The Giver(記憶傳承人)

• 作者: Lois Lowry
• 出版社: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
• 出版日期: 1993/04/26
• 譯者: 鄭榮珍
• 繪者: 唐壽南
• 譯版出版社: 台灣東方
• 譯版出版日期: 2013/05/01

推薦人: Fang Bo Jie

這是大學的時候修了方博傑教授的英文小說與電影，課程中挑選的電影，實在太喜歡了，就找了小說來看，居然是青少年文學而且還是1993年出版的，內容大致上符合電影的劇情，只是電影有了更多高科技的烏托邦感覺

以馬斯洛的需求理論來說，社區的資源不虞匱乏，也沒有疾病，更會針對自己的興趣與志向，選擇以後的工作達到成就感，但這全部都建立在那些被解放的人的痛苦上，讓我想到之前看的《魔王2099》(新宿不死爐篇)以及⟪Severance (人生切割術)⟫的劇情，為了供應整座城市以及AI的運作，是否可以犧牲少數人的利益，而這個利益可以侵害多少呢?

• 以下是AI的總結，我覺得很好

  《The Giver》真正厲害的地方，不是沒有自由，而是沒有記憶。因為

  • 沒有戰爭的記憶，就不會知道：和平多珍貴。
  • 沒有飢餓的記憶，就不知道吃飽有多幸福。
  • 沒有愛的記憶，就不知道失去愛是什麼。

  所以：小說真正想說的是：幸福並不是因為沒有痛苦，而是因為人曾經歷過痛苦。

心得

每次看反烏托邦的小說，都是一種對於作者如何解釋/定義烏托邦有不同的洞見，這可以從作者如何創造世界觀看出，在書中每個人都被剝奪了一些感官以及生活樣態，所以核心的想法是

限縮所有事情的光譜並且盡量讓大家的感官趨於平衡

• 以情緒來說，快樂與痛苦的光譜，大大縮小，並且讓大家遇到痛苦之類的負面情緒，都盡量表達，所以每天都會有家庭座談時間，這樣人和人之間的衝突機率就會降低
• 以人來說，為什麼要解放那些沒有達標的新生兒或者高齡的老人，因為社會花在他們身上的資源過多，這會讓社會的未來性受到影響，所以不會有人餓死
• 以環境來說，作者讓社區的環境多樣性受到限制，這樣就不會有人冷死或者熱死
• 拔掉視覺顏色以及音樂，是為了不要讓感覺增幅，也就是痛苦無法透過創作變的更痛苦，當然快樂也無法透過創作變的更快樂，也不會有歧視的問題，因為大家所見所聞都一樣
• 有人穿著相同的衣物、說著一致的語言、房子也都一樣，目的就是為了弭平差異

所以，可以說這是一個沒有差異化、多樣化且沒有選擇權的無聊世界，而要做到這些的條件就是去除以前的記憶以及砍掉現在大量佔用資源的老人和不達標新生兒，沒有痛苦比起擁有快樂重要，讓社區高層非常保守

沒有選擇，也就沒有責任。因為整個社區

• 工作不是自己選
• 配偶不是自己選
• 小孩不是自己生
• 老人不是自己照顧
• 甚至死亡也不是自己決定

當然我對於故事結尾抱持悲觀，那不過是衝動下必然的結果，沒有資源還要帶一個小小孩逃亡，無疑是自尋死路，寒風刺骨下看到幻覺一點也不奇怪；所以我對於主角的決定非常不能同理，當然對於沒有辦法自行選擇命運以及想要即時救出佳比來說，可以理解，但是沒有充足的準備，把兩人至於險境是不智的

以下是原本發表在IG上的英文心得

First of all, do you think the world where we live is perfect. I think most of the people will deny the statement. So we can list some situation that we can improve. Such as racism、homeless、hunger、violence、crime、divorce、poverty, etc. Today, in class, English Fiction and Film, we discussed much more about imperfect world. And we had to try to implement some solutions to get rid of the problems around our life (in our group, we’d like to get rid of hunger/and homeless). So go through our discussion, we had a conclusion below. “A world which everyone have to work for 7-8 hours every week day, and at least everyone can got same resources like food, water and electricity and so on. There are varied vacancies of the occupations which can be distributed to the people. If they are not really good at it, they can change the job until they find the prefect one.” And at the right time, we realized that our conclusion is much more similar to the plot of The Giver. At the outset, someone in our group said we can removed the concept of money. Then everyone could be at the same. No poverty or richness. But I disagreed with him. ‘Cause in my opinion, money is just like profit. If you removed the profit, then how come I have to “work” for others. And this hypothesis is similar to China. ‘Cause government can control the money (or you can say the profit) you earn. That means you take nothing by your hard-working. And the other members said another hypothesis above. Still have many problems be derived. But it can be solved homeless and crime…? In our conclusions, we have a serious flaw. “Motivation”. So we can follow the plot of the movie In Time. To make the life time as the profit, maybe it can be a right way to solve the problems. But in the movie, they still have many crime and severe social problems about the gap between rich and poor. In order to extend their life, people in the movie will kill someone, stole, so on and so on. So I think, we still have to set the government and cop to make the world sense.

I think some of the opinions in the movie must be aware. “Dwelling and home are different things in our life (maybe some of you disagree). A home is more.”