Allegiant (Divergent, #3) Allegiant discussion

Can we list all that is wrong with Allegiant, and then...

Comments Showing 1-50 of 111 (111 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3

Kristen The book is popular because it's the third and final book of a series that started off really great.
Personally, I gave it a high rating because I liked the writing and characters. I was being generous with it. But yeah, the plot basically sucked. Holes, holes everywhere....

"she wrote the first two like zap zap, but hadn't really planned book three?"

That's exactly what I think happened. Good idea to start and then just had to go somewhere with it.

I just wish she'd thought it out a little. I can think of three or four possibilities off the top of my head that would have been exponentially better than what we got.

Kristen Well, I didn't think about it in alot of detail or where it would wind up. Just sort of brainstorming where things could be headed after the ending of Insurgent.

I thought it would go one of two ways, which could result in alot of variables as far as where the end was actually headed.
I thought it would either go to a science experiment of some kind where the video would be mostly all propaganda, or that some/most of what Edith Prior said was true.

If an experiment, I didn't think about the DNA angle. And honestly, I think that's where she really screwed up. It's too technical. Too many new details at the tail end of the series.

I thought it might be the result of some twisted group of scientists wanting to see what would happen when you try to constrict society into these five groups. I thought there might be other plant cities where they had different factions or different types of societies altogether.
Maybe where the people in them were clones or something. Which admittedly could be pretty cheesy if not done right. I'm thinking something like the movie, The Island. Allowing for some kind of drama like in that movie - where when they "won the lottery", their organs would be harvested and they'd be killed. Maybe that's really what happened to the divergent who mysteriously disappeared....

Another option, I thought, was something like the movie, The Village. Where the original people who started things off in Chicago were trying to start a haven of sorts. Where all the corruption of the world wouldn't reach and they could establish this new type of society, trying to weed out all the bad stuff.

Or maybe that there really was a war going on, and they really did need divergent people for some reason. Maybe just for more people. Maybe because they'd be immune to some new weapon or something.
And that could go a few ways. Where there were actually people waiting outside, or where they sort of forgot about them. Like if the war went so badly that a new society emerged in the rest of the country. Maybe there was some sort of takeover like in Nazi Germany and subsequent fall like in WWII...

So many options really. Which is why I was disappointed in the direction Roth actually took. I mean, it's not like she backed herself into this horrible plot corner. It was literally wide open. *sigh*

message 3: by Lauren (last edited Nov 22, 2013 07:03AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Lauren I also didn't like where Veronica decided to take the story after Insurgent. It makes no sense and it's just about completely implausible from a basic logical level, but more than that it's just plain ... silly.

The factual errors aside, the idea itself isn't so much the problem as the fact that the series before the book wasn't set up to lead into it. If she had effectively laid out the foundation for this being revealed as a genetic experiment, it wouldn't have come off as a book in a totally different series. But it's just so far off from everything, not to mention completely contradictory to the specific revelations at the end of Insurgent, it just reads like she made it all up at the last minute. It's just a poor writing effort all around.

The idea that's been kicking around in my head is that Edith Prior and her group really did set up the city and society as a way to help the self-destruction of the rest of the outside society, but then the war and evils grew and civilization basically fell apart, everyone was all but wiped out and the Chicago experiment was kind of just forgotten about, no one ever came to let them back out and they just went on. And then after they watch the video and decide to come out, they find a sort of wasteland of a United States with small feral communities of survivors' descendants living in isolation (kind of like a whole bunch of factionless sectors spread out) with no real government or organization overseeing them. In my idea, these feral communities rise up against the experiment cities and want to destroy them, the freaks behind the fence, so there's the bitter irony that the people the Chicagoans were put here to save are now banding together specifically to destroy them. Maybe there were a couple of other city experiments, like in the book, and the feral communities already destroyed those cities and killed the remaining people in them and Chicago is the last one on the list, Chicago is the last hope for saving humanity from itself.

That's just what I've been thinking about writing, maybe as a fan fiction novel to pretend is the real book in my mind.

