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

[Katlyn]

It was a little to technical for me. That's all I'm saying.

[B.]

I thought the whole series, was absolutely phenomenal. You all want a nice tidy story with a bow wrapped around it. The Divergent series is messy, just like life. It takes turns you don't expect and can't predict, and you look back and say, "How the heck did I get here?" Just like life. You're not SUPPOSED to like the Genetically pure experimenters, or that they exist.

The Divergent series is good hard SF, namely, taking a technological innovation (genetic manipulation) and exploring its sociological ramifications and extrapolations. I will bet that most of you don't know that Eugenics was a big issue in the early 20th century, and one of the motivations behind the Nazis. That type of thinking hasn't gone away, and I think Veronica Roth explored it brilliantly.

But the real kicker for me is, I cried like a little baby when Tris died (I'm a 50 year old man). I still miss her. Hunger Games didn't even come close to pulling that kind of emotional response out of me.

[B.]

Emily wrote: "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 (despi..."

Tris is Abnegation. She doesn't describe things in flowery ways, or change words to be poetic or interesting.

[B.]

Priscila wrote: "Yeah I agree with Lauren.
Plus a lot of other things were over looked throughout the novel. Readers aren't just bothered by the genetics part, it just seems like the author didn't take the time to..."

You feel let down by what was outside the fence? So was Tris. Life doesn't hand you "good" just because you want it. What Roth wrote was authentic, which is far superior to "good".

[B.]

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. We can accept that the future world has created a magical serum..."

Lauren wrote: "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 th..."

That's Roth's point. The genetically pure were misguided and wrong in their application of genetics.

[Lauren]

No, the point was that the genetically pure were wrong in their opinions that "pure" and "damaged" defined who people were. The point of the story was not about how the scientists were wrong in how biology, heredity and population genetics work. The science was purported to be correct in the story - so-called "pure" genes did emerge - they were just wrong in wanting to do it.

The problem with the outside the fence story is not that it was boring and disappointing (though it was); it was that the whole explanation did not in any way, shape or form make any sense to what actually happened in the first two books. It turned the whole series into one giant plot hole. And it's being a disappointment is relevant to good storytelling; it would have been interesting if it had actually made one lick of sense.

[Lauren]

I will bet that most of you don't know that Eugenics was a big issue in the early 20th century, and one of the motivations behind the Nazis. That type of thinking hasn't gone away, and I think Veronica Roth explored it brilliantly.

If you've read through this website at all, you would see that the topic has been discussed at length. Yes, eugenics is a very real issue and a very interesting topic to explore. Unfortunately it has absolutely nothing to do with the story that was set up in the first two books. She started writing a completely different story.

You all want a nice tidy story with a bow wrapped around it.

You obviously haven't read through the comments in this forum at all.

[Andi]

B, I think you are making excuses for the horrible writing in this book.

You can choose to interpret plot holes and disappointing explanations as "realistic writing" or the choppy writing style as being part of the way Tris speaks, but judging from the previous books written in this series and the extensive amount of time that we've spent discussing the issues with the book, there's no getting around the fact that the writing is really lacking.

Also, I certainly wouldn't call Divergent "hard" SF, given that the explanations (or lack thereof) for pretty much all the "scientific" elements of the story either made no sense or weren't even based on sound logic.

A growing list of plot holes, horribly realized characters, weak expositions, pacing, dialogue, etc, the list goes on. But hey, maybe I'm expecting too much of YA fiction...

[Katie]

Priscila wrote: "B. wrote: You feel let down by what was outside the fence? So was Tris. Life doesn't hand you "good" just because you want it. What Roth wrote was authentic, which is far superior to "good".

Well,..."

I feel exactly the same way. Not to mention the way she dies. It just feels so... out of line with Triss.

[Kelsey]

I could not even bring myself to read this entire book, nothing about her explanation of the purity war or the genetic manipulation made any sense. It frustrated me so much!! It's like she didn't even bother to do a fuckin Wikipedia or Google search for, i don't know, maybe how genetics work or what genes are... So fuckin stupid.

[Rebecca]

The way Tris died. SHE WAS SHOT! She was shot alot but she dies because of a BULLET!