I am a weirdo who watches the films first if there’s a film of a book. Because I’m either going to want to watch it anyway if I like the book, or someI am a weirdo who watches the films first if there’s a film of a book. Because I’m either going to want to watch it anyway if I like the book, or someone is going to “make me” watch it. By make me, I of course mean enthusiastically encourage me enough that I feel guilty if I don’t and/or adds it to the our Netflix queue so that I watch out of desire for snuggles. Also, if I read the book first, there’s little chance I’ll enjoy the movie. That’s been my experience like 99.2% of the time.
So I watched Insurgent and then started in on the book. Except I needn’t have bothered, because I’m not even entirely sure Insurgent: The Book was the source for Insurgent: The Movie. I think they may have just made Divergent and then went, “welp, this is what we think would happen next.” Even the Serenity-inspiried hologram bit was ridiculously lame when compared to the book version.
This leaves me at a point where it becomes difficult to decide if I really like the book or if I just like it a whole lot in relation to the nonsense that was the film. (Maybe I should re-think my “watch the film first,” stance, though it’s never failed me so spectacularly before.)
I tend to like the middle book that everyone else hates because I’m a fan of exposition and I have a shitty memory. Still, I would guess I liked Insurgent slightly less than Divergent since it took me so much longer to plod through all the extended-cut bits that really should’ve been shorter or clipped. There are surely more concise ways to show grief and lust.
Speaking of, one of the things main I noticed was that I was wrong. I am forever complaining that teenagers never act like teenagers in media. They act like young 20-somethings at best. Teenagers in this book totally acted like teenagers. The entire time. I would call this brilliant except for two things: nearly all the adults also act like teenagers (I'm looking at you Evelyn & Jeanine) and teenagers can be fucking annoying. So, I’ll stop asking for realistic teenagers now if they're just going to be like Tris & Four and full of all the most annoying parts of teenagerdom.
I wish I could give this book a clear thumbs up or thumbs down, but it’s really just right there in the middle at interesting-yet-annoying.
I still think it’s my reverence of Chicago from a tourist perspective that keeps me going. I’m enjoying the warped-travel-book aspect. Can that be a genre? Dystopian Travel Guides? Please? It’s apparently my thing. ...more
The main theme to Divergent is that there are two sides to every coin. Or, in this case, every faction.
Humanity has been divided into five factions:The main theme to Divergent is that there are two sides to every coin. Or, in this case, every faction.
Humanity has been divided into five factions: Abnegation (selflessness), Amnity (kindness), Candor (honesty), Dauntless (bravery), and Erudite (knowledge). Each believed, on inception, that theirs was the way to prevent future war, and at age 16 the children of this world must choose which they believe. Each faction has their own headquarters and initiation, and if you choose a faction that is not the one you grew up in, your family ties are cut to some degree. If you fail initiation, you become factionless, which is a fancy word for poverty-stricken working class. The factionless are the producers, but live in deep poverty and without a cohesive grouping.
The main character, Tris, is a 16 year old girl who is "Divergent." Before choosing a faction, the kids are given an aptitude test, which should clearly pick one or another faction, but Tris' results are "inconclusive," showing results that might put her in any one of three different factions. The story begins as focusing on her struggles to survive initiation, particularly without revealing her divergence, which is feared by leaders who value their citizens' lack of ability to think outside of boxes.
And, yes, however nobly they were formed, the factions have their dark side. Where does bravery end and brutality begin? Or, for that matter, don't the values require all the other values? Can you be selfless without being brave? Kind without some selflessness? Could you pick a single value to define yourself for the rest of your life?
So why split up what seems a limited population in this very divisive manner? To prevent divergent thought is the obvious answer, a bit of a salute to various real-world governmental parties.
As is typical in stories with planned sequels, there is a bigger pile of questions than answers by the end of the book. Why age 16? What is beyond the fence? We see a lot of Dauntless, some of Abnegation and Erudite, but who are the people of Amnity and Candor? Why can the "geniuses" of Erudite not fix the effing train?
Unfortunately, there is a gaping plot hole that bugged me in the movie that is also present in the book. As part of initiation into her chosen faction, Tris must face her fears in a simulation. Yet, what should logically be her biggest fear: being "found out" as Divergent, is not among them. Another flaw is the villains are sadly very one-note thus far in the story.
But Divergent is a quick read, so the faults are easily overlooked by letting your curiosity take over. The best part of dystopian fiction is how it pings the imagination. The tenuous connection between our now and that future sparks so many questions. The detail in the descriptions of Divergent!Chicago really help with fueling those connections. What happened to turn Lake Michigan to marshland? How did the beloved Bean rust?
So, predictably, I ordered book two. I'm too curious for my own good.
Notice there's not really a faction for that. ...more