The Fault in Our Stars
discussion
Am I the only one who hates this book with burning passion?
I've read all of John Green's books and I have to say I hated this the most. I just didn't feel the characters enough to relate with them, and it was dragging to go on. I agree with your review completely. I thought I was the only one who didn't like this.
Thebookrunner wrote: "I dont know why you would not like this book but its your opinion cause i love this book with a burning passoin"But that's your opinion.
Aly wrote: "@Mochaespresso: I think the point of the book is that you will never find out ALL the reasons as to why someone commits suicide. Whenever you hear a suicide story, the questions you raised wouldn't..."She does, her parents were in financial difficulty and ignoring her. As she was an only child, she would have felt that more acutely. And that's the impression you're meant to have, you're meant to be boggled by her decisions when she was so well liked and popular. It's not a nice, touchy-feely book. It's meant to leave you with questions and emotions and a new way of thinking. Which all the best books should.
I'll keep reading....but I will say that her parents having financial difficulty would not affect a sane, rational, normal, well adjusted adolescent in this manner and to this extreme. That's the point that is I keep thinking is missing. All of the blame seems as if it is being assigned to externals when, imo, something bigger is going on within her that is not being explained. I'm guessing that it won't be because the story is being told from her and Clay's pov's. The blame lies on the internal workings of the person....not on the workings of the external world. Something bigger is going on inside Hannah and it is not being dealt with in an appropriate manner. Hannah clearly is not a reliable narrator. I believe these things are happening but given her state of mind, I am not convinced that her perceptions of all of them are entirely accurate. in a nutshell, I think the book spends more time pointing fingers at what the other kids are doing (....which may not necessarily be completely accurate given Hannah state of mind...) and as a result, less discerning and analytical readers are likely to also miss the very important fact that Hannah is "crazy".
As I am reading, I didn't originally think the that book glamorizes suicide and then I made the mistake of going to the book's website....
http://www.thirteenreasonswhy.com/han...
Live audio recording of the tapes? Really? That's not to be construed as glamorizing and sensationalizing?
I think it's better for me if I read "Thirteen Reasons Why" from the perspective of it being a psychological thriller that would make a cool concept for a creepy/scary movie. If I read it from the perspective of trying to discern a redeemable message about teen suicide, I will continue to hate it because it fails for me on that count. It's a good book....but not for what it's commonly being praised for.
I haven't read that book, but it sounds to me that it is trying to make the point that suicide is never rational. No sane, normal, well-adjusted person would ever commit suicide. The whole question "why did they do it?" is really pointless because the reason is really quite simple and complex at the same time. They were sick. I will have to take a look at that book. The subject of suicide is really personal for me, I have come close to trying in the past, and a close friend's dad committed suicide when I was a teenager. His daughter had just gotten married, his wife and his son (my friend) were missionaries with him, the whole thing shocked everyone who knew him. How could such a strong, kind man, a pillar in the community with everything going for him commit suicide? He suffered from depression and was in between meds. There was no "reason" other than that he was sick.
Aly wrote: "Mochaspresso: You won't understand the book unless you finish reading it."I intend to finish. Sometimes it takes a while, but it's rare for me to just completely abandon a book. I usually do finish, even when I don't like them.
Emma wrote: "I haven't read that book, but it sounds to me that it is trying to make the point that suicide is never rational. No sane, normal, well-adjusted person would ever commit suicide. The whole question..."I totally agree with you. However, the problem for me, as I am reading, is that I am not sure that this is actually the message that I'm getting from the book. My feelings may change as I continue to read but so far, I feel as if the book is attempting to rationalize (...and I can honestly see why others go so far as to say "glorify") Hannah's choice and her assigning of all of the blame for it onto others.
John green came out and said that the book was pretentious. He said it was meant to be. And Gus's character is supposed to be portrayed that way. He wanted it to be that way. But really to each his own.
To be honest, I understand why you think the book is hyped up. I started the book hoping for this wonderful mind-blowing experience, but instead I finished the book and thought "wow, that wasn't as great as I was expecting." Personally, it could be that John Green's style isn't for me or it could be that I thought the characters weren't very realistic. Yes, this book is wonderful in the aspect that it explores the stories of kids who have cancer, however, I just couldn't relate to them. I thought it was unreal that Augustus would really spend his wish for Hazel and maybe I just didn't enjoy it as much because I don't believe in teen love. Overall, I think a book like this did need to be written because I learned a lot about cancer, the lives it impacts, and the survivors, but I think it is a little hyped up.
