Am I the only one who hates this book with burning passion? Showing 51-100 of 1,640

[Lisa-Anne]

Aly wrote: "And everyone is entitled to liking, loving,disliking or hating a book."

Even though I'm enjoying it, I completely agree. We can't live in a world where everyone agrees and gets along. That would be such a boring world. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially when it comes to literature. It's all about interpretation, and drawing out an emotion/reaction from the reader; positive or negative.

I think an unsuccessful book is one where every reader is merely indifferent.

[Kate]

Meg wrote: "If you "hated" this book so much I am not sure why you would choose to post about it in a forum created by and for people who did like it."

The forum was not created for people who like the book. Goodreads forums are for anyone who read the book or are currently reading it or want to talk about it, for whatever reason. And this thread was created for people who hate the book. So I don't know where you got the idea that only people who like the book can talk about it.

[Gracie]

I read your review and you definitely made some good points. its true the romance was fakey and that annoyed the heck out of me. all this book really did for me was make me moody

[Kate]

Lorenzo wrote: "I wouldn’t say Hazel was a bitch or Augustus a douche. They were just two kids with cancer, right? My problem with the main characters was the author gave me no reason to care about them. Why s..."

That's pretty much how I felt too. It wasn't so much that Hazel or Gus were horrible people. I just didn't care about them at all. I felt no connection.

[Melanie]

I think the fact that this book became so popular is a Cancer Perk in and of itself. The book wasn't that bad... just really slow and anticlimactic. I didn't hate it but I also absolutely did not love it. I think people don't want to seem insensitive since this book is about children with cancer--and don't get me wrong, my heart breaks for any child who has to go through that. But I don't think the book had enough character to warrant any sort of emotional connection to the plot or characters.

[Leona]

Melanie wrote: "I think the fact that this book became so popular is a Cancer Perk in and of itself. The book wasn't that bad... just really slow and anticlimactic. I didn't hate it but I also absolutely did not l..."

Well said.

[Jade]

Yes.. Yes you are the only one.

[Laura]

I respect your opinion, but I don't understand, why do you hate this book? why don't you like the characters? I want to know.

[Bruce]

People have trashed such books as To Kill a Mockingbird, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Slaughterhouse 5, any and all in the Harry Potter and Hunger Games series, anything and everything by Shakespeare, Fitzgerald, Flannery O'Connor, Twain, Dickens, Elizabeth Stout, Douglas Adams - basically anyone who has put thought to paper, no matter the century. How easy is it to trash, to trivialize, to generalize. Many of the words used to bash John Green, themselves, read like repetitive and cliched platitudes. What all these bashed folks have in common, though, is that they have done the hard work of putting thought to paper and created stories, and have done so in both critically and commercially successful ways; with always a few in the crowd left to spit. Well done, John Green. Congratulations. Your works that have brought joy and thoughtfulness to many will live on even as these soapbox scoldings on Goodreads simmer among these comparatively teeny tiny threads.

[A]

Bruce wrote: "People have trashed such books as To Kill a Mockingbird, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Slaughterhouse 5, any and all in the Harry Potter and Hunger Games series, anything and everything by Shake..."

Books are products and readers are consumers. As consumers we have every rights to criticise any book. There are terms like "literary criticism" and "freedom of speech" that exist on this planet. Any book that is best selling doesn't mean that everyone on the planet will love it. People have different opinions.

If you can't be open-minded and respect others opinions over your favourite book then why are you on this thread? Go and fanboy over all the 5 starred reviews. Your comment shows me how narrow minded you are.

[Sophie]

Bruce had a very valid point; however, so did Ayesha. People shouldn't be narrow-minded. But doesn't calling people narrow-minded make someone just that? I'm not one to take sides, but this thread has spiraled downwards from when it was just book lovers debating calmly about a popular book.

[A]

Aly wrote: "To be honest, in my opinion, it seems that John Green went downhill since Looking for Alaska skyrocketed. His writing just isn't that dedicated anymore.

This is a thread for those who didn't like ..."

Thanks, Aly. I couldn't have said it better.

Sophie wrote: "Bruce had a very valid point; however, so did Ayesha. People shouldn't be narrow-minded. But doesn't calling people narrow-minded make someone just that? I'm not one to take sides, but this thread ..."

You call me narrow minded but I haven't bashed you fans in any way for loving this book. Yet you all come and troll my review and deny my rights to freedom of speech. What the hell? Stay away from this thread if your getting pissed off at our discussion. There are thousands of 5 star reviews for Tfios, go over there if you have nothing pleasant to say here.

[Valerie]

I liked it. It was good to me and I have a friend who is 23 with a very rare lung cancer (1 in 1 million) get it.) But idk...I guess it is not for everyone.