Lauren I think VR's problem is that she had an interesting idea, but the idea had no legs to stand on. It was okay in the first two books, because the story existed within itself -- we didn't need to know all the "whys" behind the scenes, and it wasn't self-conscious about it. But it's only when we get to the third book and the story is forced to address itself that all of the holes in the premise start to show.

I read the Maze Runner trilogy too and I agree that The Death Cure wasn't all that interesting a conclusion, but at least it stayed within the premise that was already laid out from the beginning. At least in that series the kernels of truth were almost all provided in the first book rather than drag the series on and then drop a bunch of explanatory nonsense in at the last minute.

Uriah was a cool character, but he -- and almost every other supporting character in the series -- faded into the background into uselessness in this book. I didn't even care that he fell into a coma and later died. He, Christina, Cara and even Caleb were nothing more than cardboard cutouts this time around. What's interesting is that in an interview Veronica Roth did, she expressed her sadness at having to kill off Uriah, and she feared the fan reaction to that plot point. Yes, to THAT death. Listening to her, she really seems to have no idea how badly Tris's death would be received. She was more worried about Uriah.

Actually, I think with the exception of Tris -- which is precisely why it was such a bad move -- all of the deaths did serve some kind of plot or character purpose. I mean, did anyone HAVE to die? No, but it was worked into the story and had an effect on the plot afterward or on the characters who reacted to it in a way that then contributed to the plot also. Will's death weighed on Tris in Insurgent, made her afraid to touch a gun, the secret about it caused tension between her and Tobias. Uriah's demise, telegraphed and contrived as it was, made Tobias feel guilty and contributed to some of the decisions he made later on in the story. Tris's death, of course, did absolutely nothing to the story.

message 5: by Lauren (last edited Nov 22, 2013 09:38AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Lauren "I don't know about Uriah - to me it didn't seem like his death had any consequences at all. Take Zeke, I liked Zeke, who just forgave Tobias for the sake of a as-happy-as-can-be ending, and Uriah's mother, who was like "Well tough". Although Tobias did feel guilty, there was hardly any retribution at all."

Yeah, his death was pointless -- the whole story that caused it was pointless -- but it contributed to Tobias's character and affected his place in the story after that. It's annoying because the death was contrived for no other reason BUT that, but there it is. It did something, it exists to do something to another character's role in the story. Tris's death contributed absolutely nothing to the plot or anyone's role in the story afterward. It was completely pointless to the story. The point of her journey was about sacrifice, and she dies for no reason other than to make that point.

Emily Krouk I honestly couldn't get through the entire book. I got to page 354 and gave up. Insurgent required another book to finish what it started, but this really wasn't the direction is should have gone in. Tris's death wasn't what made the book bad, it was the language. There weren't many instances of "show, don't tell." There was no point in the genetically damaged and pure. I also believe that the book didn't need to have other cities that were experimented on. But in the end, we all read the book anyway, and we're not going to get back the hours we spent on reading it.

Sarah All the deaths in the last book were pointless. Tris could have survived easily, what infuriates me most, is the fact that she didn't take the gun in with her! It would have taken her about two seconds to pick it up. She would have survived the Death Serum found David in the Weapons Lab and just shot him. Continuing on with releasing the Memory Serum and resetting the compound.

After that they could have continued like normal, Tris and Tobias could have been together instead of having to read all the sadness after she died. I almost stopped reading after he saw her body in the morgue.

There are endless possibilities that could have happened after that.

Maggie Guys, stop badmouthing the book. I thought it was great. It shows you that not everyone has a happy ending. Everyone on this Earth expects to live happily ever after-which never really happens. At least Veronica actually pointed that out. Get over the book already.

Kaitlyn Maggie wrote: "Guys, stop badmouthing the book. I thought it was great. It shows you that not everyone has a happy ending. Everyone on this Earth expects to live happily ever after-which never really happens. At ..."
THANK YOU! At least someone agrees with me! I've been trying to tell my friends this!

Lauren Or ... we are all entitled to think whatever we want about the book.

Maggie I just think you're taking it the wrong way. I don't think Veronica purposely was like, 'hey I should kill off Tris just to get people angry!'