I understand why you might not have liked it but if people keep telling you it was great just stand your ground and don't care what others say. It's your opinion that counts.
Emma wrote: "I haven't read that book, but it sounds to me that it is trying to make the point that suicide is never rational. No sane, normal, well-adjusted person would ever commit suicide. The whole question..."Another book you may want to try, so long as you don't mind open endings, is 'by the time you read this, I'll be dead' which is a little more blunt when it comes to reasons why someone would want to die ... and why they might stay alive.
Just be grateful there isn't a sequel.
Ok, this is completely off topic, but do any of you know if you can block a discussion so it doesn't show up on your homepage? These people in this other thread I used to follow are complete bullies. They are a bunch of middle-aged people who just pushed a 19 year old girl who had been an active member since 2012 to completely leave goodreads. And now they are all like "oh, well she was a troll." For all the bickering that may go on here, for the most part everyone is far more respectful of each other's differing viewpoints than those people, and most of you are teenagers or close to it. Apparently, if you are under 30 and/or not an English major you are an idiot who's opinion is worthless. AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! They make me sooooo angry!!!! Alright, temper tantrum over.Anyway, if anyone knows if I can block that entire thread please I would appreciate it if you could tell me. And sorry for going off-topic.
Which thread is it? I'm certainly not scared of netbullies. Lol!!! (...not saying that you're scared, btw. Just saying that what they probably need is a few people with thick skin don't care attitudes who are willing to stand up to them.)But to answer your question, at the bottom of the thread on the right is a "you are following this discussions" with an "edit" link next to it. Click the edit link and you can unfollow the discussion.
Thanks. Yeah, I've already told them off a few times. It doesn't do any good. They are convinced that they were vindicated in their treatment of her. The annoying thing is that none of them are even the OP and they don't even talk about the original topic, and if anyone dares to say something they don't agree with they run them off. They refuse to acknowledge their own behavior while accusing everyone else of being ignorant, disrespectful, and so on. It's on Catcher and the Rye, the thread is called "The most overrated books." If anyone dares to say that classic books are overrated or that modern/non-classics are just as valuable as classics they are labelled a moron who just doesn't "get it" and the group harasses them until they either leave or agree with them. They claim they are trying to educate others and help them to be passionate about literature, but in reality they do the opposite. The girl in question had said (I'm paraphrasing) that Hunger Games and other modern sci-fi books are just as enlightening as 1984 and Brave New World, but the message is far more accessible to the average reader. Whether you agree with her or not, I think that was a valid argument, and an interesting topic for discussion, and their response was to call her a c*nt and an idiot. There was a bunch of "you're too young to understand." Most of them had not even read the books she mentioned. Just automatic, if it's not a classic it can't possibly be as good.It just makes me so angry. I can handle it if someone calls me a name, but it really infuriates me when I see someone being bullied. After she was called a c*nt, only one person stood up for her. There have only been three people, including myself, who called them out for chasing her off. One of them even said, "why should we care if someone leaves supposedly because of something 'we' said?" They have no concept of respect and empathy for another person. Or a sense of responsibility for how they affect others. It's really nice to see that classic literature has done nothing to improve their personalities. It's like they are emotionally stuck in middle school.
So I'm the one going all "you people make me sick." Maybe I sunk to their level a bit with that post, but they made me so angry. I'm also message #1180 on page 24. Okay, so my anger is not pretty. But I really was holding back in those posts. I have no patience for bullies, never have. I don't care if she said “only purple books are worth reading” they had no right to treat her that way. Sorry, I'm ranting again...
I can't stand netbullying either. However, I read through some of it and it appears that's not quite everything that led up to the c-word being dropped. Not that there is anything makes something like that alright, but the discussion did actually devolve on both ends. Just because you don't use swear words, doesn't mean that you are not being insulting. There was a lot of that happening on all sides. Message #980 -- "To get most of your information about how the world works by reading novels is, well, dumb, to say the least."