[Drew]

Being someone who gets a lot of their next reads from websites like Tumblr, I was very excited when my school library got the book. I immediately got put on the waiting list, and in about a week I got the book. I was very excited. However, I really didn't like it. I agree with this review given by user Leona.

"I'm not sure what the author was trying to do with this book. Frankly, I think that was mostly the problem...was this supposed to help bring brevity to tragic situations? Was this a love story? Was this an attempt at philosophy? In all cases, I think it missed the mark, at least for me."

I really wasn't impressed at all. The whole book just seemed to me like a chance for John Green to show off his extensive vocabulary (because lets be real, what kind of teens talk like that?). That was probably the thing that drove me up the wall the most.

The other thing that drove me up the wall and
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
really bothered me was that all of a sudden, once Augustus told about his disease. It was like he died in four pages. It gave the book a total anti-climactic ending. A whole book built up about this relationship and it's gone in about a chapter. Then the ending ended up being totally unsatisfying. If Green's point was to try and make the reader question if the book was written by a twelve year old fan-fiction author who got bored near the end of the book so ended it quickly, then he did wonderfully.

Honestly I love the plot, but I hate the characters with every fiber of my being. Nope, not a fan.


ALSO, can I just say this. The scene where the girl is writing on Augustus's Facebook page about him being in her heart forever bugs me so much. If someone commented the comment Hazel-Grace made, I would have personally walked to her house and punched her in the face. It was just so stupid.

Anyway, my rant is over.

[Lynne]

John wrote: "Back in message #5, the messenger used the word "pretentious" and I think that is a good word to describe the characters, like "You need to feel this way about the characters in the book or you are..."
wait, what? You disagree with Green's politics and that's what caused you to withhold a star? I despise Orson Scott Card's homophobia, yet there are some of his books I liked very much.

[A]

Bruce wrote: "People have trashed such books as To Kill a Mockingbird, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Slaughterhouse 5, any and all in the Harry Potter and Hunger Games series, anything and everything by Shake..."

If Green had worked hard for writing TFIOS then I too have paid my own hard earned money to buy the book. My hardwork counts too.

[Samson]

Amanda wrote: "Unlike you I liked the book, but I can see your points. There were definitely things that I had to "forgive" in it.

And I did, maybe because I have this prejudice with YA and I never take them se..."

Amanda,

You summed up my take on this novel perfectly. I liked it for what it was, and it was a YA novel.

- Chelsea

[Daisy]

Jackie wrote: "I wouldn't say hate…but I this was not my favorite John Green book. The characters just didn't pull me in. Looking For Alaska, on the other hand, was beautiful. That last paragraph ugh.. so great"

I second this! The reason why TFIOS is such a popular book is because it plays on the reader's feelings but otherwise, it's quite mediocre. Definitely not as good as Looking for Alaska!

[Bruce]

@Ayesha - your comment - "If Green had worked hard for writing TFIOS . . . " Clearly you think he didn't. But, please, get over yourself. Do you have any concept of the time and effort it takes to write, re-write, and edit a book and deal with the publishing industry that you want to compare it to what it takes to earn enough money to buy a trade paperback book or eBook download? Really? This begs the question - if it is that difficult for you to part with ten dollars or so for a book, go to a library and check it out for free. And if that isn't possible, Amazon also has the Look Inside program with which any customer may read a substantial sample of this book before making a purchase. For the sake of your ten bucks or so, or library card, and precious time, why didn't you do that? For people who make these blistering reviews of TFIOS, to them, an obviously horrible book, and complain and utterly trash it as obviously one-star valueless, according to the language used, I have no sympathy. If the book was that horrible in all the ways you have explained, then it would necessarily have been obvious from the first sample page, let alone several free sample pages. If you haven't first read the free sample provided by Amazon yet you buy the book with your (clutch the pearl necklace here) very hard-earned money, and find it so obviously horrible, what does that say about you? Is your time precious? Your money hard-earned? Then, geez, read the free sample first before you make any future purchase! Easy. Meanwhile, my point is, for all good and great works of art of any kind, from all eras, there will be detractors with their raspberry spittle. For the artists themselves, though, their efforts and creations will live on while the rest of this discussion barely registers in the world, and then fades for good, accomplishing what? Proof that people buy books without reading free samples first? Whiners who didn't have the good sense to sample the waters before diving into the pool with their precious, hard-earned cash have little to complain about.

[Bruce]

BTW - TFIOS free Look Inside program on Amazon.com covers several pages and includes a support group meeting and plenty of dialogue among the teens, and attitudes among the characters. I can't see why anyone who does not like TFIOS because of the dialogue, its content, its sophistication for the ages of the teens, its attitude, and so on, couldn't see this in the free sample and therefore decide not to buy the book. After all, if time and money are so precious, you'd think . . . anyway - free samples - I highly recommend them. After all, wouldn't you read a paragraph or two of a book in a library or at a brick and mortar store before buying it?