Lauren I don't think anyone thinks that. But it made people angry anyway (or disappointed, or depressed, etc.) and they're going to express that.

message 13: by Madi (new) - rated it 5 stars

Madi I didn't say it was bad I still loved the book and it's ending even though Tris died. I was just saying that if there was another ending the book would have been different.
Life is not just about happy endings like Maggie said, it just shows that anything can happen even if it means that the main character of a very popular series dies.
Seriously if people hate the book then read another one and get over it. We all get that we were attached to Tris and when she died it made us depressed and we needed someone to blame because we didn't want the ending to be like that. We wanted it to happy and perfect like a lot of novels are.

Maggie I agree with Madison, sure I was depressed when tris died, but i got over it. I still love the series and the author. I just think some people overreacted, that's all.

Sarah Maggie wrote: "I agree with Madison, sure I was depressed when tris died, but i got over it. I still love the series and the author. I just think some people overreacted, that's all."
Same here!

Lauren Madison wrote: "I didn't say it was bad I still loved the book and it's ending even though Tris died. I was just saying that if there was another ending the book would have been different.
Life is not just about ..."

I'm not "blaming" anyone and I didn't want a happy ending. I personally am annoyed at how badly written the entire book was and how a perfectly acceptable conclusion, from a thematic perspective, was ruined by sloppy writing and poor execution. The book was just plain bad, and the ending was bad NOT because it wasn't happy, but because it was done so poorly.

message 17: by Madi (new) - rated it 5 stars

Madi Everyone has there own opinions on the topic so people can say what they want about the book, but it has been published and what you say will not change the book.

Lauren Then why do we have discussions boards? It's to discuss. If you don't like the discussion, you don't have to read it. The fact that "it's published and we can't do anything about it" isn't really the point. Really, if your perspective is the idea that there's no point in going on about something since it's already done and nothing we say will change it, a discussion board is probably not for you.

Maggie How was the book poorly written? I thought the whole idea about the genetically damaged was pretty cool. It actually kind of clarified some stuff for me. And whatever Madison wants to say, she should say. I don't think she would even be on a discussion board if she didn't think it was meant for her.

Lauren Check out my review of the book.

Maggie Lauren, I understand some of your ideas and perspectives on the story. You said in the story that you are a 30 year old woman who is also a writer, so maybe I shouldn't doubt your judgement. Maybe you should think how the explanation plays out for the younger crowd-15-20. This crowd may like the book very much. You seem to know what you're talking about, but teenagers and young adults might like the way the book played out because it's easier to comprehend. I do agree with you on the fact that the dual narritives weren't really well written. I think Veronica only did it for the ending. As for the plot, well, sorry to say, but I totally disagree.

message 22: by Lauren (last edited Nov 24, 2013 08:24AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Lauren Well, hey, if the plot worked for you, and you enjoyed the book overall anyway, then more power to you. If you thought it was cool, yay, but it doesn't change the fact that it was incorrect and defied logic even by evil greedy scientist standards. Because even though an evil greedy scientist will pursue the most ridiculous, abhorrent, terrible plan as long as it produces results, but this plan by definition will not produce any results because the science is inherently wrong, not to mention the fact that the longevity of this "experiment" defies common sense.

I don't expect people in the actual target audience to look that far into the science stuff, but that doesn't relieve the author of the responsibility to do her research. Just because the audience may be too young to get it anyway doesn't mean you can skimp on making sure it makes sense. A kid/YA book is a book with subject matter (vampires, witches, teen angst, crazy dystopian societies) that is probably only appealing to people that age; it is NOT a book with facts and details -- and logic -- that will only work on people too dumb to notice that it's wrong. Don't insult the reader's intellect. A book geared toward a young audience should still be readable to an adult, and I've seen plenty of reviews from people in the actual target audience (or at least claim to be) who weren't buying the plot either.

Anyway, you don't need to doubt or not doubt my judgment. I'm not trying to change your mind about how you feel about the book, I just want you to see where the people who didn't like it are coming from, that it's not just whining because they didn't get their way, that they have legitimate reasons for being bothered by the legitimate problems in this book. And if these problems didn't happen to bother you, you're hardly alone.