If I had to pinpoint any one place where the devolving that led to the c-word started, I'd say it may have been here. This comment was a rather dismissive response to someone's explanation of why they found classic literature appealing. Even though this is her opinion, I can understand how someone might find her use of the word "dumb" in this context to be offensive or insulting. Especially, in a discussion about the merits of classic literature, where some works are now classics PRECISELY because of how well they reflected how the world worked during the times that they were written. It seems that several people disagreed with her about this and responded to her. I believe that is what they were trying to explain....and quite frankly, on that specific issue, I actually believe that they are right. I don't agree with a lot of other things that they said about contemporary genre literature, though.
Here is something else that caught my attn......
Message #1047--she unfairly categorizes literary fiction fans vs genre fiction fans using false and extremely biased generalizations.
Message #1048-- she refers generically to people who might happen to share a specific pov as "pseudo intellectual snobs". She was a little arrogant, imo.
I'm not intentionally singling her out or saying that others didn't say offensive things, too. I'm also not saying that it was her fault or that she deserved to be called names. I'm just saying she wasn't completely innocent and that two wrongs don't necessarily make a right.
Btw, reading through the thread, I also don't feel that she was "bullied" per se. At least, not at first.
.....Please don't stone me, yet! Just hear me out, then stone away if you must....
By the time that it did actually become bullying (...mostly in the form of trading personal insults), she was giving out just as much as she was getting. You can't rudely cut someone off while driving, then be shocked and affronted that they give you the finger.
I read though thread from the #900's to the end. I don't believe that the mere act of disagreement is "bullying". Never have, never will. Especially in a forum such as this, that was designed for the discussion/exchange/sharing of ideas. Even if the discussions become very heated, it's still not "bullying". Telling someone that their opinion is wrong and/or uninformed and explaining why you think so is not "bullying". An older person telling a younger person that they don't understand something due to their age or lack of experience may be viewed as patronizing, but it is also not bullying. Imo, one of the ways that it devolves into bullying is when you try to ostracize a person for their viewpoint (...ie try to stop or discourage them from posting, which I didn't see any evidence of. It seems that she chose to leave on her own.) or when you insult them directly and on a personal level merely for having a different viewpoint (I did see a lot of that.) Personal insults is also bullying and so is mocking and name calling. (....Telling a group of people that they are incapable of intellectual discussion is insulting, so is calling them pseudo intellectual snobs, so is a post like #1137....and so is responding by calling that person an idiot or any other offensive name.)
I know that she wasn't entirely innocent or that everyone was entirely guilty. However, this is coming after they have consistently ignored and insulted other people who did not agree with them. They have over and over stated that if you do not like a classic then you are an idiot who is too stupid to understand. I admit, I had started ignoring them right before Rachel jumped in, so I didn't see the first few pages she was on. But when I began reading again it was a group of people attacking a lone girl who had some very valid points, even if she didn't always express them well. These people have completely commandeered that thread and they chase off anyone who attempts to answer the original question in a way that they don't like. Rachel is not the first person they have done this to. And the others were not name-calling like she apparently was.
Anyway, this thread isn't really the place for this discussion. I apologize to everyone for this detour.
Emma wrote: "Anyway, this thread isn't really the place for this discussion. I apologize to everyone for this detour."I think naming a thread "Most overrated books" is a minefield per se. And you are right, that topic is the MOST ANNOYING TOPIC EVER.
Aly wrote: "NO. I REFUSE TO LET IT DIE!Has anyone else seen the gazillion " It's a metaphor " jokes on tumblr? AND JOHN GREENS TWEET? !"
No, I avoid him on twitter, but I wanna hear about it! Will keep the thread going, too ;)
*puts 10000 cigarettes in the mouth*IT'S A HYPERBOLE!!!!!!
I do my homework the way guys fall for me, slowly; then not at all.
Citizens- "It's a bird"Citizens- "No, it's a plane"
*Superman flying down with kryptonite between his lips*
Superman- "IT'S A METAPHOR!!!!!!"
Me-
Aly wrote: "NO. I REFUSE TO LET IT DIE!
Has anyone else seen the gazillion " It's a metaphor " jokes on tumblr? AND JOHN GREENS TWEET? !"
Oooh, show me!