[Paul]

I am reading the book again and I have to say, I really like a saucy, witty first-person narrator, so I am liking this book. Again!

[Kate]

Bruce wrote: "BTW - TFIOS free Look Inside program on Amazon.com covers several pages and includes a support group meeting and plenty of dialogue among the teens, and attitudes among the characters. I can't see ..."

Judging an entire book based on a few pages is kind of absurd. Also, I feel like you're intentionally missing the point. It's not just about the cost of the book. It's about being disappointed that the book didn't live up to expectations. It's nice that you thought it was the most amazing thing ever. I don't have to agree with you and neither does anyone else.

[Rhiyaah]

Ayesha wrote : "Rhiyaah wrote: "ouch . yes ......"

my comment wasn't even a fangirl thing . i was just saying that some of your words are harsh . even IF i don't like the book, i guess would still say the same thing .

[Hannah]

I'm glad I'm not alone in hating this book. To reiterate from my review:

This book was predictable from Chapter One and basically nothing happens. I was annoyed that the life changing favorite book of Hazel's was a made up book by John Green and was repetitively described as what John Green likely hoped his would be.

All the characters were unlikable because they were so pretentious and overly-quirky. The book was soaked in "pop-foax-philosophy" which made the whole thing feel like it was trying way too hard. 50% of the book had nothing to do with the plot and just made me hate the characters more.

I know the 20 pages dedicated to describing Amsterdam and the Anne Frank house were probably just added because of the grant John Green received to write in Amsterdam for two months, they added nothing to the story.

All in all, I felt like Hazel was an instrument for John Green to blow his own horn and Gus was a badly developed character who annoyed me from beginning to end. His only role was to aggressively reenforce how "original" and "smart" Hazel is. I did not understand what was SO special about Hazel. She could do no wrong in this book. She even gives some "superior" insight to her own genius hero author who, evidently, was just missing her deeply honest and intelligent observations on the universe.

[A]

Aly wrote: "@Bruce: It's absurd that you think it's possible to judge a book by its cover or, as you said, by the first couple of pages because actually, you can't. The first few pages may be brilliant, but t..."

BEST.COMMENT.EVER!!! I salute you, Aly.

[A]

Bruce wrote: "@Ayesha - your comment - "If Green had worked hard for writing TFIOS . . . " Clearly you think he didn't. But, please, get over yourself. Do you have any concept of the time and effort it takes t..."

I'll give my answer in points because I'm losing my patience with trolls like you.

1. A book on the whole cannot be judged simply by reading the first chapter.
2. There is no proper library in the country I stay.
3. Want to know how I earned my own money to buy the book? I sold the craft projects handmade by me. I too worked hard for creating those projects.
4. Ever heard of Literary criticism and Freedom of speech?
5. Ever heard of reader's rights to analyse and criticise any reading material?
6. It's not only about my money, it's also that the book was disappointing.
7. Goodreads is a place for people to express our opinions about books (negative or positive).
8. Criticism is a good thing. It makes a person better and stronger. I wouldn't have been a calligrapher today if my mum wouldn't have torn down all my shabbily written notes 10 years ago and made me practice my handwriting constantly. I wouldn't have been an artist today if my school teachers wouldn't have criticised my works 10 years ago.
9. I'm pretty sure that there are dozens of books that I love but you hate. People have different opinions, learn to respect them and try to see things from their perspective even when you don't agree with them.
10. I and no one else here is a whiner. We are called critics; people who analyse books and express their honest opinions in their reviews/discussion threads.
11. Don't force your opinions on me or anyone else. I'm not the kind of person who'll just fall for anything taking over the current hype. I'm not going to change my opinions over the book even if you write a large essay. So save your time and energy.
12. Don't like this discussion? Cannot tolerate people criticising your favourite book? Cannot be open minded and respect other's opinions? Then, please stay away from this thread. Goodbye.

[A]

Aly wrote: "@Hannah: Hooray for brains!"

I second that!

[Atikah]

YES, THANK YOU. I FINALLY FEEL LIKE I BELONG AND I'M NOT ALONE.

To me, the book is "meh" and I probably wouldn't have harboured so much anger towards it if everyone and their mothers didn't think it's the best thing in THE WORLD EVER. Seriously? It's so overrated. Hazel is such an obvious Mary Sue/MPDG and nothing in this book is anywhere close being realistic.

Also, I really hate how the fandom can't accept that some people don't like it. It's bizarre to me. Every book has its own appeals and flaws but even the most objective critique of the book will attract the fans in droves, defending its beautiful immaculate perfection as though it descended from the Heaven above. Lord, save us all when the movie premiers.

[A]

Kiki wrote: "YES, THANK YOU. I FINALLY FEEL LIKE I BELONG AND I'M NOT ALONE.

