Allegiant
discussion
Can we list all that is wrong with Allegiant, and then...
Suzy wrote: "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 th..."Seriously. I have no idea how they're supposed to adapt this into a movie if they ever get that far. Even ignoring the fact that the storyline in this book is stupid and boring, it doesn't have anything to do with the story in the other two books! She tried to "expand" their world/story, but she clearly doesn't know how to do that because all she did was end up writing a completely separate story that doesn't belong with the others. This is the problem with not having your story planned out before you start. I think HarperCollins/Katherine Tegen needs to start a new policy: Do not give a three-book deal to a 20-year-old unless he/she can provide you with an outline for all three books, proof that she actually has a complete story to write. Because Veronica Roth had no idea where this story was going when she wrote the first book. And that part is almost okay. She wrote it just to write it, she didn't know she would get a series deal out of it. But it's obvious she still had no idea what she was talking about when she wrote the second book, even though she ended it on a cliffhanger! The way that was dismissed and retconned out of importance in this book makes it obvious that she either had no idea what she was talking about when she wrote Insurgent, or she had some idea but decided it was going to be too hard to write, or she couldn't find a way to fit into her story where she "had" to explain the scientific explanation for divergence -- Fail Number One -- and so she scrapped the whole thing and came up with a completely different idea that had nothing to do with what that cliffhanger was about.
Madi wrote: "That is what I discussion board is about, to state opinions, not to create arguments."True.
I think I might be late to the party, but I just want to clear some things up...Lauren wrote: "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..."
Genes, and the DNA that they consist of, DO work this way. Please let me explain.
"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."
DNA DOES repair itself over the course of many generations. In this case the novel stated the population in the Chicago study lasted for 200 years, meaning there was plenty of time for genetic MUTATIONS to arise within that population. Genetic mutations include GAIN of genes, LOSS of genes, DELETION of genes, and ELONGATION of genes. This is 100% possible in a population that has survived this long and has been reproductively isolated for so long. This is the very definition of GENETIC DIVERGENCE. It is BIOLOGY and the science is sound. This IS the case for this novel.
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."
I am sorry, but I HAVE to call you out on this error, since it seems to be based on ignorance. It IS how genetics works. I have been studying genetics both in and outside of a lab, formally and informally educated in this subject so I know a few things. It IS possible to gain a function not normally found in the population in their genes, and this is the result of years and years of reproduction within that population.
I may not be perfect, and neither is VR, but I think the real problem here is that she didn't explain HOW the genes play a role well enough. She just introduced it in the end without explaining the different sides to the story or any background to why the Purity wars were centered around genetic makeup. Tris complained about how Michael and the other scientists didn't explain things to them and forced them to pretend to know what the hell they were talking about. I kind of feel like VR did the same thing with explaining her whole plot twist with, Oh it's genetics, just accept it and move on. I wish she had not oversimplified it or made such a vague point of it. I have to agree with you on her execution and handling of this information, and I can understand the confusion behind this. However, like somebody said before, the book is published and exists in all its imperfect glory, so we have to accept it for what it is. It still has great potential and inspiration for many other writers, but I wish the technical aspects behind the science of the story was more sound.
Lauren wrote: "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 s..."I totally agree Lauren.It made everything we learned in the first two books Null & Void.We learned everything in the Edith Prior video was a lie and the whole GP/GD thing was just rehash of the faction/factionless fight.
Andi wrote: "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 ..."
So true Andi and as you said before you have authors like Michael Crichton who actually do the research that make it plausable.
Suzy wrote: "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 th..."Totally agree!
Lauren wrote: "Suzy wrote: "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 intro..."Personally I hope the movies go away from the third book entirely.
This book was so disappointing to me.I really loved Divergent.I didn't love Insurgent as much,but understood why Tris acted the way she did,although at times it got annoying I still liked the book.Allegiant to me was like reading a different book with completely different characters.
As Andi so brilliantly pointed out I hated the total deconstruction of Four.Everything we came to know and love about him was completely gone.He did so many uncharacteristic things in this book.He told Tris in Divergent that one of the things she should know about him is that he is deeply suspicious of all people,but yet he just runs off with this Nita gal he doesn't know at all and totally goes along with her plan that has disasterous consequences.
His fears totally control him and he is just a shadow of his former self.
Personally I hated life outside the fence it made no sense.Like so many of you said everyone was just content to stay there for 200 years?
There was too much info dumping and it got tedious and boring.
Everything that made Divergent interesting or special was just wiped away like an after thought,when this was
the whole premise for the books in the first place.
"What is Divergent?" "What does it mean ,Why is it special?"
Not to mention way too many characters that went no where or characters that did just plain uncharacteristic things.Does anyone buy that Evelyn who cared nothing about her son before and left him with his abusive father was just going to give up her years of plotting and planning and revenge just so she can have a relationship with him?
I felt like Tris's death was glossed over ,while there was supposed to be this big moment of angst while they pulled the plug on Uriah,like Tris was just a supporting character.
She also seemed to welcome death asking her mother if she was done yet.Not really seeming to care how it would affect Tobias.
After she died and seeing Tobias so broken hearted and filled with grief it was like who cares about Uriah?
It made me upset that she ended the book this way.Knowing that Four will be heartbroken and alone as he is two years later.
It was like the message was "Life Sucks The End."
Well isn't that pretty much what Christina says.