Maggie I respect your opinions on the book, and maybe the plot wasn't scientifically accurate, but I still somewhat enjoyed the book. Also this book is dystopian literature. You can't get so technical about the science, because it isn't supposed to be accurate. It's supposed to be inaccurate with the scientific part for the aspect about it. You have to look beyond the things that are scientifically accurate to have fun with the book. It's called suspension of disbelief.

Veronica i was not interested in the science part. it was good though. not many are conversant in genetics and allied subjects to analyze them. with dystopia everything is possible.
the ending was the only problem. unnecessary and illogical. this book is for those who detest HEA.

message 25: by Lauren (last edited Nov 24, 2013 05:19PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Lauren Maggie wrote: "I respect your opinions on the book, and maybe the plot wasn't scientifically accurate, but I still somewhat enjoyed the book. Also this book is dystopian literature. You can't get so technical abo..."

It's not so much the inaccurate science as the complete and utter lack of logic surrounding the whole premise. Of course reading fiction -- particularly science fiction -- requires suspension of disbelief, but it is still subject to the same rules of any story, in that it still has to make sense within the confines of its own internal logic. This book, this explanation, does not. I could not "have fun" with this book because it makes no sense to do these things even within their own explanations of why they were doing it. The whole idea is illogical and counterproductive and just plain dumb -- not because of the technicalities of how genes work, but because it makes no sense to lock people up for 200 years to do that; it makes no sense that these people wouldn't have tried to leave or wouldn't have even thought about leaving after 200 years, because unlike every other book I've read that features a population trapped somewhere for years and years and years, these people were not given any real reason for why they couldn't leave; it makes no sense to use this experiment as the explanation for why this society exists because it doesn't add up to what we've seen. The story's own logic doesn't work. And, not to harp on the whole science thing, but the science fail does kill the whole logic in one basic way: All you have to do to correct this big genetic mistake is rewrite the sequence to put those genes right back where they came from and boom, you're done. The experiment is just plain not necessary. Like I said, most people are not going to bothered too much by the science stuff and aren't going to look too much into it, but it's really troublesome when the entire logic of the story makes no sense strictly on face value. Suspension of disbelief can only go so far; there has to be SOME logic within the story's own version of logic. Even Harry Potter made more sense, and there's obviously no science in that story. It's about freaking magic, for pete's sake, but the goings-on still stay true to its own world logic.

And yes, the science at the very base is supposed to be accurate, or at least true. You can't pretend that Tuesday comes before Monday. Can someone really make a serum to induce fear hallucinations? Probably not. Those are minor details. I don't care about the scientific accuracy of whether those things are true or could happen. You can easily fanwank that someone invented such things far in the future, and be done with it. You can't fanwank that genes will suddenly decide to work this way in the future, because they just plain don't do that, and the story doesn't even try to pretend that they simply figured out a way to *make* genes work like that. Can't really suspend disbelief with the non-science of the experiment or the non-logic of the city. Not when this science and logic is supposed to be THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THE STORY. Forget about whether it's scientifically accurate; the main problem is that it just. doesn't. make. sense. And honestly, it just made everyone look really stupid.

More than anything, I think where this book went wrong was trying to give an explanation for everything. The series' premise was flimsy on the logic from the beginning. Why in the world would anyone think it would be a good idea to segregate people and think that'll promote peace? Why in the world am I supposed to believe that people would stay trapped in the city for who knows how long and never even think about leaving? These were apparent from the first book, but it was easier to put those plot holes aside because the book was deliberately not self-conscious about the many flaws in its own premise and focused instead on the storyline. But by making the crux of Allegiant's plotline about explaining everything and answering all of the how's and why's, it just called attention to the inherent lack of logic in the premise and the holes in the world building, and trying to insert a purely scientific explanation for everything just made it worse -- partly, of course, because the science was dumb, but also because it kind of sucked the magic out of the story. It would have been better if we'd just not tried to address any of it. The city is what it is just because, the end.

Maggie In the book they talked about a memory serum. If people thought about leaving the city the bearuo could have just used that, and then no one thought about leaving the city again. Easy as pie. And the science wasn't the entire premise of the story, Tris and Tobias, the Allegiant, the death serum, a lot more then just genetics.

message 27: by Lauren (last edited Nov 24, 2013 12:42PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Lauren The science was the entire premise of why the city exists this way, which is the premise of the story (the series, not this specific book).