To me, the book is "meh" and I probably wouldn't have harboured so much anger towards it if everyone and their mothers didn't think..."

You're welcome. Yeah, it's the hype surrounding this book that also infuriates me because there are so many books out there that deserve the huge hype instead of this trash.

Kiki wrote: "I really hate how the fandom can't accept that some people don't like it. It's bizarre to me. Every book has its own appeals and flaws but even the most objective critique of the book will attract the fans in droves, defending its beautiful immaculate perfection as though it descended from the Heaven above."

I AGREE!
I've also seen TFiOS fans calling those "inhuman" and "heartless" who comment on posts on FB saying that they never shed a tear while reading the book.
I don't like the way TFiOS fans go around attacking critics of the book. I hate it when they believe that Green is a genius and blindly follow and support whatever he says even when it makes no sense.

I swear, I'll throw a party if the movie goes flop.

[Lisa-Anne]

Ayesha wrote: "I've also seen TFiOS fans calling those "inhuman" and "heartless" who comment on posts on FB saying that they never shed a tear while reading the book.
I don't like the way TFiOS fans go around attacking critics of the book. I hate it when they believe that Green is a genius and blindly follow and support whatever he says even when it makes no sense."


The main reason why I got teary eyed from reading the book is purely the descriptions of Hazel and her struggle with stairs/breathing due to low oxygen. I personally experience that because of my serious heart condition, so it's weird to see it in writing instead of just thinking it in your head.

The reason why I cried during the book was when she called herself a grenade, and a few years ago I was on life support in a hospital, not knowing whether or not I would live or die, and doctors telling my family how it would be years of struggle if I didn't, and I felt lost and as though it would be better if I died to have my parents grieve for a few months, rather than suffer with me in their lives for years.

I never wanted to revisit those feelings, and the book forced me to.

HOWEVER, these are my own personal experiences/struggles. To call someone inhuman or cruel if they don't shed a tear during the book is stupid. It just means they didn't.

[Bruce]

Aw, Gawd - I keep reading hifalutin' words here like right to criticize reading materials, freedom of speech, unfair to attack, supporters of TFIOS on the attack. First, no one has said or done anything to limit freedom of speech here on Goodreads or anywhere. Further, the words some who don't like TFIOS, and certainly not all as most have expressed their opinions professionally, have themselves been using words like "shitty" and going after the author personally - not criticizing the reading materials at all but the author personally, and in crass ways, as if they really know him from his books or tweets and the like. Some are even cheering and hoping for the failure of a movie project without even seeing it - all the actors involved, time and effort, production, editing - just because they don't like the book.

Case in point:

Aly and Amanda had this exchange - their words: "Wth? Green suggested that readers are "wrong" when they hate a book! I refuse to see Green as a genius as everyone calls him. An author who denies the rights of readers to criticise any book is nothing but a nutcase to me."

"I AGREE!!! John Green is not only a shitty writer but he's also a shitty person and the following link proves that-"

Denies the rights of readers to criticize? When has John Green done that. Is he a legislator, a military storm-trooper? Judging by the language in this thread, John Green has only given you reason and a forum to express your own speech. And calling a human being a shitty person and a nutcase? Really - do you know the guy personally or that well? Are you aware of his charitable contributions, how he treats friends and strangers, his involvement with causes such as environmental and health care to the extent that you know enough to say he's "a shitty person"?

And what is this "shitty person" claim based on, the best evidence? One of these folks gave us all a link to her "proof" of Green being a shitty person: Here is what came up in the link - Four tweets from Green. Are we really going to define a person as shitty based on 4 tweets? Even if there are other tweets, let's look at the exact words we were given that pointed us to the "proof". Here they are from John Green's Twitter account:

• Fascinating to see responses to Allegiant because I think many of the book's readers are just, like, wrong about what books are/should do. [My comment - this language reads a lot like many of Amanda's comments, and that of others in support of why they like or don't like TFIOS. Green has expressed an opinion, that it is his opinion that many people are wrong about what books are or should do. How the heck is that anything more than an opinion expressed in a tweet, making him a shitty person, trampling rights to free speech when he simply exercises his own opinion? It is my opinion that I just don't see it here.]
• As a reader, I don't feel a story has an obligation to make me happy. I want stories to show me a bigger world than the one I know. [My comment - is there anything wrong with this? Is it an affront to anyone? Many stories are intended to be overall sad, and Green, personally, wants a story to show something beyond what he knows. Even if you disagree with his opinion on that, what is there about expressing what he wants from a story that makes him a "shitty person."]
• Basically, I would argue that books are not primarily in the wish fulfillment business. Okay. Rant over. [My comment - Is there anyone who would say books are there for wish-fulfillment? Maybe there are, and that's okay. Regardless, what about this opinion makes him a "shitty person."].
• The author is dead but the book isn't. Readers still have obligations to the text itself (to read it generously, etc). [My comment - well, when Twain's books still live on, so of course that's true. And what is wrong about expressing an opinion that readers should pay attention to what they're reading?].