Has anyone else seen the gazillion " It's a metaphor " jokes on tumblr? AND JOHN GREENS TWEET? !"
Oooh, show me!
I agree, I've read the book before it became so mainstream. Everyone's talking about the book just because it's now going to be a huge movie. And it left me wondering, did people love it because it is moving or did they love it because it is trending? Trend is a thing these days... It can change our opinion. Okay, let me explain mg notion about this book.
Honestly... The book went great, AT FIRST. I just became irritated when they started chasing after Hazel's favorite author. I know it's her death wish. The most horrible death-wish I have ever encountered in my life. Who does that? You are dying and you chose to chase after the author of your favorite book because there is something in the book that is left unclear, and you have to ask the author.. PERSONALLY.
How stupid is that?
I actually enjoyed the writing technique, the death-wish is just soooooo off to me. We could remove that and insert something reasonable, it'll be way better.
I read the book and honestly could not understand why people were raving about this book. I also felt like the writer crammed too many things into the story. The book reminded me of "Adrian Mole" books one used to read, it had its witty moments but I did not enjoy it at all. I read the entire book to find out what would happen. It was confusing in some parts, especially when they traveled overseas... their level of intelligence also, for 17 year olds... no ways.. i do not see myself reading a John Green book, anytime soon, I did not enjoy his style of writing
ooh.. you're not the only one. i share the same thoughts though not as brazen as yours. it's a good read if you want to learn new words. aside from that, there's nothing else here and i totally don't get why everyone's making this book a sort of Shakepeare in the time of Facebook.
I agree. am now reading "Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's Half of a Yellow Sun". I also do not think that I will read a John Green book anytime soon.
I guess everyone is entiltled to their opinion, and though I don't nessecarily agree with the more negative aspects of this thread, I strongly ADMIRE those of you who are not afraid to show an opinion.Thank you for a more refreshing take!
Julliene wrote: "ooh.. you're not the only one. i share the same thoughts though not as brazen as yours. it's a good read if you want to learn new words. aside from that, there's nothing else here and i totally don..."
Shakespeare in the time of Facebook...hmmm... *taps chin*
Shakespeare in the time of Facebook...hmmm... *taps chin*
Aly: Yeah. I am so disappointed. My friends told me to read this book, this made them cry. "the feels." they said. Well... I actually felt everything in the first half, especially the one with their blind friend who lost his girlfriend (now that's a feeling. How I hope they focused the story to him instead, LOL. That side seemed deeper than Hazel-Gus drama.) and as I peered into the story... The "feels" just disappeared bits by bits. LOL. And I can't even share this to them. I'll be the cold-hearted-reader who didn't understand the whole concept of the story.
And btw, I wasn't able to make it until the end. My mind is unstable, I cannot tolerate the itching feeling to stop and say OH GOD, WHAT AM I READING.
Aly wrote: "It's a screenshot of a screenshot, but it's his actual Twitter account so I'll believe, haha."
I wish I was in the room when he read this tweet to see his face ... but then I'd be in a room with John Green. I love those metaphors however!
well ive just read your review and disagree in one things (no pressure, i respect your opinion) but iam a teenager that had leukemia and i can bring spontaneous monologues, and i start thinking about life in a different perspective, i did not let confusion, depression and anger to overcome my state. So i will appreciate i you dont generalize things.
this book was too impossible and far too predictable. two kids with cancer, one of them is obviously going to croak. all of the things that augustus said made me sick. i mean, yeah, it's nice, but who talks like that? i would roll my eyes if a boy ever stuck a cigarette in his mouth and said "it's a metaphor." it's just too ridiculous. this book is totally overrated and the fan base makes me nervous.
danielle wrote: "this book was too impossible and far too predictable. two kids with cancer, one of them is obviously going to croak. all of the things that augustus said made me sick. i mean, yeah, it's nice, but ..."
AGREED!
That "cigarette metaphor" thing makes absolutely no sense.
AGREED!
That "cigarette metaphor" thing makes absolutely no sense.
I liked this book. It was catching.The only thing I don't quite understand are the life changing comments. I read it, and it didn't change my life. I was enthralled with the book though. It kept my attention (even when Augustus died and I threw the book). I threw the book when I finished the last sentence. Definitely an angry ending for me.
