Allegiant (Divergent, #3) Allegiant discussion


67 views
Divergence

Comments Showing 1-26 of 26 (26 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

Mirkat I adored Allegiant--it was by far my favorite book out of the entire trilogy. However, something that didn't make sense to me was that since divergence was so highly valued, as a sign of genetic healing, why wouldn't cultivating divergence have been built into the whole "faction" system? We learn that Jeanine Matthews's predecessor in Erudite was the one who began targeting and killing people who were divergent, but it's not clear whether "being divergent is dangerous" pre-dated that. And although characters in Allegiant question why the targeting was even allowed to occur, the question isn't answered.

In Divergent, there seemed to be a lot of pressure not to change factions (though obviously it did happen). It seems to me that if creating more divergent people was the desired outcome of the city-experiments, it would make a whole lot more sense to structure the society to encourage faction switching, to cross-pollinate traits in the next generations.

Curious to see whether anyone else might have been thinking about this, too.


Ilana remember though it's not the creation of divergence it's just something that you are. meaning that they are the folks in society who are able to think outside of the limitations that their faction or society has made them think. you also have to put it in the context of how these people in 'chicago' were all so sheltered and various 'means of survival' were kept from them, so it wasn't really in their interest to think for themselves and to want for more. that's where things started to go awry. i think that what we saw with Jeannine is that she wanted power and wanted it in her own way. sometimes i wonder if she herself was divergent or really just jealous. clearly she was intelligent or just plain manipulative...but still - that's just the design of the chicago experiment i think.


Mirkat I'm thinking more of the way the experiment was designed, as opposed to the way people within its society would tend to react to divergence. The people designing the experiment were hoping to cultivate divergence, so I would expect them to set it up in a way that not only makes it more likely to happen, but also to encourage a culture that values and protects it.

For people who are divergent, it would be "something that you are," but logically, something must cause them to be that way. I've read some discussions where people speculate that couples who switch factions (and have different factions of origin) are more likely to have divergent children. Plus we now know that Tris's mother Natalie actually came from outside of Chicago and was "genetically pure." That's why I can't help thinking that the Bureau of Genetic Welfare would design the in-experiment society to encourage more mixing.


Kristen I actually think there are alot of flaws with this plot, and I'm leaning toward thinking this might be another one.

But on the other hand, being divergent isn't really something they knew how to cultivate. They learned later on that of the established factions, Abnegation had the highest tendency to be divergent, but I don't think they had it pinpointed as to why that was.

I tend to think that it comes from not thinking about yourself so much. To be in Abnegation, you have to empathize alot, and when interacting with different people, that means different things.

But as far as the way the system was set up, I'm not sure they were aiming to create more divergent people, so much as they were trying to figure out who was divergent and what sort of patterns there were for producing divergent children.
And in that case, the strict five faction system helped them enormously by showing them who fit the mold and who didn't.


We learn that Jeanine Matthews's predecessor in Erudite was the one who began targeting and killing people who were divergent, but it's not clear whether "being divergent is dangerous" pre-dated that.

Divergent only became dangerous because of Jeanine and her predecessor. To them it was undesirable because they couldn't be controlled as easily or at all. So then it became dangerous to be divergent.

In Divergent, there seemed to be a lot of pressure not to change factions (though obviously it did happen). It seems to me that if creating more divergent people was the des...

The pressure not to change factions didn't come from the people running the experiments. It came from the people in the city. Sort of like rooting for your favorite sports team. If you're from Chicago, you are expected to be a Bears/Bulls/Black Hawks/White Sox or Cubs fan. Crossing over to be a Yankees fan or whatever makes you something of a traitor.
In the faction system, it's much more extreme since it's not just a game you're choosing sides on, it's your entire belief system and life. You disown your family almost.

And again, I don't know that it was all about creating divergent people as much as it was monitoring them.
Yes, they wanted a large divergent population, but genes are not something you can determine by setting things the way you want. They knew it would happen, no matter what they did.


Also, I don't really think faction hopping contributes to divergence. You are the way you are and if you don't fit the mold you grew up in, you go where you do fit. It doesn't mean you're divergent. It just means you're not the way your parents were. Someone switching from Candor to Dauntless would just fit a different mold.


message 5: by Mirkat (last edited Nov 16, 2013 06:08PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mirkat I actually think there are alot of flaws with this plot, and I'm leaning toward thinking this might be another one.