Well, that's the nature of this thread of posts. The creator wants peace and harmony within the thread which is great. But it feels like an irony when she addresses people who defend TFIOS with "trolls" and other such language and decry the right to critique the book while actually, or also, attacking the author on a personal level.

As for me, I never said TFIOS was an amazing or my favorite book. When I bring up the free Look Inside program, I'm met with clichés such as not judging a book by its cover, or the first few pages. Well - I bet lot of these people complaining about the book as a one-star effort never did read the Look Inside program first. So they never did know how many pages the free program covered or what the content of these pages included. Had these folks actually read the Look Inside program for TFIOS, they would have read the dialogue of nearly all the main characters, the language they used, the topic they covered, the scene and setting, their attitudes, and at length - the very things they're trashing the book about. Are any of the people who one-starred TFIOS saying you read the Look Inside free sample first, liked or loved the opening chapter but then it all fell downhill thereafter? I bet you aren't because these characters, their level of language and attitude, their situations remained pretty consistent throughout the book. It's easy to attack a person with a cliché who touts the process of reading the free Look Inside program before deciding on making a purchase, instead of actually reading the free offering first before buying or expressing an opinion on whether or not it effectively shows the tone and character of the book.

Look- I don't think TFIOS is the greatest book, or near the greatest, but it takes a lot of brass to one-star a book. I mean where do you go with a grammatically awful and typo-riddled book when TFIOS gets your one-star? I certainly don't think Aly and Amanda and others that hate TFIOS are bad people. Certainly not based on opinions on a book. I'm fine with their not liking the book, or even being disgusted by it or hating it. I do question their willingness to decry an author personally, calling him a shitty person and a nutcase on a personal level and the like, simply for doing what they themselves are doing - expressing opinions, even strong opinions about TFIOS and what good books should do or be about. And wishing that a commercial enterprise, the movie version, flop? Really? Why would anyone wish such an ill on a project involving many other people simply because they do not like a book that has garnered what they believe is undeserved praise? Don't see the movie, if you wish, but wish ill for others? Again, these are my free speech opinions in response to yours.

Well, as my point was at the start, TFIOS and other artistic creations will live on long after these rants and re-rants fade away. And all highly regarded books will always have their detractors, as a matter of taste among some. Nothing false about that, is there?And, last, my reply to the judging-a-book-by-its-cover cliché, the equal and opposite cliché is - caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. If you're not going to read the free selection, if you wish to assume that the free offering is merely an unrevealing "cover" of a book without value, then, well, caveat emptor, both for your time and your money. Happy New Year, be well, good health, happy reading, express opinions but let's see if we can stop calling individuals "shitty people" or "trolls" or wishing projects ill. That would be a good thing, in my opinion
Bye all.

[Lynne]

Hannah wrote: "I'm glad I'm not alone in hating this book. To reiterate from my review:

This book was predictable from Chapter One and basically nothing happens. I was annoyed that the life changing favorite boo..."

Thoughtful, Hannah. I respectfully disagree, but you at least back your opinions.

[Lynne]

Aly wrote: "@Hannah: Hannah, I like you. Your comment is pretty much what I've been thinking but couldn't quite put into words. Hooray for brains!"

The implication that people who like the book don't have "brains" is a little insulting.

[Lisa-Anne]

Bruce wrote: "Look- I don't think TFIOS is the greatest book, or near the greatest, but it takes a lot of brass to one-star a book."

Anyone can rate a book anything they wish. Just how you rated books 3/5 stars, so can others rate a book 1/5 stars. Just as you said, it's someone's personal opinions. Your post denotes a desire for equality, but there's so many negative connotations in your post.

You backhandedly attack others who decide to have opinions that are negative, yet have negative opinions for those who don't like the book.

Furthermore, people have read the book, yet you attack their dislike of reading the book because they didn't use the Amazon Look Inside program (which isn't even a program, it's a link). They've already read the book, and rereading the first 30+ pages abridged will not change their minds, and does not make them terrible people for not wanting to revisit these pages. It makes them HUMAN, and as humans they have a choice and the ability for form and voice their own opinions.

Does everyone have to agree? No.
Does it make sense to respond so negatively? No.
HOWEVER, is it important to be angered by the people who don't share the same opinion as you and don't consider it a good book? No.

Finally, if you do not consider it an amazing book, or near to amazing, then the way you describe how ratings of a book should work, you shouldn't have given it a 5/5 star. BUT WAIT.. it was YOUR opinion, so you see it as fit.