She's waiting for the few moments when life isn't so sucky.
Wow,doesn't that just make the journey all worth it?
Sorry for the vent,but this book just left a huge stinging hole in my heart.
Linn wrote: "Lauren wrote: "Suzy wrote: "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 an..."I agree with this so much. The third book seemed sloppily written and not very well thought out in terms of the whole GP/GD conflict. Also, the whole martyrdom motif in books just annoys me.
Spammonia wrote: "Linn wrote: "Lauren wrote: "Suzy wrote: "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 t..."Totally agree.Hated the GP/GD thing and the way Tris was always right in every situation and she always had to be the hero and make the sacrifice.
Linn wrote: "Spammonia wrote: "Linn wrote: "Lauren wrote: "Suzy wrote: "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..."Also, I would like to mention how even though Tris is always right and seems to be levelheaded to other people, she is in fact a terrible decision maker during moments of crisis! She just had dumb luck escaping death in the first few books, but seriously? She forgot her gun (she always does)and that's why she died. I thought the whole Dauntless motto is to be PREPARED for danger. I guess she didn't learn much from them. Also, why is she always doubting people's respect for her? I get that she's an insecure teenager but still, she's given preferential treatment by EVERYONE and she STILL thinks that everybody sees her as a little, insignificant girl. She is trying too hard, and that is her tragic flaw, along with her clumsiness and poor decision making. I guess that makes her human but I found myself getting annoyed instead of warming up to her personal struggles. In all honesty I was relieved at what happened to her in the end, but she could have prevented that whole mess if she followed the Dauntless preparedness motto. I'm half-joking,half-serious here, so please don't take offense to what I just said. I think Roth was very tired writing this book and she probably had deadlines to meet. Ach, the bane of all writers!
Spammonia wrote: "Linn wrote: "Spammonia wrote: "Linn wrote: "Lauren wrote: "Suzy wrote: "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..."I totally agree.
As someone pointed out earlier She was always talking about her instincts being right about people and everyone should trust her.Did she know Al was going to betray her or Caleb? There were a lot of times she was caught off guard.Her death bothered me more for the way it affected Tobias.I felt so bad for him pretty much a loner, horrible parents and now the girl he loves,that doesn't seem to love him as much as he loves her dies.
Also as Andi pointed out deaths in books can be sad but serve a purpose or make a point hers did not.What was really gained by her sacrifice? Why was it necessary?
Personally I think it would have said so much more if Caleb rushed in and saved her.Not only would she have lived,but it would have given him the shot at redemption.That was another thing that bugged me.Caleb never got a chance to explain his betrayal of her.I would have liked to have known more about their relationship than all the time spent on meaningless characters like the people from the Fringe and many,many others that I was supposed to be filled with angst over their deaths,but felt absolutely nothing,because they weren't properly developed.
Linn wrote: "Spammonia wrote: "Linn wrote: "Spammonia wrote: "Linn wrote: "Lauren wrote: "Suzy wrote: "Honestly, for me, I felt like Allegiant had nothing to do with the other 2 books. One of the things that bo..."A lot of book series have the whole martyrdom/Jesus Christ savior theme, so I think her death may follow this theme. Apparently her purpose in dying is for peace, and the symbolism and the part where she passes on with Natalie by her side is just showing this whole "Yay peace at last" thing.
However, I don't think this ending was too great and didn't fit in with anything at all. Why did she choose to switch with Caleb all of a sudden? Is she trying to be "holier than thou" and just forgiving Caleb for everything with this gesture? She could have done that ages ago with a simple HUG. Also, her parents died FOR HER, and she even said herself she HAD to keep herself alive for their sake, so why the change of heart? I don't understand...
There could have been a better purpose for her death other than sacrifice, like if her DNA could be used in a serum to "cure" GDs or some sort of gene therapy like that. That way I'd understand why the hell there was even a mention of genetics in this final book.
I do agree that Tobias got the brunt of the deal, with EVERYBODY HE EVER LOVED abandon him (except for that brief reconciliation with Evelyn, but he still managed to push her away too!). He's truly the unlucky one from all of this, and so is Christina.
I think this whole broken pieces coming together theme works with Tobias and Christina healing from the deaths of their loved ones, but Tris died in such a stupid way that it seems like she wasn't destined for Erudite after all. No but seriously, her death could have been written better and without any plot holes.
She could have succumbed to the death serum as she pushed the button to launch the memory wipe, or she could have died in some heroic way that champions her as the savior of the people, but nope. She had to die from bullet wounds she could have prevented had she been carrying her own gun, which she could fire because she overcame her battle with her conscience from killing Will.
It's really sloppy and I'm mad at myself for finding these problems now right after I read the book and thought the ending was all right.
Spammonia wrote: "Linn wrote: "Spammonia wrote: "Linn wrote: "Spammonia wrote: "Linn wrote: "Lauren wrote: "Suzy wrote: "Honestly, for me, I felt like Allegiant had nothing to do with the other 2 books. One of the t..."Exactly,I thought we were all over that after Insurgent which at times totally annoyed me with her constantly trying to get herself killed,because she felt guilty over Will,which I never quite understood.She seemed more upset by him than the death of her parents.
I'm sure it was upsetting to shoot someone ,but he was under the simulation she would have been killed.
To me it's a slap in the face to her parents that she doesn't want to live.They should want her to live and move on with her life.Which i had thought she had come to that realization at the end of Insurgent.