I'm kind of leaning that way.

But on the other hand, being divergent isn't really something they knew how to cultivate.

I guess they didn't, but they'd isolated genes that cause all the traits valued in the factions and knew that genetic modifications caused the types of rigid minds the genetically "damaged" people had. I'd expect them to have a working theory that cross-pollinating those genes had at least a chance of creating divergence.

Divergent only became dangerous because of Jeanine and her predecessor. To them it was undesirable because they couldn't be controlled as easily or at all. So then it became dangerous to be divergent.

I just wish there had been something in the text specifying how divergence might have been viewed before then.

The pressure not to change factions didn't come from the people running the experiments. It came from the people in the city.

No, I understand that. I just meant that the people who did create the experiment could have built into the structure the idea that switching factions is a good thing (and maybe could have set it up so that faction-switching would be less disruptive--like you're not expected to cut yourself off from your family).

Also, I don't really think faction hopping contributes to divergence. You are the way you are and if you don't fit the mold you grew up in, you go where you do fit. It doesn't mean you're divergent. It just means you're not the way your parents were. Someone switching from Candor to Dauntless would just fit a different mold.

I didn't mean that switching factions would create divergence for the people who switched. My theory is that mixing genes would make the next generations more likely to have divergent children. Like take Caleb. He's not divergent, and he switched from Abnegation to Erudite. Suppose he'd ended up marrying someone with "Amity" genes and "Candor" genes. I'm thinking their kids would have a better chance of being divergent than someone whose entire family, for generations, had been in Abnegation and they had 100% "Abnegation" genetics.

Now, this all might just be my own head-canon, but I thought it was consistent with what David says about the GD/GP history in Allegiant.


Kristen Mirkat wrote: "they'd isolated genes that cause all the traits valued in the factions and knew that genetic modifications caused the..."

They had that figured out at that point. We aren't told how long they knew what they knew. It might have been ten years. It might have been a month.
Assuming that the plot was flawless, the scientists still ignored a large factor in divergence. Tris saw it right away. That even though someone might have the genes for divergence, they might not fit into the box they believed divergent people should. The believed all the bad stuff in the world would be eliminated by having a completely divergent population. But they ignore all the evidence that disproves that.
They also ignore the evidence of non divergent people acting like divergent people. Example: Tobias.
Which, again, could just be that they hadn't progressed quite as far as they wanted to in their work.

Besides, I'm guessing if they had it all figured out, there wouldn't be any more experiments. They'd just do what needed to be done and kill off everyone else.

I just wish there had been something in the text specifying how divergence might have been viewed before then.

I wish there had been alot of things specified in the story. So many things are flaws simply for lack of being acknowledged.

"the people who did create the experiment could have built into the structure the idea that switching factions is a good thing"

But again, the stigma of switching factions being bad didn't come from the people who set up the experiment.
The people were left to do almost everything on their own.
Maybe that was their original goal to have faction switching be a good thing, but the people changed it.
We don't even know if the factions were predetermined or if the original founders of the city as we know it determined them. Or maybe the "original" people after they'd been reset the one time, did something different altogether by establishing factions.

And I still don't think it would have assisted their research for people to be switching factions because it's the thing to do. Might have resulted in alot of divergent behavior from people who were not truly divergent.
I mean, Tobias basically did that. He wasn't divergent, but to survive and get free of his father, he displayed divergence and went against what he otherwise would have done by remaining in Abnegation.


"My theory is that mixing genes would make the next generations more likely to have divergent children. Like take Caleb. He's not divergent, and he switched from Abnegation to Erudite. Suppose he'd ended up marrying someone with "Amity" genes and "Candor" genes. I'm thinking their kids would have a better chance of being divergent than someone whose entire family, for generations, had been in Abnegation and they had 100% "Abnegation" genetics."

Not necessarily. The genes have to be there in the first place, and Caleb may not have had even recessive genes for divergence. If that's even how it works. I'm not really sure. It might be that if they're damaged, the only use they could possibly serve in this scenario would be to have kids with someone who is actually divergent in hopes of passing it on.
But I don't think it matters one way or another what faction someone is from since the factions don't determine their genes. It's only the difference between damaged genes and pure genes. Not various faction genes.
I think there might be a greater chance of what you're saying if more people switched to and from Abnegation since they had the highest population of divergence, but in general I don't think it would matter.