[Bruce]

Not angry, Lisa. Nope. Not aware of negative connotations I've given; sorry you've read it that way, but that is your opinion and you're entitled to it. I've attacked nobody, backhanded or otherwise. I've quoted words and cites, word for word, in my post and asked questions in response. I've called nobody a "shitty person' or a "nutcase". I've wondered why others have done so after complaining about the language some TFIOS supporters have used. Of course I'm not asking people to re-read the opening set forth in the Look Inside program. I never suggested that, please. If people care about their time and money spent on a book, they should have done so first and then, given how hateful some can turn toward a fiction book (and apparently its author on a personal level) they should use the program going forward. I mean, why wouldn't any reader do so before buying a book? True, not all Look Inside selections may be helpful, but many are as is the case, in my opinion, with the selection for TFIOS. I never said I was angry with anybody who hates TFIOS, I never said everyone has to agree on a piece of art such as a book, I didn't respond negatively (do you see "shitty person" or nutcase" or a hope that a movie project flops in my opinions?). Maybe I shouldn't have given it a five-star ranking, but at the time there was reason for it, or at least I felt there was. As to one-star reviews, it is my opinion that if a person one-stars TFIOS, where do they go with a grammatically awful, typo riddled book? That's my opinion, not an attack. And it was on the book and a review, not against the person. I never called anyone a nutcase or a shitty person. I'm curious, Lisa - if my posting has, in your opinion, back-handedly attacked others who have negative opinions on TFIOS - do you have any opinions on what some anti-TFIOS reviewers have called John Green on a personal level? Do you have anything to say to them. Are your opinions on kindness in reviews only to be rendered toward people who don't dislike TFIOS? I'm not accusing; I'm asking because I see the language in some of these threads from both sides. Do you?

[Lisa-Anne]

Bruce, not saying "shitty" or "nutcase" doesn't mean you didn't name call. You called people whiners and indirectly called them unsophisticated. Furthermore, the use of saying they wouldn't waste their "precious time" is belittling. You could have easily said time, but to add precious creates the rude connotation.

You state that at the time you felt it deserved a 5 star rating. Well, at the time others felt it deserved a 1 star rating.

Lastly, when I said "Does it make sense to respond so negatively? No." I meant it to people in the thread as a whole. They aren't "anti-TFioS" as they aren't against it, they just dislike it. People can have their opinions of others, and not everyone is going to like you (or other people). It's not possible, and that's life. Every single person makes initial opinions on others, and that's just how we, as humans, work.

People make opinions of others based on that person having a bad day, or even just something that came off as wrong. I've had people think I'm a terrible person because I felt education was more important than a boy. That person, to this day, still bashes me. However, it doesn't affect me because she's entitled to her opinion.

People bash others because it helps, which is a terrible thing. I think of being back in high school and learning Algebra and thinking that Pythagoras was a dick.

This was just a long way of stating that I don't think they're essentially stating anything negative about him on a personal level, as they don't know him personally. They are stating their opinions as a third-party; they are making comments on the John Green as an industry (for a lack of a better word), rather than John Green as an individual.

They have opinions based on what they've seen through media, which they have a right to do so. I don't think anyone can say they don't have a negative idea of someone they don't know on a personal level.

[Bruce]

Lisa, you take "precious time" and "whining" to conclude an opinion on me, yet seem to excuse or selectively avoid language directly calling the author himself a "shitty person" and a nutcase on a personal level directly by saying it means some other thing; and what happened to you in school is the essence of bullying and is harmful and, as we've seen with some, sadly lethal. It's good that you survived it. It is my opinion that you've misread some of what I've posted, or selectively read it, but also that you made some points about my language that I shouldn't have used. But please don't excuse the language of others. It detracts from your point. Opinions, pro and con, should be about the book, not personal attacks on the author or the people who post. It goes both ways in this thread. My opinion on the value of the Look Inside program stands, especially for people worried about their time and money. And the fact that books generally enjoyed will always have their naysayers, and I hope for all those involved, that the movie does well. Be well, Lisa.

[Greysmilexx]

Love it. Don't care what the haters think. And the lovers shouldn't either.

[Bruce]

Oh my!

[[deleted user]]

I sense this is about to get ugly...well, uglier.
P.S. I support the haters.

[Sophie]

