Allegiant
discussion
So many questions not resolved..{SPOILERS}
date
newest »
newest »
I had so many unanswered questions with this book.It was like a totally different story and not really an enjoyable one at that.I really loved Divergent,so this was really disappointing.
I really didn't understand what the whole point of the Edith Prior video was,since it was all a lie.
What was Natalie's purpose really and why would she not share any of this information with her daughter?
Why were we continually given characters with very little development or glimpses of a potential relationship that never went anywhere like for example Caleb's betrayal,without it ever really being explained? Tori and her brother's relationship and numerous others.
So many issues POV's that sounded pretty much the same,the whole genetics thing,the same rehashed issues with the GP/GD that was just a reversion of faction verses factionless.
Not to mention main characters that didn't even act at all like themselves and then the death of a main character that served no point at all.
Just very disappouinting.
By the way Andi and Lauren I loved both of your reviews.They helped me cope with my anger and frustration.
Sierra wrote: "Maybe I just like books that give you a sense of closure in the end but I didn't get that from this series. For me, this book left me with so many questions that were simply not resolved in this bo..."Totally agree.This book just left me devastated and wishing I never would have read the series,or atleast stopped with Divergent.
Sarah wrote: "Theresa wrote: "Sarah wrote: "My other problem with this book was the fact that most of the time I COULD NOT tell who's POV it was. Unless something clued me in, like Tris mentioned Natalie or Tob..."They did sound so similar.What's even worse is I got the audio books as well,because the kids and I will listen while in the car.The guy that is doing Tobias's part reads with zilch emotion and sounds like he's 45.
Couldn't she have thought to get a younger guy read it?
Mary wrote: "Here's how the author should have handled the genetic damage issue...The Bureau infected rats with a virus genetically engineered to carry the human divergence gene. The virus was transmissible ..."
I like it!
Linn wrote: "Emma wrote: "The conflict between Marcus and Evelyn was resolved within one page...it really bothered me."Not to mention does anyone really believe that Evelyn would just give up all her years of..."
Nope.
Someone please help me understand this. I don't understand how the factions help the society. They said their other experiment cities without factions failed, but how did the factions make it better. The genetically damaged people have one great trait, but lack needed traits. For example, the dauntless are brave but cruel, and the erudite are intelligent but vain. So separating them into factions seems worse for society. If they were mixed, then they could learn from each and be nurtured and raised to learn the other traits. We are a product of nature and nurture. So by separating them into factions both their genres and their environment are the same damaged one sided trait. So how did the faction society help solve the genetic mishap the government accidentally created?I don't get it.
Katie wrote: "Someone please help me understand this. I don't understand how the factions help the society. They said their other experiment cities without factions failed, but how did the factions make it bette..."You have illustrated perfectly the gaping hole in applying the faction setup to the experiment explanation. You are completely correct: the factions would make everything worse, both psychologically (by reinforcing their one-sided behavior) and biologically (people marry within their faction and procreate with a person with the same type of genetic damage they have, and so that damage will just get stronger in the subsequent generation).
Khawla wrote: "one question guys!! Is Amar gay? Because Tris and Amar were chatting and it was like "do you still like him?" and the word like was being emphasized on a lot with all the italics and shit!!"Yes.
Lauren wrote: ""I don't think they were proposing that bad genes produce good genes. I think it was more the idea of isolating them from each other."Actually I think the idea of bad genes eventually producing g..."
Awww, I agree, but the way you posted it was funny!
Every book unfortunately leaves so many questions unanswered. I haven't even finished the book, but couldn't wait to find out more, so I looked at this. By observation, my questions will never be answered. I take the book for what it is, and I believe that it has deeper meaning behind it, even if it goes unanswered. Sure there are going to be holes in it, because Roth is trying to articulate her thoughts and ideas on worldly nature into a novel. I too have wished to write a book where my thoughts, ideas, and convictions play out in a novel, but I can not put it to words. Lesson learned from the book, don't mess with human nature, we were created the way we are by God. Even if you're not faithful, you must consider that if evolution is indeed true, you must let it occur naturally, don't mess with it. Also it allows one to think about their own human nature. Which quality the factions represent most closely aligns with me. When we consider things such as this, we begin to understand the need to understand one another, and help one another through the hardships of this world. I like to think that I would be Amity, but I also display other faction qualities. In the end we're all divergent, and that's a good thing.
Matthew wrote: "Another thing: We never actually learn why Caleb betrayed Tris; it is merely presented without explanation"To some extent, it's true...because apparently Jeanine was great at persuading Caleb that killing the divergent was for the better good; but even then, would anyone kill their own sister?
Guys, actually, I agree with Tris...I don't think there's anything like damaged genes..it was probably just a misconception that David (or whoever started the experiments) brought up...
Kristen wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Another thing: We never actually learn why Caleb betrayed Tris; it is merely presented without explanation"It is actually stated somewhere that Caleb was swayed by Jeanine into b..."
That is correct when caleb says something about janenines charisma, but a few chapters after its said he yet again betrays her and allows whilst also, in conjunction helps put Tris under the death serum. consequently, leaves Peter to save he, which he does.
I'm almost positive that Roth just put the "Caleb sides with Jeanine" thing in Insurgent because it would be a cool plot twist, but she likely did not put much thought into why the character would do that. Hence, no actual explanation later.