And actually, are we even told of anyone who wasn't Abnegation or factionless who was divergent?


message 7: by Mirkat (last edited Nov 17, 2013 06:33AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mirkat They had that figured out at that point. We aren't told how long they knew what they knew. It might have been ten years. It might have been a month.

It seemed as though this was something they'd known for a very long time--at least since the "Purity War" ended.

Not necessarily. The genes have to be there in the first place, and Caleb may not have had even recessive genes for divergence.

Okay, I see you're working from the premise that there'd be a "divergence" gene. I was thinking more that mixing genes would be what led to divergence. I guess we're both speculating, though.

And actually, are we even told of anyone who wasn't Abnegation or factionless who was divergent?

I don't have the books in my possession anymore, but wasn't Uriah divergent?

[Edited because "presence" and "premise" are two entirely different words. ;)]


message 8: by Kristen (last edited Nov 16, 2013 11:51PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Kristen All we know that they were aware of since the Purity war was that there are damaged genes due to the fact that they messed with them in the first place.

It was a whole new area of scientific study at that point. And look at how little we still know about genes and diseases in reality. It might seem like science has it all figured out, but there's still so much we don't know. They're still figuring new things out all the time. And humans have been studying it for a really long time. Comparatively speaking the time from the Purity War to where we start reading in Divergent is no time at all.


Yes, unfortunately all we can really do is speculate since Roth didn't give us much to work with :/
However, they do view non divergent people as damaged or broken, and typically mixing two broken things does not result in a fixed thing.


Yes, Uriah was divergent. I forgot about him. And I'm not sure where Tori's brother and Amar were supposed to be from....
So, i guess there's a few, lol


After thinking about it though, the idea of encouraging changing factions would sort of make the entire idea of having factions irrelevant.

The idea is that all the bad stuff in the world is because of (fill in the blank), right? So you can't actually encourage your kids to leave your faction and really believe in the value of it, at the same time.
For example, someone in Amity would never raise their kids to believe that Dauntless was a valid way of living. Or someone in Candor would never believe that Amity is valid since sometimes to keep the peace, you might have to lie. Abnegation would have problems with Candor, Erudite, and Dauntless and maybe Amity. Erudite would have problems with almost all of them. And on and on.

Point being, if it's just a "good idea" to value honesty or bravery or whatever, then it's not really something people would dedicate their lives to upholding. Therefore, there's no real substance in the factions.


message 9: by Mirkat (last edited Nov 17, 2013 06:49AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mirkat Point being, if it's just a "good idea" to value honesty or bravery or whatever, then it's not really something people would dedicate their lives to upholding. Therefore, there's no real substance in the factions.

::nod, nod::

This was something that made my brain hurt in Allegiant. When David explained the history behind the gene modification that led to the damage they were working to contain, I nearly jumped out of my seat and pumped my fist. Because (as I mention in my review) my question at the end of Insurgent--when Edith Prior was explaining the importance of people with "more flexible minds"--was how their society had become full of people with less flexible minds. My thought through the first two books had always been "in real life, everybody would be divergent."

But then when David was saying that the "Chicago" experiment had been one of the more successful ones because of the factions, my brain broke a little bit. Though something you said upthread, Kristen, provided a possible explanation, at least from the perspective of the Bureau of Genetic Welfare staff monitoring the experiment:

I'm not sure they were aiming to create more divergent people, so much as they were trying to figure out who was divergent and what sort of patterns there were for producing divergent children.
And in that case, the strict five faction system helped them enormously by showing them who fit the mold and who didn't.


All of that could be very useful to the people sitting in that control room monitoring the experiment. They of course have a different perspective from those who actually live in the experiment (and have no idea that their society is an experiment).


Kristen Mirkat wrote: " my question at the end of Insurgent--when Edith Prior was explaining the importance of people with "more flexible minds"--was how their society had become full of people with less flexible minds. My thought through the first two books had always been "in real life, everybody would be divergent."


Do you mean everybody in reality? Or everyone in the story at the point that we start reading about it?

I think the indication is that originally, everyone was divergent. They just didn't really understand why it was beneficial to be that way. They messed with the genes and got the 'damaged' ones. The damaged people reproduced for decades and get the overwhelming population of "damaged" people.