Hi fellow commenters. I had vowed to never comment on this thread again, as I had been thoroughly put in my place a few pages before. Apparently, I am narrow minded and my words take away others' freedom of speech. I'm sorry about that, I guess. I am only breaking my vow because the people who comment negatively about this book and its author are championed and praised by those who agree with them, while those who don't hate the book or its author are torn down and called trolls. I am only making this assessment based on what I have read and my personal experiences. I had thought I would try not single anybody out, but I am referring mainly to Mr. Bruce and Ms. Lynne. Ms. Lynne expressed that she was insulted by a comment earlier that implied that people who liked the book are not smart. I was also insulted by this. I am sure Ms. Lynne has no shortage of brains, and I like to entertain the notion that I posses a significant amount of intelligence. Then again, maybe I am not the best person to make this statement about myself.
At my school, I am studying the American Constitution, specifically the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. I have inferred that people who are mentioning the freedom of speech are referring to this amendment. I could be wrong, they could be referring to an entirely different thing, but that is what it looks like to me. I will be continuing this post as though they were referring to the First Amendment. I apologize if I'm wrong.The freedom of speech states that people may say what they like without fear of repercussion. Great, it's a very noble idea. However, and forgive me if I'm wrong, I think that this thread falls more closely under the freedom of the press. Yes, most of us aren't press, but we are stating our opinions where they may been seen and read by many. I think the Founding Fathers would have had to reword the freedoms if they had known of the ability to post online. To continue, the freedom of the press states that people may print or publicize what they believe to be true without fear of repercussion. We were also taught that there cannot be defamation or slander. Defamation and slander are the printing or saying of false things that are damaging to a person or a business' reputation. I would humbly say (and I have been humbled by a previous response to a previous comment of mine) that there are several instances of slander against Mr. John Green. I have personally met John Green, and I found him altogether a very friendly and well-meaning man. Note, this shows a lot about his character, because my friends and I were imposing. I personally think that he could complain of slander at several points on this thread, based on my personal assessment of the man.
A previous commenter claimed that being an author is not a challenging profession. A list of more difficult professions was helpfully provided. I am not being sarcastic, I truly mean this. Among the more challenging jobs listed were being a doctor, waitressing, and anything in the hospital. I am too young to get a job, much less have a profession, but I do have family members who are doctors, and waiters, and scientists, and farmers. Do they work harder than Mr. Green? In their respective positions, yes. However, even my aunt, the anesthesiologist, couldn't have done what Mr. Green did. Yes, she works hard, but she couldn't have written a book that inspired such a thought provoking thread, and that reached so many people in so many different places. In that regard, Mr. Green has worked harder than any of us. I apologize sincerely to anyone who might misinterpret anything I have said so far. I bear no ill will towards anyone who reads this or towards anyone who has commented on this post.
Something else that has been said repeatedly on this thread is that it was created solely for those who despised the book. I respectfully beg to differ. The title of this thread is "Am I the only one who hates this book with a burning passion?" This very clearly shows that whoever created this thread hated the book, but the very title of the thread invites people who think differently, at least to me. When I first read it, I thought that a possible answer to the question "am I the only one who hates this book with a burning passion" could be "yes, and here is why" I am sorry if I misinterpreted that. If I may politely suggest this, a change in the title of this thread may be in order. If not, people may still assume that this thread is open to both schools of thought. Once again, if I am wrong, I am very truly sorry.
To go back to my earlier argument about the freedom of press, I would like to add something. I still mean absolutely no offense towards anyone who sees this. My teacher gave the class a worksheet describing in full the five rights protected by the First Amendment. At the bottom of the page, it said something about how anyone could exercise these rights, just so long as they didn't restrict anyone else's ability to exercise the same rights. When I first commented on this thread about how people were beginning to rip on each other, another commenter responded saying that I was restricting her freedom of speech and that I needed to go and "fangirl" elsewhere. I may or may not have been called a troll in this same response. I reread my comment, and I am fairly confident that I restricted nobody's freedom of speech. I regret asking a question in that post that implied that someone was being narrow minded. I would like to apologize to this person before I continue, I am sure they know who they are. However, I feel that telling me to go somewhere else because I wasn't welcome due to my beliefs restricts my personal freedoms. I'm sorry if the person who said that meant something else, because then the fault is mine for misunderstanding her response. But, I personally don't think I was wrong in my interpretation. I want to make it abundantly clear that I don't mean to restrict anybody's freedoms. I also don't want to imply that someone's opinion is worth less than anyone else's, or that people who dislike the book are ignorant, or that people who didn't cry are heartless, because none of that is true.
I won't be commenting on this thread again, because I don't want to risk offending anyone by my words again. Before I go, I give my absolute permission for anyone to try to tear this post down, to point out the mistakes in it. Feel free to discredit me and call me a troll (again) and you may call me an idiot, or narrow minded. I won't pretend to be happy about it, but I won't try to stop you, or contest you. You may stand firm in your beliefs about Mr. Green and his work, in fact, I strongly encourage it. I certainly don't want to impose on anyone's freedoms. Ever. I am sorry for anyone insulted by this, especially because many of these people are probably adults. I am only fourteen, and I am in the target audience of this book. Maybe that's why I like it so much. I'm sorry for any mistakes in this post, particularly if I have misstated anything about the Constitution, I only said what I was taught and what was written in my social studies textbook. Please try to forgive any errors. I am only in eighth grade, and I have done my best. Have a great weekend, everyone, and even better lives. I hope that I have expressed my opinions in a polite manner without insulting anyone.