The memory serum was in individual syringes that members of the Amity were armed with to inject anyone who got too close to crossing the fence. That would never, ever in a million years be a believable method for keeping an entire population imprisoned for eight generations. Human beings would not be stopped that easily, never have.

Remember: EIGHT generations. Do you know where we were eight generations ago? Only 13 stars on the flag.

It was too easy for Tris and company to get out. You can only assume that the only reason no one managed to do that before them is because almost no one ever tried. In eight generations, some 200-plus years, no one ever tried to leave -- that in itself defies logic and common sense.

Savannah I think that her problem was she created this awesome world with all the conflict and action and romance and blah blah blah in it in the first two books. AND EVERYONE LOVED IT (me too). But then on the FINAL book to try and recreate a new world that totally puppets the world she grew up in... it sort of discredits everything that happened in the first two books.

I think the whole issue came down to her trying to create a new world and somehow implement her old one into it. (I think we can all agree she just started writing the series and didn't really think about what would happen.... in the end)

Does anyone else wish they just hadn't read the last book?

message 29: by Lauren (last edited Nov 24, 2013 01:16PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Lauren I do. Not because of the ending, like a lot of people like to say, but because the whole storyline and the big revelation pretty much make the story in the first two books pointless. This totally half-assed plotline made it clear that Veronica didn't actually know where she was going with all this when she started this series, and I feel like I've been led on a wild goose chase. That's where my disappointment is. I thought I was following a great story, couldn't wait to see what the big idea was, and she never actually had one all along.

I think Veronica started with a neat concept but she tried to do too much. What people loved about Divergent and why it was so successful, I think, is that in spite of the high concept premise, the story was quite simple. It was small, self-contained. It got a little bigger in Insurgent, and likewise the plot started to get a little frazzled then, too. (I loved Insurgent, gave it 5 stars like the first book, but the plot was all over the place.) But Allegiant went too far out of the zone. She made it too big and the whole story got away from her. The original story, the original magic, got lost.

message 30: by Lecia (new) - rated it 1 star

Lecia Robinson Why did Tris have to die? It seemed pointless. What happened in book 3?! The whole change was pointless as well as Tris and Uriah's death.

Maggie Well I stated my opinion, I see no reason to keep going back and forth. After all this is a discussion, not an arguement. I'll leave you with your own opinions, and I'll leave with mine.

Veronica Lecia wrote: "Why did Tris have to die? It seemed pointless. What happened in book 3?! The whole change was pointless as well as Tris and Uriah's death."

the author wanted her trilogy to end differently. or may be she believed that HEA is near to impossible in post apocalyptic situations.

message 33: by Lauren (last edited Nov 24, 2013 01:49PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Lauren I understand what Veronica was going for with this ending; I don't believe at all that it was just for the sake of being different or standing out or that she thought a happy ending was in general not realistic. I totally get the theme she was going for with this ending and how it is supposed to fit into the entire story. Unfortunately it was just poorly done every single step of the way and nonetheless just came off as her trying to be different or shocking even though she wasn't. It was a mess, poorly executed, heavy-handed, and just a bad idea. The problem is that it served no dramatic purpose beyond that point she was trying to make.

message 34: by Luca (new) - rated it 4 stars

Luca Lauren wrote: "Madison wrote: "I didn't say it was bad I still loved the book and it's ending even though Tris died. I was just saying that if there was another ending the book would have been different.
Life is..."

Lauren wrote: "Check out my review of the book."

So I looked at your review of the book and not that your review was bad, I just was "not happy with your ending"

Amanda Lauren wrote: "I do. Not because of the ending, like a lot of people like to say, but because the whole storyline and the big revelation pretty much make the story in the first two books pointless. This totally..."

Lauren when you said "I feel like I've been led on a wild goose chase. That's where my disappointment is. I thought I was following a great story, couldn't wait to see what the big idea was, and she never actually had one all along."
I don't think I could agree with you more. I felt like during Allegiant, I was just waiting, and waiting for something big to happen, and well then it was the end of the book. I read about what Veronica was going for, and I get that, but again I agree with what you said later is that it was just poorly executed.