At the point in the story, I don't know that there should be any higher population of divergence than there actually is. Outside of the experiments, they're not doing much to fix the population. I think they wanted to isolate the how and why before putting it into practice.

As for within the experiments, we don't know what they started with in Chicago. If they started with all Divergent people, logically the entire population should be divergent.
Since they're not, I'm guessing that they didn't have any sort of genetic screening process for the original occupants of the city.
The only person we even know about was Amanda whatever her name was who became Edith Prior. And all we know about her was that she was happy to forget about her life up to that point.
So maybe they didn't start with many divergent people at all. Maybe it was just a random sampling of people that they hoped would produce divergence eventually.

Which would account for why there's still not that many of them in relation to the whole population.

So, maybe society didn't become full of people with less flexible minds. Maybe it was actually the opposite considering what they started with.


I kind of got the feeling that divergence wasn't even a one shot thing. Like, maybe the DNA has to mutate back over a few generations.
What I mean is that Tris was "more" divergent than anyone they ever knew about since she had an aptitude for 3 factions.

So maybe the gene is present in one person but doesn't show up for two or three generations. And then it gets stronger in later generations. Which, again, would lend to the explanation of why the divergent population wasn't that high.



But I'm really just making things up now. I could probably go on speculating for a while, but my head is starting to hurt, LOL


message 11: by Mirkat (last edited Nov 17, 2013 11:32AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mirkat My thought about everyone being divergent "in reality" was about our (outside-the-book) reality.

I suspect that when the Chicago experiment was established, the people who volunteered (or were chosen--I'm not clear on whether it was the same for all of them)--were drawn from a population who were either identified as GD or suspected of being GD. In which case, all or most would have been non-divergent ("less flexible"). Placing "GD" people in the city-based experiments would have served the purpose of containing them (preventing further "purity wars" and similar) while hoping that their damage might self-correct over the course of multiple generations.

I think we agree that when these experiments were originally set up, the scientists would not have known whether this healing was going to happen, and that the development of divergent people was a hoped-for outcome that they were watching for. :)


Kristen I'm guessing that at that time, at best, they could only suspect those who were GD or might carry the trait or however it works.
Otherwise, after so many generations of not producing very many divergents, they're pretty crappy at their jobs.


Whatever the case, I'm thinking that we've put a whole lot more thought into this than Roth did, haha


Mirkat Kristen wrote: "Whatever the case, I'm thinking that we've put a whole lot more thought into this than Roth did, haha ."

Heh--seems to happen to me all the time. :)


Lauren Veronica Roth did not have any part of the plot for Allegiant in mind when she wrote the first two books. She started this series having no clue where she was going with this story. She had no idea what was going to be outside the fence, she had no idea what being "divergent" meant -- even though it was the central premise of the story -- and she had no idea what the Big Truth was about. She made up all these answers only when she got to writing the third book; none of it was in mind when the first two books were written. All of the genetics stuff revealed in this book was pulled out of thin air. None of it is accurate or plausible. The last thing you want to do is gather a group of genetically damaged people and isolate them so they interbreed, because the gene problem will only become worse. If the problem was created by taking a specific gene out of the DNA sequence, the only way to correct that is to use the exact same technology and reinsert the gene back in the spot it came from. There is no mechanism for "healing" genes over time. DNA does not work like that. The only thing this storyline proves is that Veronica Roth failed ninth grade biology. Do not try to break down the science revealed in this book to figure out how people's divergence works. The science is nonexistent.


Mirkat Yeah, I guess we might as well just say "because REASONS," and leave it at that.


Kristen Lauren wrote: "Veronica Roth did not have any part of the plot for Allegiant in mind when she wrote the first two books. She started this series having no clue where she was going with this story. She had no id..."

Is that really what happened? She didn't know the point of her own story when she sat down to write it?
I guess that explains it.
While I was waiting for the third book to come out, I came up with way better possibilities in my head...



"The only thing this storyline proves is that Veronica Roth failed ninth grade biology. "

LOL


message 17: by Lauren (last edited Nov 17, 2013 06:35PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Lauren "Is that really what happened? She didn't know the point of her own story when she sat down to write it?"

Yep. Frightening, isn't it? When she was started on this book, she decided to try and find an actual scientific theory to explain divergence (why?) and finally decided, "Maybe being divergent doesn't mean anything." Hmm, the premise of the story is actually nothing? Well, that doesn't make the whole series a giant waste of time or anything.