Spammonia wrote:She could have succumbed to the death serum as she pushed the button to launch the memory wipe, or she could have died in some heroic way that champions her as the savior of the people, but nope. She had to die from bullet wounds she could have prevented had she been carrying her own gun, which she could fire because she overcame her battle with her conscience from killing Will.
And what was the point? There has to be a point especially when you kill of one of your MC.
The whole being killed by David an untrained person in a wheelchair just made zilch sense,especially when you read in Divergent the knock down drag out fight she had with Dauntless trained Four while he was under the simulation.He also had a gun that she managed to survive from.But yet with this David it was like she was just there being a target.And what exactly was the point of her sacrifice.If Tobias's mother hadn't seen the light,which knowing the character of Evelyn was extremely far fetched the people would have been worse off than having their memories wiped.Her death just had no sense of it had to be done for the greater good,but to me was just purposeless to maybe distinguish this book from HG.
I had a very hard time even connecting with Christina.We never really learned much about her.I have a hard time picturing her and Tobias picking up the pieces together.That is something I saw more with Katniss and Peeta in Mockingjay.All I really learned about her was that her family were a bunch of big mouths and she was afraid of moths.Which is one of the big problems I had with this book.Being introduced to so many characters and really never getting any development out of them.You had so many people like Zeke,Uriah,Tori,Christina,Lynn,Cara,Shauna,Marlene and on and on and on ,but really never got to know much about any of them.Like Andi said it's like they were just put there to push a long the plot,so when many of them died you felt nothing.
I so wanted to love this book or atleast like it.I really loved Divergent and liked Insurgent though at times it annoyed me,but this was like a whole other book.It's really too bad.Although I'm starting to hear it's not too uncommon that the third book will lack or what do they say one hit wonder.
Linn wrote: "Spammonia wrote: "Linn wrote: "Spammonia wrote: "Linn wrote: "Spammonia wrote: "Linn wrote: "Lauren wrote: "Suzy wrote: "Honestly, for me, I felt like Allegiant had nothing to do with the other 2 b..."There definitely is a lot left to be desired after reading Allegiant. I didn't hate it, but I am a bit annoyed by it. I totally agree that many book series often have terrible endings because the writers are burnt out and just want to move on to other works or are just overwhelmed with what the people want to read.
Spammonia wrote: "I think I might be late to the party, but I just want to clear some things up...Lauren wrote: "Genes simply don't work that way. It's not a theoretical possibility, it's not a future innovation ..."
I never said genetic MUTATIONS don't occur.
They do. Genes evolve. They can, and will, mutate. This is actually what Veronica should have done and I've discussed this somewhere in this board - that divergence could have been the result of mutations that eventually occurred through these screwy genes repeating and strengthening and whatnot. That's part of what's so annoying about this story, because a logical answer was staring her in the face right there: Just say that divergence was the unexpected (although it shouldn't have been unexpected if these were real scientists) result of the altered genes evolving and mutating.
But this is not what she wrote. She suggests that the "damage" will simply go away over generations and the genes will go BACK to the way they were originally, like a virus that clears up on its own and returns the host to its original healthy state. That's what's ridiculous. Genes can and do evolve over time, and change and develop into new forms. And certainly a group with one specific gene type can eventually produce a NEW gene that was not present originally, as mutations occur. This group absolutely should have, or at least should eventually, produce some type of mutation. The genes should evolve. But her explanation suggests that they will evolve backwards.
If these scientists wanted the people to go "back" to the original genetic state, they should have put GPs in the mix to have "pure" genes in the gene pool to be passed down. But the idea of having damaged people reproduce with only damaged people, passing down only the "damaged" genes, and expecting them to go "back" makes no sense. They won't go back. They'll go forward into something else altogether. And like I said, this step forward should have been her super-important scientific explanation for divergence. The next wave of the genetic evolution. At the very least, it would have been better than saying "Divergence means nothing." Way to make the entire series pointless.
The science WAS there for this really dumb story direction to actually make some biological sense, if she'd gone the mutation route. But she went the stupid route, unfortunately.
There could have been a better purpose for her death other than sacrificeThis is the big problem with her death. It served no purpose beyond sacrifice. If something was to be gained by Tris Prior being dead, if it directly led to some other action that propelled the plot forward or made one of the other characters do something or whatever, then we can see that her actual death was instrumental to the story. But she died just to make a point about sacrifice. That's ... lame.
Kaitlyn wrote: "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 real..."You guys had to realize what discussion you were entering based on the title. This is a gripe thread. For listing what's wrong with the book, and there was a lot wrong with it.
She could have succumbed to the death serum as she pushed the button to launch the memory wipe, or she could have died in some heroic way that champions her as the savior of the people, but nope. She had to die from bullet wounds she could have prevented had she been carrying her own gun, which she could fire because she overcame her battle with her conscience from killing Will.This was the kicker that ruined the whole thing. The entire situation was ridiculous to begin with, but what so many people are up in arms over is the fact that she survives the death serum just to get shot. Veronica says she had Tris survive the serum because she has that weird (and oddly unexplained and unexplored) resistance to the serums UNLESS she wants it to work on some level. She resisted the death serum, and so that proved that she had no desire to die and that her motives were purely out of selflessness and "necessity."