Hazel's feelings for Augustus were so strong that I couldn't help feel the loss. The only problem I had with this book was that I felt that there were some rants and metaphors that I just couldn't quite understand. And that lost some of my appreciation for the book.
Do I hate the book? No. Do I love the book? Love is too strong a word.
Yes. That "It's a metaphor." doesn't make sense. It's like: "Okay. I'll put on a condom but we will not have sex. I'll just wear it for no particular reason. It's a metaphor." Ugh.
no i liked this book yes i did have to put it down for a while but i re-read it and if you pay attention to the begining of the book the scene where she first hears augustus talk in group and his fears. the main concept of this book is that everyone will die at one point. And how gus was afraid of that and stuffs.
I wouldn't go as far as saying I hated it with a "burning passion" but it was pretty cheesy, some passages were pointless and boring and I didn't really like Hazel as a character.I think this book is overrated, Looking For Alaska and Paper Towns are way better.
Ayesha wrote: "I happily bought the hardcover of The Fault in our stars back in December 2012 after seeing the high average GR ratings and raving reviews saying how beautiful, life-changing, thought-provoking and..."THAT WAS THE SAME REACTION I HAD:DDDDD
I don't hate it i just feel like its way to stereo typical of a love story and really overly sappy... i also wish she wouldve died because the twist at the end was kind of expected
I enjoyed your review of The Fault in Our Stars more than I enjoyed the book. Firstly, it took me ages to finish it. I hated it to bits. I read this book because my little cousin wanted to read it (and I like to read her books first to know if they're ok for her), I'm 28, so I'm no Young Adult kind of reader, and I don't know how people my age fangirl over this stupid book, I just don't.
Vons wrote: "Aly: Yeah. I am so disappointed. My friends told me to read this book, this made them cry. "the feels." they said. Well... I actually felt everything in the first half, especially the one with thei..."I agree the blind friend/his relationship (and even his interaction with Hazel) was better than what this ended up being. o.o
August placed the unlit cig in his mouth as something he can control even as he could not control the cancer he did have. Metaphor, an actual comfort, an act of rebellion? Whatever. To say a teen wouldn't do something like that under the circumstances, or is silly, or a cheap literary device is something I'd expect most people, especially teens would disagree with. And now, back to tats, ink, nipple/ nose / eyebrow / lip piercings, gauges, Mohawk, green hair, shaved head, Goth friends who couldn't possibly exist other than as silly metaphors.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Daughter of Smoke & Bone (other topics)
Things I Know About Love (other topics)
On the Jellicoe Road (other topics)
Zombicorns (other topics)
More...
Lurlene McDaniel (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
This Star Won't Go Out: The Life and Words of Esther Grace Earl (other topics)Daughter of Smoke & Bone (other topics)
Things I Know About Love (other topics)
On the Jellicoe Road (other topics)
Zombicorns (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Lurlene McDaniel (other topics)Lurlene McDaniel (other topics)
These tapes are not Hannah's entire story and there is a lot missing. For example, what was her home life like? So far, there is nothing in the book about that. In her beginning of her tapes, she mentions that she moved and indicates that being the new girl is like a "second chance". My question is what was her life like before? Why did she feel that she needs a "second chance"? There are things that she says that indicate that her life before the move wasn't exactly so great either. Especially, during that conversation/altercation with Jessica at the coffee shop. I don't know. She's methodological in the planning and explaining of her revenge, but none of her other thought processes are logical at all.
The problem that I am having with this book is that it seems to be trying to give the impression that Hannah was once a sane, rational, normal well adjusted teen who was driven to suicide because of the actions of others. These people are not to blame for what happened to her. This is a complete bold faced lie. Sane, rational, normal well adjusted people can and do handle the "13 reasons" that Hannah is describing in her tapes without becoming depressed and resorting to suicide. This book doesn't seem to be emphasizing the fact that Hannah was not sane, rational, normal and well adjusted. She clearly has undiagnosed severe psychological issues.
The book is good for explaining peer relationships among adolescents and how actions can possibly affect others (btw, how are those tapes going to affect those kids that she sent them to? )....but it is also horrible for accurately explaining or trying to make sense of the very real issue of teen suicide.