Lauren wrote: "I'm almost positive that Roth just put the "Caleb sides with Jeanine" thing in Insurgent because it would be a cool plot twist, but she likely did not put much thought into why the character would ..."Yes,i watched an interview she starred in and she said something about Calebs characterisation and story and it was of one in many she did not expect to happen. But it just did
Roth really needs to learn how to develop story ideas better than that. You can't just come up with an idea and scribble it into the story without actually thinking about WHY this would happen or WHY this person is doing that, and so on, because then you'll find yourself having to justify this course of action and you can't, because you never bothered to think it through. I'm almost tempted to read the series again just to count all the corners she wrote herself into.
No, that's what makes a book entertaining - if it kept you interested. It doesn't mean the book is actually good. Just good enough, or good for you, but not necessarily an actual good book. To be honest, even before Allegiant ruined the series with its nonsense, I debated whether or not I actually thought Divergent was "good," because as much as I enjoyed it, I was not unaware that there are a LOT of problems with it. I decided that it's a fun book, and most definitely an entertaining book, and I love it on those grounds, but if I'm being completely honest with myself it's really not that GOOD of a book. Too many plot problems and writing problems for me to declare it a "good" book. I'd recommend it to people for the entertainment value, but if they're the type of reader who looks for good literary quality (e.g. good writing and smart plotting) to go along with it they'd be better off reading something else.And I don't pretend to know how many authors do or don't write themselves into corners, but the thing that separates the good ones from the bad ones is the ability to get themselves OUT of those corners in an organic way with a logical plot progression or explanation to justify things. When it works, you the reader would likely have no idea that the author hadn't actually had any plan in mind for that earlier plot point and had to scramble to come up with something to do with it. Most of the twists in this series don't work out that way. Roth never does come up with a logical explanation for the many questions in this story, and several things she doesn't even bother to explain at all and lets them dangle as plot holes for lack of any better ideas as to what to do with them. That's what makes Allegiant such a mess.
Lauren wrote: "Roth really needs to learn how to develop story ideas better than that. You can't just come up with an idea and scribble it into the story without actually thinking about WHY this would happen or W..."well, thats stupid. since when did reading become looking for theflaws in a story. hasn't always been about loving the story despit a;; the flaws?
A story doesn't need every single detail about its universe answered, especially if it's not germane to the plot. Some stories, the lack of explanation is part of the mystery, part of the story. Sometimes it's meant to be deliberately ambiguous so you draw your own conclusions. And sometimes it's just not thought out that much. Sometimes it's just a plain old plot hole. In Allegiant, the question of what happened to other countries besides the U.S. is a good one, particularly because this new U.S. is so ... ack ... that you have to wonder if the rest of the world did the same thing and if not, how is the U.S. getting away with it? I don't worry too much about various other cities in the U.S., because they're not that relevant to the plot. But it is distracting when a story brings up certain points or takes a plot point or a character in a certain direction and then just drops it or never explains why this happened when it's not something that inherently makes sense already. For instance, Caleb's betrayal. They repeatedly bring it up, and repeatedly question why, why, why. Well, if you're going to keep bringing it up, and even make it a central part of the story, then you better come up with a better explanation than "Jeanine's really persuasive." That's stupid. Or that Edith Prior video that Veronica obviously had to retcon into nothingness because she decided to take the story in another direction when she got to writing Allegiant. There is a very clear, specific message in this video when it's revealed in Insurgent, but when we get to Allegiant and we take the story in an obviously different direction than what this was meant to set up, this video is revealed to be a lie and has nothing to do with what's really happening outside. Why, then, did this woman take it upon herself to record this bogus message and why in the world do they even have it? Veronica never bothers to come up with an explanation better than "Well, there are always reasons for things, and perhaps we'll never know." Um, no. That is not how you write yourself out of a corner. That's just damn lazy. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. That's just bad storytelling.
Fatima wrote: "Lauren wrote: "Roth really needs to learn how to develop story ideas better than that. You can't just come up with an idea and scribble it into the story without actually thinking about WHY this wo..."Divergent has a lot of issues. The writing is painfully amateur, a lot of the plot developments are either too predictable or too convenient, and the pacing - particularly toward the end - is very problematic. (In fact, this pacing issue is precisely the problem most critics had with the movie.) This book could have done with at least one more round of editing before being published. And yet I gave the book 5 stars. I loved the book anyway despite its many flaws. Insurgent had a lot of the same problems plus more. It could have been revised two or three more times first. (Veronica Roth would do well to get a different editor.) And I gave that book 5 stars as well. They are both flawed books but the flaws do not outweigh the good parts or impede my ability to enjoy the story - and I enjoyed them both tremendously.
Most books have flaws. No book is perfect. There's no such thing. I can't think of a single book I've ever read where I couldn't find a single thing wrong with it. See all the books I gave 5 stars? You think that means I thought they were flawless? Nope. I can make a list of the issues in each one. Allegiant was nothing but flaws - not the kind you find if you think about it too much or try too hard to pick it apart, but the kind that jump out at you right as you're reading the words. I've never before read a book with so many blaring problems it's doubtful an editor even looked at it, some of the holes so nonsensical it's almost insulting. It was so deeply flawed it was impossible for me to enjoy this book no matter how hard I tried. There were just too many things wrong with it - the story, the plot, the pace, the writing, everything. I simply hated it. It's not stupid at all to notice these things, especially when they're that obvious you don't even have to TRY to see them. (Then, I am a writer myself, so I'm trained and sadly programmed to think about things this way in addition to just reading for the enjoyment of it.) Flaws may not bother you (most do not bother me, either) but that doesn't make them less of a flaw.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
HAHA! I love you, Lauren! XD
And as a side note about the scientific justification for why these experiments were needed in the firs..."
Very good point Andi.