What Veronica didn't realize, though, was by manipulating the story this way just to demonstrate the theme, she eliminated the plot necessity of Tris's death. If Tris had died from the death serum, if David was not there at all, then we could say that this is the only way she could have gone in there and set off the memory serum for Caleb and saved the day. There would be no other way for the mission to succeed without her dying in the process. But making her resistant to the death serum therefore made death-by-mission NOT the only option. It wasn't necessary anymore.
Veronica had Tris meet her death ANYWAY, at David's illogical hands, because this was the end she had chosen. But that has nothing to do with the story. She forced her death irrespective of the needs of the plot just to force the "needs" of her theme.
The science was too technical at some points and too vague at others, the back stories were lacking many aspects, and the whole theme of sacrifice was haphazardly and carelessly put together simply for the sake of a finished product. Allegiant was a let down because of the fact that the books before were building up to a huge resolution and the book left readers feeling empty and with many questions unanswered. I personally didn't care that Tris died but the way it was written and set up seemed a bit careless and poorly thought out. That's not really something that should be done for the main character, since generally their deaths should be well thought out and retain some sort of value or symbolism for readers. Tris dying probably seemed like a good idea to tie into the whole theme of sacrifice but there were no signs of her wanting to do this or having any reason for this.
Whether Tris died or not the city would still go back to being peaceful after the memory wipe and so her death wasn't really necessary as long as she pushed the button for the memory wipe. I think there was too much going on in this book without the proper setup in the former books. This whole new world is introduced with very little explanation and there is no sort of way to process it all.
There was too much on our plates, some things didn't add up, there wasn't anything to tie them together because of poor execution and setup. However, the book exists and is published so there's no turning back.
Spammonia wrote: "The science was too technical at some points and too vague at others, the back stories were lacking many aspects, and the whole theme of sacrifice was haphazardly and carelessly put together simply..."Ditto to everything here.
Both spammonia and Lauren, that is exactly what I discussed in another thread! The science was soooo close, and yet so so off.
So many people defending the book say that Tris's death is "realistic" but that's my whole problem, it wasn't, the character development wasn't either... I felt like I was reading a soap opera with plot twists that served only to create more drama and force my emotions.
So many people defending the book say that Tris's death is "realistic" but that's my whole problem, it wasn't, the character development wasn't either... I felt like I was reading a soap opera with plot twists that served only to create more drama and force my emotions.
Spammonia wrote: "DNA DOES repair itself over the course of many generations. In this case the novel stated the population in the Chicago study lasted for 200 years, meaning there was plenty of time for genetic MUTATIONS to arise within that population. Genetic mutations include GAIN of genes, LOSS of genes, DELETION of genes, and ELONGATION of genes. This is 100% possible in a population that has survived this long and has been reproductively isolated for so long. This is the very definition of GENETIC DIVERGENCE. It is BIOLOGY and the science is sound. This IS the case for this novel."Spammonia, I'm wondering if you can help answer some questions I have about this since I don't have a background in biology or genetics.
I thought genetic divergence was when a certain isolated population starts accumulating genetic mutations and changes that are independent from the rest of the population--in this case, the way that the Chicago residents would evolve to have different mutated genes from the rest of the GP population since they are physically isolated and are only able to reproduce with other "damaged" individuals.
But I don't understand how isolating this populated of GD people would allow the DNA to repair itself. If a person is missing the gene for "cowardice", for example, is the DNA actually able to detect that this is something that's missing and correct itself? How would it even know? I would think that had the GD population been placed in isolation along with some GP people, then the DNA would have something to work with.
I was likening this whole thing to eye colour--everyone started off with brown eyes in the beginning. Blue and green eyes are genetic mutations. But when two blue eyed people have children, it's highly unlikely that their kid would end up with brown eyes. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it sounds like an incredibly ineffective way to spread brown eyes.
Is this not the same thing this Chicago experiment is doing?
Priscila wrote: "I don't know if this discussion is still going on...But to me it seems like one of the major problems with the series is how slowly Tris matters less and less. Tobias ends up mattering so much tha..."
I agree. In the end it was more about Tobias and I was like then why have we been reading Tris' Pov the entire time.
Andi wrote: "Spammonia wrote: "DNA DOES repair itself over the course of many generations. In this case the novel stated the population in the Chicago study lasted for 200 years, meaning there was plenty of tim..."
I don't have a background in biology, but I remember basics from my college biology course, and I don't think she literally meant the DNA repairs itself as in it reverts back to it's previous, no damaged state, but that mutations occur through generations that present solutions for the damaged DNA. If Veronica had explained divergence as a genetic mutation, it would have made a good deal of sense, instead all she did was day the DNA was pure and sometimes referred to it as repaired making the reader believe that somehow through the generations the issues just bred themselves out and went back to normal...
Which, if scientists could create the defective genes, one would think they'd have technology to aid in creating positive genetic mutations, rather than just sitting, watching, and waiting.
But I could be wrong too, like I said, just basic college bio, and genetics are incredibly complicated.
I don't have a background in biology, but I remember basics from my college biology course, and I don't think she literally meant the DNA repairs itself as in it reverts back to it's previous, no damaged state, but that mutations occur through generations that present solutions for the damaged DNA. If Veronica had explained divergence as a genetic mutation, it would have made a good deal of sense, instead all she did was day the DNA was pure and sometimes referred to it as repaired making the reader believe that somehow through the generations the issues just bred themselves out and went back to normal...