Kristen That's ridiculous. Why make the end of book 2 a cliff hanger if you had no plan?
I think I'll hold off on any of her future series until they're complete...


message 19: by Lauren (last edited Nov 18, 2013 03:24AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Lauren For real. If she didn't have the big plan in mind when she was writing the first book, fine, she didn't know she would get to do a whole series. But why write Insurgent, and write it around revealing the video, if she had no idea what the video was talking about? She gave herself away in the third book when she decided to dismiss the video as not important, not relevant, and totally unnecessary. It was obvious that she didn't have this book's story in mind when she was writing the previous one. I give her points for trying to pretend that Edith Prior's words were "half truths," but I've been over it and over it, and I can't see any way that anything she said could possibly be alluding to their being in a genetic experiment from which they are actually NOT supposed to leave. It is obvious that the Edith Prior video was meant to refer to something else, and it's obvious that Veronica had no idea what she talking about when she wrote it and decided to write something else when she got to Allegiant, even though she already set up the story in another direction. Ugh.


Mirkat Lauren wrote: "I can't see any way that anything she said could possibly be alluding to their being in a genetic experiment from which they are actually NOT supposed to leave. It is obvious that the Edith Prior video was meant to refer to something else, and it's obvious that Veronica had no idea what she talking about when she wrote it and decided to write something else when she got to Allegiant, even though she already set up the story in another direction. Ugh."

I thought there was a reference to preventing people from leaving the experiment "too early"? Implying that they are supposed to leave at a certain point? But then it wasn't exactly clear what would have been the "right" time.

A couple of other things that bothered me--I could understand Evelyn's desire to abolish the factions and make a more integrated, equal society (though doing that through a dictatorship isn't the way to go). What didn't make sense to me was that she was so determined to keep the gates locked. On the flip side, I could understand the Allegiants' desire to leave the city, but why re-form the factions when you know the whole system is artificial?

Lauren, I am curious as to whether VR has said she started Allegiant without a plan, or whether you're basing that on the way the book is written. If she's said it, I'd be interested in links to the interviews/posts where she might have said so.


message 21: by Lauren (last edited Nov 18, 2013 07:21AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Lauren "I thought there was a reference to preventing people from leaving the experiment "too early"? Implying that they are supposed to leave at a certain point? But then it wasn't exactly clear what would have been the "right" time."

It was very clear in Insurgent that the story was supposed to be about the video needing to be revealed now. This whole "Well, we didn't actually need you to leave now, in fact, we never wanted you to watch that video, but never mind as to why the video was even made in the first place" thing is classic retconning. One of the things you learn when you're a writer is how to read between the bullshit.

For real, go back and reread the last pages of Insurgent and everything Edith Prior says. This cannot be referring to this being an experiment to fix people's genes. In fact, she blames the troubles of the world on human nature -- which is the exact opposite of the Bureau's agenda. The whole point of the conflict in Allegiant is that they blame the world's problems on people's damaged genes and IGNORE the role of human nature that existed well before the genetic manipulations ever occurred. This is not in any way consistent with the explanation in the video.

You know what could have worked? If Edith Prior was revealed to have been sent by the "organization fighting for justice and peace" that she was supposed to be a LEADER of (Remember that, Veronica?) to work secretly as some kind of double agent against the Bureau, infiltrated their experiment program and then created that video to tell people The Truth, that the problem is simply human nature. The Bureau eventually found out about this decades-old double-cross that was hidden and being protected by the Abnegation; they do not want people to hear this because it goes against their agenda of blaming everything on the genetic manipulations, and so THAT is why they helped Jeanine attack Abnegation to keep the video from getting out and spoiling their evil plan. There, plot holes filled. Took me ten seconds to come up with that.

