📚心得【The Giver 記憶傳承人】 by Lois Lowry, 1993

#teen #mystery #Utopia #軟科幻 #有繁體版

這部小說有被翻拍成電影，我是看到快讀完才知道。電影開頭就在小說的中段，且省略了許多小細節，但整體的核心思想有傳達到，加上視覺表現不錯，有興趣推薦直接找電影看。

故事發生在一個完美的共產烏托邦世界中，人們的一生從名字、物資、住處、父母、小孩、工作、伴侶、退休生活都是由政府做最合理且公平的分配，即使偶有病痛、小犯罪也都能立即解決，在這樣的「同化」(Sameness)世界生活，是否就像在天堂一般呢？然而，當主角在被分配到「記憶傳承人」的榮耀職位後，貌似完美的一切都在眼中逐漸崩壞了。原來，這樣的同化，不過是被精心剝奪了差異性的結果罷了。

故事中的社會形成的過程中，和佛教一些想法有異曲同工之妙：苦痛不好，要消滅苦痛，就要無慾、無我。無慾，以藥物控制情緒、人們拿到的東西毫無差異，就不會有比較與爭端；無我，凡事以社區的福祉為主，消弭情感，藉而根除個人主義。這樣的社會，每個領域都仍會有才能輩出之人推動科學的進步，且政府更能以整體的角度推行政策，但從一個有情感之人的角度來看很快就能看出問題所在：這些人只是殭屍般的動物罷了。從沒感受過痛楚，就不會知道快樂；從沒失去過，就不知道爭取；從沒有活過，就不知道死亡的可怕。硬要說的話，這到底是Utopia還是Dystopia？

我會認為，對社會整體而言是Utopia，對個體而言絕對是Dystopia，可怕的是在這樣的社會中生活，沒有認知到有意義的生活是什麼樣子，也許自己一輩子也不會知道這樣的生活有多無意義；對能看到真實的人們更是殘酷，周遭沒人能透過努力了解你所了解到的真實，那孤獨感是難以承受的。

即使中心思想這麼有趣，能抱怨的地方還是蠻多的，劇情的推動有些重要的東西完全是魔法、不科學，加上結尾交代不清、讓讀者霧裡看花，連是good或bad ending都不知道…總之，有興趣看電影吧。IMO總分：67分，虎頭蛇尾、但核心思想很有趣的普作。

核心思想：★★★★☆ 核心討論議題是否有趣*5

劇情細節：★★★☆☆ 綜觀整體劇情的質與量*4

角色刻畫：★★★★☆ 角色群的必要性與深度*3

科學軟硬：★★☆☆☆ 是否符合現實物理現象*3

結局滿意：★☆☆☆☆ 結局滿意度與有無餘韻*3

易讀程度：★★★★★ 閱讀時章節是否難消化*2#teen #mystery #Utopia #soft_scifi

This novel was adapted into a film, which I only discovered near the end of my reading. The movie begins at the midpoint of the novel and omits many minor details, but the core message comes through effectively, and the visual presentation is quite good. If you're interested, I'd recommend just watching the film directly.

The story takes place in a perfect communist utopian world where every aspect of people's lives—names, resources, housing, parents, children, jobs, partners, and retirement—is allocated by the government in the most rational and fair manner. Even occasional illness or minor crimes can be immediately resolved. In this world of "Sameness," does life feel like paradise? However, after the protagonist is assigned to the honored position of "Receiver of Memory," the seemingly perfect facade gradually crumbles before his eyes. It turns out that this sameness is merely the result of carefully stripped-away individuality.

The formation of this society shares interesting parallels with certain Buddhist concepts: suffering is bad, so to eliminate suffering, one must eliminate desire and self. No desire—emotions are controlled by medication, everyone receives identical things, eliminating comparison and conflict; no self—everything prioritizes the community's welfare, emotions are suppressed, thereby eradicating individualism. In such a society, talented individuals in every field still emerge to advance scientific progress, and the government can implement policies from a holistic perspective. But from the viewpoint of an emotional being, the problem becomes immediately apparent: these people are merely zombie-like creatures. Never having experienced pain, they cannot know joy; never having lost anything, they don't know how to fight for something; never having lived, they don't know the terror of death. If we must ask: is this ultimately a Utopia or a Dystopia?

I would argue that for society as a whole, it's a Utopia, but for the individual, it's absolutely a Dystopia. What's terrifying is that living in such a society, without recognizing what a meaningful life looks like, one might never realize how meaningless this existence is. For those who can see reality, it's even more cruel—no one around them can understand the truth they've grasped through effort, and that loneliness is unbearable.

Despite such an intriguing central theme, there's plenty to complain about. The plot progression relies on some important elements that are pure magic, unscientific. Plus the ending is unclear, leaving readers in the fog, not even knowing whether it's a good or bad ending... Anyway, if you're interested, just watch the movie.

IMO Rating: 67. Mediocre work that starts strong but fizzles out, though the core concept is quite interesting.

Core Theme: ★★★★☆ (*5)

Plot Quality: ★★★☆☆ (*4)

Character Development: ★★★★☆ (*3)

Science Validity: ★★☆☆☆ (*3)

Ending Satisfaction: ★☆☆☆☆ (*3)

Readability: ★★★★★ (*2)