Which, if scientists could create the defective genes, one would think they'd have technology to aid in creating positive genetic mutations, rather than just sitting, watching, and waiting.
But I could be wrong too, like I said, just basic college bio, and genetics are incredibly complicated.
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 ..."Get over it? Well as you can read on this site at least that isn't going happen.
I too am irritated by the holes in science. As others have said, scifi/fantasy requires a bit of suspension of belief, but things still have to follow the rules within that context. You want dragons? Fine, I'll believe in dragons, but those dragons still have to follow the rules of gravity.I also agree that Tris's death was not nessessary. I don't mind main characters deaths if they make a point or propel the plot. I don't feel that her death did that. I understand that it's supposed to make a point about sacrifice. I think that Caleb learning about sacrifice and redeeming himself would have been more important.
More than either of the points though, what bothered me most was the change in direction the story had. When I picked up Divergent I loved the concept of factions, of picking a particular aspect of ones personality and developing it while rejecting the others in an attempt to better society. I felt the point, the statement to be made, was that we are multifaceted beings, that none of the factions is better than the other and to be a truly healthy human being you need to embrace all the factions. THAT is what being divergent was about to me. But over time Roth rejected the aspect of choice and made it all about genetics (and faulty genetics at that). That is what was most dissappointing to me.
1. I agree about the information the third book had basically no relation to the clues given in the first two. 2. The scientific inaccuracies also bothered me, but not very much.
3. I think the first two books had more of political themes to them; the third book was about science.
4. The writing in this book was poor, the two narrations seemed to have the same "voice" to me.
5. I know theres already multiple discussions on this but... the ending. I'm not sad that it wasn't all happy. However, her death wasn't sacrifice, I think she said she volunteered because she wanted to help make herself forgive her brother (sorry if this is incorrect, I kind of skimmed the end). Also, whether she was killed or not, the ending would have been the same. A useless death.
So overall... I feel that the series was just poorly planned.
Genetic divergence is meant to explain how new species arise from the same origin/ancestor. A good example is how there were neanderthals and homo sapiens interbreeding, and eventually the neanderthals died out due to being less fit for survival and the homo sapiens exclusively became the humans we see today. In layman's terms, it explains that more than one different species arises from a common ancestor, each with their specialized functions but they can all mate with one another and produce viable offspring. They all possess similar genes, but have some genes turned on and off in different combinations, which is why an animal/human from each species looks and acts different from other species (like how cats, lions, and tigers are divergent species but they can't really intermingle and mate to produce viable offspring). In the book, the different communities ARE ALREADY divergent "species", since they are all separated out into their communities and are different from each other but can still intermingle/mate.
So what exactly is Roth trying to say about Tris and her fellow "divergent" comrades? Are they going back to being the "common ancestor?" If that is the case, this is CONVERGENT evolution and it makes no sense to call people like Tris "divergents." The common ancestor is the one who holds the copies of the genes capable of forming new species and starting the divergence all over again.
If convergent evolution doesn't occur, then what is Tris supposed to be? She might be yet another divergent species, where the people of Chicago not labeled "divergent" are their own separate groups of species, and people like her are the ones more fit for survival and will eventually outlive and outlast the Erudites, Dauntless, etc. This is STILL divergence, but if the five communities were separate "species" to begin with, it seems redundant to label people like Tris as the only divergents.
Finally, the third case could be that the people of Chicago are all one species (which only makes sense because they share the trait of having no control over serums), and the divergent arise from enough generations of breeding to finally get the right gene combination to produce offspring that have the divergent, serum-rejecting traits.
Also, people within these different "species" (Erudite, Dauntless, Abnegation, Candor, Amity)should possess the genes necessary for having offspring like Tris. The assumption that the genes arise from nowhere is not entirely correct. The fact that these groups each have their own special functions means that some of their genes are turned off and others are turned on so that a combination of on/off genes produces the specific characteristics native to the 5 groups.
This means someone from Dauntless has genes for Erudite, Abnegation, Candor, and Amity turned OFF. This explains how they respond to serums with typical Dauntless responses. However that doesn't mean they don't possess the genes to possibly have a child that could have a combination of genes for another community.
I think the "divergents" in Roth's book have been bred over a century so that the right combination of genes have been acquired from the ancestors and parents to finally have all the traits from all the 5 groups turned ON in their genetic makeup. They didn't acquire these abilities out of thin air, but from the passing on of genetic material from interbreeding within the 5 communities.
This occurs because a gene is made up of more than one factor that causes it to be expressed. You'd need more than one copy of a gene and sometimes more than one type of gene to express specific characteristics like being Erudite or Dauntless. However, you still possess the genes for the other traits but they are not expressed. People within the same group can have widely varying combinations of genes that still end up expressing the same trait of each community.
From these variations, if you have two people with the right, varied set of genes have kids, their kids may be slightly divergent, possessing a new combination of ON genes. Eventually these kids have kids with more ON genes, and their kids accumulate more ON genes until finally Tris and her "divergent" buddies show up to save the day.
The variation could possibly manifest itself in the form of a slightly brave Erudite, a slightly smart Dauntless, etc. Then the slightly brave Erudite just by chance could have kids with another slightly brave Erudite with the right combo of ON genes to get a full Dauntless-Erudite hybrid. If the slightly brave Erudite has kids with a slightly altruistic Erudite, there'd be genes for Abnegation, Erudite, and Dauntless in that child but probably not expressed because the genetic combo could have the genes other than Erudite still OFF. You'd need to have all these "slightly"-whatevers (Carriers) to have kids and their kids have kids and continue on until a right combo produces a "divergent."