If you're going to retcon something, you have to at least be consistent with the details that were already told. For example, Natalie Prior being a spy for the Bureau was a blatant retcon because, obviously, there was no real setup to any Bureau even existing, and there were absolutely no hints or references to her not being exactly what she was purported to be -- a secretly Divergent, Dauntless transfer to Abnegation. (Why wouldn't she help her daughter escape early on if she knew there was a whole organization on the outside that was ferrying Divergents out at least since the time of Jeanine's predecessor?) You HAVE to drop hints to lay the groundwork. Truth be told, you can *almost* let this one go because there was nothing really concrete in the previous books to absolutely contradict this new revelation. Then again, the previous backstory said that she picked Abnegation because her mother, a Dauntless leader, warned her to hide, and this obviously contradicts the revelations in Allegiant that she picked Abnegation instead of going to Erudite as the Bureau planned because she wanted to be with Andrew. Now, if you squint hard enough and just plain try not to think too much about it, you can probably just decide that the original backstory was Natalie just lying to maintain her story. Buuuuut ... no. I smell retcon! The clumsy way the new revelation is dropped into the story and the plot holes it creates nonetheless just says that this was not actually in mind beforehand. The Edith Prior video vs. the truth revealed in Allegiant -- they just completely contradict each other.

"A couple of other things that bothered me--I could understand Evelyn's desire to abolish the factions and make a more integrated, equal society (though doing that through a dictatorship isn't the way to go). What didn't make sense to me was that she was so determined to keep the gates locked. On the flip side, I could understand the Allegiants' desire to leave the city, but why re-form the factions when you know the whole system is artificial?"

You're right, none of it makes sense. Unfortunately this is all pushed to the side as a teeny tiny minor subplot in Allegiant so it's all barely even addressed. The only thing I can think of is that people are afraid of change. Still doesn't make a whole lot of sense now that they have been revealed that there is a world outside, but whatever.

As for your last question about whether Veronica planned out the whole story, I did read about it in an interview or from parts of different interviews, can't remember where, and she admits that she only came up with many of the big plot details about the series at various points when writing the books and she experienced a lot of "Ooh, I should have mentioned X in the earlier book" type of stuff. (You have to lay out the groundwork along the way!) But like I said, I could tell these things anyway just from reading the book, before I heard about her writing process. At first I thought it was just bad writing -- which it is, really -- but the more I read and the more I thought about how everything had been laid out in the other books, and particularly with the Edith Prior thing, the more it became obvious that she didn't actually plan very much if any of the final book's storyline beforehand like any decent writer. This whole book reads like a giant retcon.


Mirkat I'll have to search for VR interviews--thanks for the tip.

Oh, and here's another thing. The whole "who is Edith Prior" in relation to Tris. The most we ever learn is that she is "an ancestor" on her father Andrew's side. But in the Bureau, there is a room with everyone's family tree. And Tris looked at the family tree. WHY DIDN'T SHE TELL US HOW EDITH PRIOR FIT INTO THE TREE?* (Sorry, not yelling at anyone here reading the forum.... Just shouting at the book. :) )

*I am kind of reminded of the moment in The Wings of the Dove when Kate Croy and Merton Densher discuss what the letter from Milly Theale probably says, only to have Kate throw the letter into the fire unread.


message 23: by Lauren (last edited Nov 18, 2013 07:40AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Lauren Caleb did say that he researched and found that Edith was seven generations before them, that she was the sister of Andrew's ancestor.

I am interested as to why, exactly, they put everyone's family trees on a wall? It's not like there are five or six people they're keeping track of. It's a whole damn city. Is this room the Astrodome?

By all means, feel free to shout at the book. Maybe if we're all loud enough, it'll get scared and run away back into the forest.


message 24: by Mirkat (last edited Nov 18, 2013 08:21AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mirkat Lauren wrote: "Caleb did say that he researched and found that Edith was seven generations before them, that she was the sister of Andrew's ancestor."

Now that you mention it, I do have a vague recollection of that, but I guess I wish they'd been even more specific than that.

I am interested as to why, exactly, they put everyone's family trees on a wall? It's not like there are five or six people they're keeping track of. It's a whole damn city. Is this room the Astrodome?

Ha, yes--I did wonder about this, too.

Edit: I think the first video in this page might have been the interview Lauren was thinking of.


Kristen Yet another plot hole: Why did they even have the video in the first place?

Obviously they were capable of sneaking things into the city. If they weren't ready for the video to be revealed, why was it there at all?
If they really wanted the divergent people to come out of the city at a certain time, they could have withheld the video until said time.
They probably could have just uploaded it without even going in to the city.

Which would sort of eliminate the entire conflict with Jeanine.

*sigh*


Lauren The story would have made more sense if they rubbed a magic lamp and caused a beanstalk to appear and offer them some glass slippers to transport them to Narnia.


back to top