[Bruce]

Sophie, that was thoughtful. At the time I read TFIOS I had worked in a juvenile wing of a hospital. There were cancer patients up in that wing, some suffering from the treatments as much as the disease itself. The level of the conversation, its maturity for example, was striking. I thought TFIOS captured it well if imperfectly. I don't know why Aly and others write as they do, calling people brutes or shitty persons or nut cases, or fangirls or fanboys even as they say how awful people who like TFIOS are. That we trample freedom of speech even as their group say we and our opinions aren't welcome. Many posts here have been respectful on both sides. So many fans of TFIOS, have even expressed their respect from the other side. Aly and a few others meanwhile act like the kid who threw the stone through the window and blame others for the broken glass. Meanwhile, TFIOS has garnered critical praise and awards, high star customer rankings, superior sales, and a film adaptation which, of course, employs plenty of people. I've never faulted anyone here for not liking the book or challenged their reasons why. All I've done is state this is usually the case, that the Look Inside program is there to be helpful and wonder why people didn't use it first. I've quoted Aly's reasons for declaring the author a shit on a personal level, a nutcase, and question her suppose proof. She won't or cannot apologize, but can only name call some more and wish ill of the movie adaptation. I could delete all my posts, and it wouldn't matter. The words will still be there. It's her right, her freedom of speech, her opinion. Her extreme and personal name -calling is apparently justified, while what I've said makes me a brute and you a troll. But I think we'll all be all right. She can say she loathes people who won't let others have a different opinion. All that was missing from that was a laugh track.

[Rose]

I think to enjoy it you kinda have to enjoy books that meander around to the end and throw a bunch of ideas at you that don't necessarily get grouped together normally. I was really upset about the end and how there wasn't a happy ending, but there are always books like that and i think the world of books would be a whole lot less interesting if all the princesses rode off on white horses and kissed The Guy into the sunset.

[Kate]

There is something to be said for the ability to be succinct. Most of this page was TL;DR. If this thread bothers you so much, don't read it.

[A]

@Bruce
You know what? I don't want to burn my brain cells by arguing with you. There are 200 important things to do rather than sitting here and fighting. I don't understand why you're still on this thread when it's pissing you off so much. I made this discussion thread so that I could discuss the book and not create arguments and fight. I'm going to stick to what I said before; your loooong comments aren't going to change my opinions about the book or the author. As for Green's statement, I find him to be using his freedom of speech to deny the rights of freedom of speech of the others. He thinks that there are right and wrong ways to hate a book. Hell no! There are no right or wrong ways to hate a book. I can simply hate a book if it has a despicable protagonist or a boring plot or if it brings up a bad memory or has anything that offends me. People's like and dislike for a book is subjective.
Do whatever you want to, I won't stop from expressing my dislike for the book or the author. Go and have some chocolate or see the sunset or read a good book, you'll feel better. Good bye.

P.S I have a feeling that you're Green himself.

[A]

Bruce wrote: "Sophie, that was thoughtful. At the time I read TFIOS I had worked in a juvenile wing of a hospital. There were cancer patients up in that wing, some suffering from the treatments as much as ...

[Michaela]

I like the message to the book rather than the characters themselves. You feel sorry for them so you it's hard to bash them for lacking of personality. It's a sweet, nice story that you don't find too often. But not revolutionary.

[Madeleine]

I find this whole topic a bit hyper-critical because a lot of people like the book. While the magic of my initial love of this book wore off, I still have a soft spot for it, yes I can see it's flaws, but it really is so popular because it is just a solid beautiful book about kids with cancer, about HUMANS with cancer. That's what's so amazing about it. They aren't angel-faced fountains of wisdom. They're scared and bitter and they make jokes about their conditions. They fall in love despite the tragedy that they face and the inevitability of their lives ending soon. It's not supposed to be the strongest and best relationship in the world, it's the only relationship they get in their short lives. That's why it matters.

Everybody comes up with their own inner monologue. Everybody's head is filled with their shawshank-redemption narration of their personal struggle. This is what Hazel is spouting. Her limited, but still intense, life experience.

It's John Green's best work, while I find his other work very sprawling and pretentious and "it's so tough being an intelligent white teenage boy", so TFIOS was a step in the right direction compared to the other books I've read.

So no, I'm not fangirling, but maybe your passionate opinion of this book stems from wanting to hate it.

[Dutchling]

Don't ever trust GR ratings in Young Adult books is what I learned from reading this book.

[[deleted user]]

Aly wrote: "@Brooke: I don't want to get ugly but I loathe those who do not accept people aren't all the same and think differently. Bruce is arrogant and rude and frankly, I've had enough of pigheaded brutes ..."
You're welcome!

Dutchling wrote: "Don't ever trust GR ratings in Young Adult books is what I learned from reading this book."
I'm with you.