This kind of makes sense but I still don't want to make assumptions about what Roth was trying to explain in her books. She explained it terribly and could have said that the nondivergent did possess all the "divergent" genes to have divergent children for clarification. Also, the communities in the books are a terrible example of genetic divergence and it's such a teaser to even mention Divergence and not back it up with the right evidence/facts.
In short: Roth's scientific knowledge may be all in her head and she is terrible at explaining it to others or she just doesn't know what she's talking about. The ending was a letdown, and the science was a letdown due to lack of clarification of certain important facts. I would not recommend this book for people and definitely would NOT advocate it as a portrayal of genetic evolution in the media. There is already enough bad press about genetics, and it's about time we get over it and embrace it and all of the effects of genetic evolution.
V.C. wrote: "Andi wrote: "Spammonia wrote: "DNA DOES repair itself over the course of many generations. In this case the novel stated the population in the Chicago study lasted for 200 years, meaning there was ..."I agree that genetics is complicated, but it is far more complicated than complicated. It can be predictable at times and unpredictable at others. Roth's explanation doesn't fit a proper explanation of a genetic occurrence/phenomenon.
Yeah if the communities didn't possess the divergent genes, this implies yet another possibility that the 5 communities are knockout species and they have to interbreed and mate to get the right mix of genes for "divergents."
There is a way of introducing genes into people, gene therapy, but for the purpose of the experiments I guess it wasn't a variable the scientists wanted to observe/use.
I really am fed up with this nonsense of trying to fit together the crumbs of science in the novels into a cohesive explanation. I wash my hands of it. Let's just say Roth's science was not entirely correct, and we cannot make any assumptions about anything because of it. I wish she wrote a fantasy/magic book instead and left science out of it.
Well, I actually really enjoyed the book despite all the deaths. Personally I thought it was captivating enough for me to keep on reading and intense most of the way through. I thought it was great in one way and poor in others. I guess I can start by saying most of the deaths in here are pointless. I mean, I liked the way she ended the book, not all authors have the gut to be merciless with their characters but Uriah? Why does Uriah have to be the one? Tris- er- true she could have survived easily but her death scene wasn't how I expected it to be- I wish it had more meaning to it.
Four was really different in this book. I didn't exactly particularly like him anymore, he's just... different. Kind of a jerk I guess? Never "loved" him though.
The scientific idea and all that behind divergent and damaged gene was messed up- literally. It was confusing and really had not logic to it- it was simply there to support the story- which it did well on. It just wasn't thought well on.
But for once, I actually have respect for Veronica Roth for trying to sacrifice her characters- even if its way too much, but I just felt she did it the wrong way.
I truly, honestly think Tris going out in an act of selfless sacrifice, in an Abnegation-style blaze of glory, is the perfect way for the story to end. But the story was just poorly executed and poorly told at virtually every corner, and even the exact nuances of why Tris's story should end in sacrifice (trying to honor her parents, trying to figure out the right elements of what makes a real sacrifice) were not told well and conveyed a very bizarre message that didn't even make sense in itself. The story had a lot of potential, and this type of ending could have been great and made a lot of sense, but Veronica went about it all the wrong way and somehow managed to execute it all in a way that made it completely worthless and unnecessary.
I never really got into this series in the first place. The whole idea of sorting people into different groups based on personality precursors just seemed dumb. Keeping people divided instead of uniting them is the best way to make a society tear itself apart.I couldn't get my head around the world-building and when the crappy genetics stuff showed up I was reminded of SM's chromosome/special venom explanation from Twilight...*shudder*
I think she knew exactly where she wanted to go and exactly how she wanted to end the story. It all makes sense plot holes and all. Infact, Allegiant was excellent... the genetically perfect and genetically damaged all has to do with the difference between Tris and Tobias, and is explained by the choices they make at the end. SPOILER: Both had choices, and both choices dealt with forgiveness... Tobias made the easier choice of the two he was given, but ultimately, could not forgive his father. Tobias was also a "follower" never really honest with himself, or trusting of himself, enough to be who he could have been. Genetically Damaged.
Tris made the choice to forgive her brother who would never sacrifice himself for her, she did for him... Tobias, never really forgave his father... Not truly. Tris was the perfect one, whom at the end, was selfless, honest (to herself) and not ignorant about her decisions, at peace with her decisions, and, obviously, brave enough to heal her world.
Tobias is still a follower at the end. Notice he is an "assistant". He never met his true potential as a leader. He was pure Dauntless by facing his fears, but never reached his full potential. If I were to take out the science elements and focus on the human condition... it would make more sense. As in, when Tris asks her mom if she is done... yes you are, meaning you've reached the ideal Divergent. That she is whole, the perfect Divergent.
Yes, David was a bad guy, but like Marcus, we all have good and bad traits. The concept of the Bureau was based on what the future society thought was a good motive. But, the way they went about making their decisions shows they are only human. On the other hand, Tris came out of it, and healed Chicago. I guess life is not black and white, but gray. I guess, like Tobias, we are human in our decision making. Of course we can get caught up in the science, but I think, that has little to do with what the author was trying to convey. I think the story is about being human, and the journey we take to become better people and how our thoughts and actions our honesty, love, commitments, forgiveness, selfish and selflessness shape our decisions towards peaceful beginnings. Why do I think this? I read the book.