I feel like the first two books set it up perfectly for a spectacular ending in the third trilogy, but maybe was rushed to put out the last book, or like Veronica said in one of her interviews, she attempted to try something different. Every time you try something new, you don't always get it right on the first try. It's like trying a new recipe, it may take several attempts to get it perfect.

Emily look i will admit that the Third book wasn't as good as the other Two but it was still a wonderful novel. I liked all of the genetics and science in it, it explained a lot to me. Even if the science wasn't exactly correct, Just remember that it is over 50 years into the future and it is not supposed to be exactly like it is today just a bases.

I was so upset that Tris died, however if VR hadn't ended to book that way i don't think it would have the same power that it does now, for example all of my friends are going on about it BECAUSE OF the upsetting ending, i believe this is what VR was going for, to create an up roar so everone goes and reads it to see for themselves.

Also just remember that it is a YA book and it is set for that age group

That is just my opinion.

Matthew Emily wrote: "look i will admit that the Third book wasn't as good as the other Two but it was still a wonderful novel. I liked all of the genetics and science in it, it explained a lot to me. Even if the scienc..."
It's not that the science "wasn't exactly correct," it's that the science was DEAD WRONG.

Emily Matthew wrote: "Emily wrote: "look i will admit that the Third book wasn't as good as the other Two but it was still a wonderful novel. I liked all of the genetics and science in it, it explained a lot to me. Even..."

But like i said it is not today's science it is future science

message 39: by Lauren (last edited Nov 24, 2013 08:35PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Lauren Genes simply don't work that way. It's not a theoretical possibility, it's not a future innovation or invention; it's just biology. We can accept that the future world has created a magical serum for just about everything, or a flying car, or a pill that can make you think you're Napoleon, or whatever. These are inventions. I can accept that scientists were actually able to name and remove the "selfishness" gene, etc., from people's DNA. It's an innovation. But expecting broken DNA to fix itself over time, the missing gene to magically grow back, through reproduction? That's not an innovation or invention; this is biology, and it's not true. It's not going to be a possible future science any more than the sun rising in the west. But I can accept a story where the sun rises in the west if we are given an explanation as to what happened to the earth's rotation in this hypothetical fictional story to cause this change in how the world basically works. I could accept this ridiculous science if we had been given an explanation as to how these future scientists managed to change the way human biology works, but they did not. It's presented as if this is simply how DNA works, and it's not. But again, that's not the big problem with this premise. More than the science, the whole experiment concept as the explanation for the city is utterly bullet-riddled with logical holes.

Emily It is a fiction book, it is not supposed to filled with real facts and figures, it is a story, NOT REAL, hence does not need real facts, but in saying that she did put in true facts about genes and DNA.

Lauren Well, yes, she did get correct the fact that "genes" and "DNA" are real things.

And I'll copy a paragraph from my own review:

"I know this is a science fiction book, not a science journal, but the science still has to be plausible. That’s what science fiction is – highly improbable, but still theoretically plausible. This is not plausible because the core is incorrect and it defies all common sense. Genetics doesn’t work that way, and there is no point to any of this. When writers employ some science in their fiction stories, they do their research to make sure that what they’re saying makes sense. Because even though it’s fiction, and fantasy, it still has to have logic behind it. Do you think Michael Crichton wrote Jurassic Park with no research behind it? The premise is far-fetched and highly improbable, but the science behind it is real. When you write a science fiction story, you need to use real science to explain how your fantasy situation could theoretically be plausible, even if it is not very likely to actually happen."

Yes, a fiction book is not supposed to tell a REAL story about something that's REALLY happening. However, the basis of the fictional story still has to have logic behind it, and the basis of a science fiction story has to have real science to back it up; at the very least, it needs to not have flat-out wrong science backing it up. Otherwise you might as well not make it science fiction at all and just say it was all done by magic.

Emily I can see what you are saying, however in the context of the story i believe that it does make sense and like you stated in your review it is a science FICTION book.

