comments raised that disagreed with the review?
4. Based on the comments and the review, what do you personally think of the book?
What I actually have to say is a turn from what the people think. I believe any book should be given a chance, how ever... boring it may seem. Because the author put his soul into writing it and then it turns into a flop, I feel saddened.
People have found some sort of light, which I tend to work on; that "there were a few interesting lines" and it shows the Giver not being a total literary disaster.
Albeit they also complained that it was dreadful and "became more and more dissatisfied with each page." and there were the bout of hurtful pessimistic comments: "I don't think it was the worst book I ever read, but I didn't like it either.", "i dont think the book is terrible, but in my opinion i didnt like, and niether did anyone else in my class" and of course the occasional "Yuck."
And then enters that single ray of hope given to future readers of the book saying words that "The Giver is not at all horrible the author gives several great ideas and themes. The end did not suck at all the author simply wants you to end the book yourself and show your creative side. He simply lets you decide how you want the book to end.". Viola! A creative and non sheep-like point of view into the depths of finding a little optimism because you spent that moment of your life reading such a tale.
And so it goes on to and fro from there with readers saying that the Giver had its moments and wouldn't be all that bad to begin with, in which I am inclined to concur :)