Of course if you want to tell me that the author didn't have a thought in her head as where she was going with the story since she wrote the first book... that's fine. I've read on her blog after posting this that can be further from the truth... and she points to references in both books that she, in fact, knew exactly which direction she was going. So go ahead, take a narrow minded view because it didn't end the way you wanted it to. I for one, and I know I'm the minority, am extremely happy, sad yes, but fully satisfied with the ending.
Please don't say I have no idea where I came up with these ideas because you read something from the author. What an insult. The author just wrote the book, it is up to me to decide where my ideas come from.
Drew, I truly have no idea where you got these ideas. I'm fairly certain that the entire point of this random story is that, whether pure or damaged, everyone is the same and only defined by the choices they decide to make. A pure person can make the same decisions as a damaged person and vice versa, because people's DNA does not define who they are and what they are capable of. We are who we choose to be. Tobias's decisions had nothing to do with the fact that he is genetically damaged, and Tris's decisions had nothing to do with the fact that she is genetically pure. They are just people.And no, Veronica had no clue where she was going with this story. She has already admitted this repeatedly. She did not figure out any of the outside stuff or the meaning of divergence until she started writing this book and she HAD to think of something. She started the series with no real idea of what made a divergent person divergent, she was just making it up as she went along. As she continued on with the series she tried to find some science to explain why these people are different since it finally dawned on her - two years after everybody else who read the books - that everyone would be divergent if all it meant was having more than one trait. No kidding. So she got the brilliant idea that divergence would mean nothing, because she thought it would be interesting to make it one of those things that people build up in their minds as being really important when it's really not important at all. So she decided that the story would come down to differences in DNA and being divergent simply means your genes are normal, and despite having different types of DNA every person whether divergent or not is all pretty much the same and no one is more special than anyone else because your genes don't mean anything. Yeah, this is the great twist she came up with for Allegiant, and she presumably shared this idea with someone and they actually told her that it would make an interesting story direction. Good Lord.
And then, to play up this totally random story idea that she thought up at the last minute, she decided to make Tobias not be divergent by retconning him as having an anomaly that allows him to show all the traits of a divergent person without actually being divergent. What kind of anomaly? How would that even work? Don't bother to ask, she doesn't bother to explain it. The important thing is that making him not be divergent while Tris is allows them to have an obstacle between them so we can work in a stupid subplot where Tobias gets tangled up with other genetically damaged people for no reason. It all works out beautifully.
See, here's the problem: Veronica Roth came up with an interesting if not slightly illogical story with Divergent. She never dreamed it up with the intention of having it span several books and she had no story to spread out that far, and, as evidenced by the story direction in Allegiant, she was not actually capable of coming up with another good story idea. The first story was literally the only one she had.
Yea... I guess your probably right. Sorry I got more of it than you all did.
@Lauren I agree with you in the sense that she made the whole being divergent thing seem pointless. That really threw me for a loop because it kind of made me think "well what was the point of the previous 2 books?" What was the point of everyone thinking that the divergent were so dangerous, or Janine hellbent on exterminating them? It made me think that everything we'd read up until that point was just irrelevant. Like it was all a lie. I hate that this book changed my perception of this series because I really loved the first 2 books. I thought it could actually rival The Hunger Games as my top YA Dystopian series, but it's nowhere near it. At least Mockingjay, being as sad as it was, gave me closure and left me with hope that Katniss did move on with her life and find some happiness. Allegiant made me feel empty at the end.
Truly, the ending of the book doesn't bother me nearly as much as the 400 pages before it. I had my WTF face on pretty much from the moment we arrived at the Bureau. The "explanation" was so disconnected from everything we actually read in the first two books, and it seemed to just cancel everything. It felt like someone pulled a plug and shut the story off or something.
The DNA story made no sense and was scientifically and logically ridiculous. That's why so many people hated it. Basically, the genetic experiment being an explanation for the city made no sense because the nature of the city will by definition produce the exact opposite result of what they are supposedly trying to achieve. Veronica doesn't know how anything about heredity or how genes work in populations, apparently. You'd think that if she was going to base an entire story around it and use the concept as the explanation for the premise of the entire series, she might have looked it up.
I felt that Allegiant was terrible. Why spend the first half of the book expressing how much Tris wants to live to have her change her mind at the last minute? I understand the importance of her sacrifice, but the series was not thought out, and almost all of Allegiant was just filling in some of the gaps the first two books had created. The plot was awful and the characters showed no growth.
(warning: this grew a lot bigger than I expected it to be)I liked the first book of the series a lot because I thought it was simple but captivating and had a lot of potential. But like everyone has said here, the way it ended up had a different flavor than the way it started due to the many plot holes, and as a result, the journeys and struggles of the characters were rendered less significant.
The author's explanation for divergence was very different than what I thought it would be. Being divergent meant a character's personality was not defined by a single faction, and as a result they couldn't be manipulated by stimulations. But isn't this true for every single person in the world? A person can't be ONLY brave or ONLY intelligent without any other defining traits. We all have traces of dauntless, amity, erudite, abnegation, and candor inside of us, and they show through differently for each person; this is what makes us all unique. While reading the book I could never picture myself belonging completely in ONE faction because each of the qualities were important to me in some way, and I think this is true to many people.