However, everyone has their own opinion and not every one will agree. Like Maggie said above this is not an argument and i am not looking for one i just wanted to state my opinion.

message 43: by Madi (new) - rated it 5 stars

Madi That is what I discussion board is about, to state opinions, not to create arguments.

message 44: by Emily (new)

Emily Did anyone else notice that in all the dialogue Roth described the characters' dictation by 'says' or 'said'!! It got quite annoying after I noticed it - I would scan the page looking for it (despite my attempts to stop).

“I love you" I say.
"I love you, too" he says. "I'll see you soon.”

“Yeah, sometimes life really sucks," she says. "But you know what I'm holding on for?"
I raise my eyebrows.
She raises hers, too, mimicking me.
"The moments that don't suck," she says. "The trick is to notice them when they come around.”

“Caleb," I say, "I love you."
His eyes gleam with tear as he says, "I love you, too, Beatrice.”

“Yes," she says, her eyes bright with tears. "My dear child, you've done so well.”

Sorry for bringing up bad memories. But seriously? In those times full of emotion and sadness and love the characters just 'say' it. What no description to further our image of the scene.
The book was okay but despite my attempts to ignore it, all the 'saying' really put me off.

message 45: by G (new) - rated it 1 star

G Wallawalladingdong wrote: "I only read the first three or four chapters and just kind of stopped. It's not that I don't like the Divergent series, but the beginning of Allegiant just didn't captivate me like with the others...

It doesn't get better it gets worse

esthermarie I think all the 'saying' is just part of VR's writing style. She's not a flowery writer, and she doesn't dwell on minute details in a scene, she names them then moves on. There's a lot of authors who write like this, and I think its a preference thing. I like it as it makes the writing more clean and polished.

Sabrina I don't agree with this notion that the fake science in a science fiction book doesn't have to make sense just because it's fiction.

I guess this series has managed to get away with it's terrible explanations on most readers because we're not exactly bio majors and geneticists here. But I'm also a firm believer that a story that offers up half-assed or poorly researched explanations is just insulting the intelligence of the readers.

Badly explained "science" can break your suspension of disbelief. The moment I read David's long-awaited explanation for these experiments and the reason for the Divergents, I literally stopped reading, rolled my eyes dramatically, and whispered "Are you effing kidding me??!"

Maybe I'm being a little melodramatic, but I'm a bit offended (as a reader) that we waited so long for a satisfying explanation for all the stuff we read about the previous two books and this was apparently the best the author and her lazy editors could come up with.

message 48: by Suzy (new) - rated it 2 stars

Suzy Honestly, for me, I felt like Allegiant had nothing to do with the other 2 books. One of the things that bothered me most was that Chicago was brushed off to the side and we were introduced with the brand new concept without any foreshadowing in the previous books. It was just too much for one book. Either that, or she should have come up with a completely different idea. I spent a year trying to come up with possible routes that VR would possibly take and none of them happened. That's not really the problem, I kind of like when my predictions aren't correct, that way it's a surprise. But the genetic stuff annoyed me to the point that if I heard "pure/damaged" one more time I would toss the book to the ground. I don't know it just kind of felt....irrelevant? The characters were also kind of disappointment. They all felt like shadows of their former selves. I enjoyed Divergent and Insurgent but after Allegiant I feel like my view of this series has been altered. Not in a positive way :/

Maddy I started reading Allegiant with huge expectations because i am absolutely in love with the other two books. For me i think the only reason VR killed of that certain character is for the "big Finale" even though it was probably the worse thing she could probably do!! As a reader you were just dumped with all this information about the Genetically pure or damaged, you were given so much information to process and little time to do it. I thought that this book would end a lot better then how it did and i was really disappointed with the way Veronica Roth Decided to finish this book.

message 50: by Nurlely (new) - added it

Nurlely I love Allegiant! I would love my happy ending with Tris and Four together but I think Ms Roth wanted to deliver the message that life is not about a happy ending and fighting for the right things is not an easy thing and sometimes cost the life of people we love. Or maybe she had any other reasons. Nonetheless, I think the series is amazing.

« previous 1 3
back to top