So I figured that divergence was a skill that could be learned. Letting every aspect of yourself out, instead of channeling only the values of one faction and restricting yourself by not acknowledging your own skills. People could learn to be open minded. And by training your brain like this, you could therefore resist stimulations, since this seems connected to the "I can't be defined by one faction" thing.
I thought that Tris was just more naturally adept at resisting stimulations by a combination of her upbringing and her own personality. I likened it to lucid dreaming - being aware during dreams and having the ability to change them. Some people never have a lucid dream, some people do naturally, and some people can learn if they work at it. So I imagined a whole underground organization in the city teaching divergence to others through forbidden and awesome mental challenges. To Tris it came easily and naturally, but others could learn.
I didn't like the genetics explanation, because not only was the science unclear, but right now we don't really know to what extent our DNA affects our personality. Like is it really me wanting to eat that chocolate bar right now or it is my genetic makeup? How do I differentiate between the power of my own mind and the nucleic acids that ultimately make it function? They're kind of intertwined.
Divergence to me seems like mental power. Mutated or I guess "damaged" DNA can lead to things like down syndrome or sickle cell anemia or colorblindness. But this doesn't mean your mind is any weaker just because for example you have an extra chromosome or you can't see the color green.
Then in a way, it would have been what the author wanted - divergence isn't actually anything special in particular, it's just being normal. Being honest and kind and smart and brave and selfless in whatever proportion it feels best and natural to you instead of bloating up and distorting one, and using those values to overcome the stimulations.
I don't actually know if this made any sense to anyone else but me in my own mind but I guess this is the only place to share it soooo
esthermarie wrote: "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 w..."True, I think it is something that's intrinsic to the writing style. Personally, I prefer more "flowery" writers but I've never been put off by terse narrators except when it came to this series.
I think it's the combination of the emotionally distant narrator and the straight-forward writing style that just leaves me feeling unattached to the characters and the events in the novel. Everything just reads so flat and cold.
i just cant find myself finishing allegiant its good but a little boring i just cant it'll break my heart
I'll be honest, I didn't bother finishing the book so I really can't bash too much.But as a guy who tries to stray away from female POV YA novels, I must say that the only reason the series captured me was because of the unique potential environment that the first book had (with the factions and all).
I think it could have been better and the overwhelming romance paragraphs made me want to throw up in my mouth, but I think that's just me. But nether less, I'll stay away from female POV books from now on, EVEN if it sounds kind of cool.
Tiaan wrote: "I'll be honest, I didn't bother finishing the book so I really can't bash too much.But as a guy who tries to stray away from female POV YA novels, I must say that the only reason the series captu..."
Lmao! That's such a guy thing to say! Of course you don't like romance its a girl thing;) But I have to be honest sometimes I do wonder what guys think of the whole romance thin. We see in books from a girl's POV what romance looks like. But I just always wonder how it would be from the guys POV if they think the same
Mrs. LiannaHerondale;) wrote: "Tiaan wrote: "I'll be honest, I didn't bother finishing the book so I really can't bash too much.But as a guy who tries to stray away from female POV YA novels, I must say that the only reason th..."
Haha well I haven't read anything relating to male POV romance-specific storylines (like this..) but if were to tell the story I wouldn't make everything so cheesy. It doesn't have to be mellow, but just not so overdramatic romancy.
If you're interested in male POV with some cheesy romance moments I'd recommend Life in Outer Space . It's really good and I would rather read this kind of storyline than "oh kiss me and make me feel good so I can stuck a bunch of work-words that are very racy in my novel"—types.
But yeah, maybe too much in one reply? :D
As long as we're reading, it'll be okay.
I think VR had a good idea with the ending, showing that Tris really was a hero and all that, but the way she did that was just horrible. It was a pointless sacrifice and one that could have easily been avoided. Like, oh dang I left my gun and now I die because of it. You are dauntless Tris! You never forget your gun and the one time you do you are walking to your death! I don't know I think her idea was a good one she just didn't portray it well with her writing.
I didn't have to have the "happily ever after". Tris dying wasn't a deal breaker for me. Would I have liked to have seen her live? yes but for goodness sake, Four goes into politics? Evelyn just gives up everything she's been planning for years because Tobias asked? Uh, no. No type of explanation why Caleb cared for his sister, then was helping to try to kill her, then once again cared for her.
Numerous times I had to check back on the chapter to see whose chapter it was. I should totally be able to tell the difference between Four and Tris.
So much about this book I hated.
Anyone see the season two final of Sherlock? That's how you sacrifice yourself...FAKE IT!
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Allegiant (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Life in Outer Space (other topics)Allegiant (other topics)
That is what it was about. It was not about realism, or showing that life isn't always about happy endings, or that war is hell, or fighting for the right thing sometimes takes your life. It had nothing to do with the actual events in the story. It was strictly about Tris learning what sacrifice means. It was about Tris understanding what it means to be a true sacrifice to honor her parents, who sacrificed themselves so she could NOT die. It was about giving back to her parents because they sacrificed themselves even though she "betrayed" them by choosing Dauntless, and now she can do the "same" by sacrificing herself for Caleb because his selling her out to Jeanine and leading her to be executed is the exact same thing.
That was literally the entire purpose of the ending, that was literally the only purpose it served.