The Fault in Our Stars
discussion
Am I the only one who hates this book with burning passion?
Hello! So I read your review and obviously you're completely entitled to your feelings (I myself hate with a passion some books that everybody loves and got to feel the hate from the fangirls, I do not want to do that to you).I just wanted to give you my take on some of the critics you wrote in your review (and that many others agree with). The whole thing about the book being pretentious, using words from dictionnaries, Hazel and Gus being flat, not at all like teenagers and their monologues being far-fetched. It is actually part of what I love with books: the language.
My mother tongue is French but I try and read books in their original languages whenever I understand them (so French, English and Dutch). And with French books, I can be completely transported simply by the language and the beauty of the words, "figures de styles" and metaphors even if the plot itself is slow or not that great because I have "l'amour des mots", the love for words (a good example of that is "L'élégance du Hérisson"). I had never gotten that feeling in any other languages and I thought it either was because playing with the words was a French thing or because my English level was not good enough for me to understand all the subtlety of the words. But with this book, I got this feeling. The quote "My thoughts are stars I can't fathom into constellations" that you hate so much, I love it: its poetry, its meaning, its "melody".... It just fills me with joy for some reasons, as did the other metaphors and dictionary words.
About how far fetched the characters and their way of talking is, it did not bother me, on the contrary: a fiction book is not written to be 100% realistic, in french book=roman and you say that you "romantiscize" a story or "bookify/storify" it (I know none of those words exists but I can't find one perfectly matching the meaning of the french word), it is precisely the point of writing a story: you embellish reality, make it more colourful, more intense, more beautiful. What would be the point of reading story exactly depicting normal day to day life? And anyway, I do not find it all that far-fetched! Kids with cancer do grow up much much faster than regular ones and are going to be more mature and deep than many because they are confronted to loss and pain and the possibility of dying every single day instead of worrying about who likes who and who's the best at pokemon or something... And to me "insta-love" has happened in reality, because I was in a very difficult situation, and I met this boy and he was my rock through it and even though our story was one of the shortest I've had (approx 3 months) it was the most intense one I have had to this day and it all evolved so fast.. So I think that for people with cancer, who know that they probably are condemned, it would be even faster and more intense...
As for finding the characters flat: I don't see it but that's just a question of liking different things. :)
I laughed and I cried reading this book, I loved the plot, the themes, the character and most of all the beauty of the writing. I am sorry that you lost time reading a book you did not enjoy (it frustrates me so much when it happens to me!) and I hope that this post will not have angered you, I just wanted to give my opinion and I really hope you're okay with that.
Woops, my post was already incredibly long (sorry about that, I think I must be physically unable to write short messages...) but I just realized I forgot something! I actually am the type of person who, just like Hazel who will wonder about seemingly pointless things (for example, the breakfast food thing: I have wondered about that since breakfast in the US and in my country are so different and what you consider breakfast food (eggs, bacon..) I consider lunch/dinner food. Or I wonder how it came to be that some countries drive on the right lane and others on the left one and other stupid stuff like that so I can completely relate to that..)
Personally, I find eggs an anytime food. We used to do egg and chips (fries) for dinner. So I didn't see the point of her rambling for so long about eggs-at-breakfast. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but I'm not so sure.I really hate when people act like, because a book is fictional, it doesn't need any basis in fact. If you're world-building in a pre-existing world, you need to consider that pre-existing world and research it to be authentic, unless you want to skim on the details. Fictional books are allegories, not just fluff. Even romance novels are heavily researched. You couldn't get away with half-assing the details about Paris in a Mills and Boon. Even sci-fi obeys some rules of our society in order to create hierarchies within the content. Fantasy needs to rely on various lores across the world. You think J R R Tolkien created dwarves and elves to look the way they do in his novels? So yes, in this instance, real research into cancer, and treatments, and survival stories would have been relevant to building a rich world. Relying on one person you sort-of know is a big gamble.
I agree insta-love can happen, but it's grossly over-represented out in all forms of media. I want to get to know the characters as well. Look at Ron and Hermione! They waited until they'd known each other three-and-a-half years before the topic even came up, and even then it was a slow grower. Look at Bill and Fleur, or Tonks and Lupin, who barely got mentions in the books but I could still see and relate to their stories. One lasted four books and had about three lines dedicated to its build up, and one lasted three, and had even less attention. And they weren't even the point of their book! Yet J K Rowling made those relationships believable. There's a knack.
I don't think cancer is the excuse for instalove. That sounds more like they were both afraid of dying alone and clung to the first single person they could find. Which I didn't think when reading the book, but do now. So well done, I guess? I really hadn't considered it either way, but point made, Hazel and Gus were a convenience for each other. Ouch.
Siobhan wrote: "Personally, I find eggs an anytime food. We used to do egg and chips (fries) for dinner. So I didn't see the point of her rambling for so long about eggs-at-breakfast. Maybe it's a cultural thing, ..."I guess I just don't think that they are that unbeleivable then... I mean some of my discussions with some of my friends are like those of Hazel, Gus, Isaac etc. It just depends on your personality and the "culture" you were raised in (like my country's culture and education is hugely different from the one that I learned to know when I was an exchange student in the US...
But do you say than that you thought "The perks of being a wallflower" or even the tv show gilmore girls were terrible and not believable because they had those amazing characters, so much more mature and smart than the average and those wonderful monologues and witty comebacks?
I do not think that making characters a bit better than the average teenagers is not believable or complete bullshit but once again it is purely a question of tastes. I like getting to "live" in worlds that are better than the one we live in or at least where there are amazing characters and to me, TFiOS did just that.
Alice wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "Personally, I find eggs an anytime food. We used to do egg and chips (fries) for dinner. So I didn't see the point of her rambling for so long about eggs-at-breakfast. Maybe it's a ..."Did you read my reply? Because I think you put words in my mouth. No, I'm sure you put words in my mouth. I said nothing on Gus and Hazel's pitiful attempts at being witty (and trust me, they had nothing of substance behind them, unlike the examples you mentioned), I mentioned instalove, relationship development, and plausibility. If you're willing to debate, please actually read the rebuttal. You're on your soapbox over something I didn't say. And nothing pisses me off more than being told what I think, how I feel or what I've said when it's clear that the evidence is to the contrary.
Siobhan wrote: "Alice wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "Personally, I find eggs an anytime food. We used to do egg and chips (fries) for dinner. So I didn't see the point of her rambling for so long about eggs-at-breakfast...."Woaw there! I'm sorry. I was not trying to put words into your mouth and I've got no clue what "being on my soapbox over something" means (please remember English is not my first language) but I'm guessing it means something like being mad over something?
My reply was truly not angry. I thought the reason you thought the story was not plausible was because of the insta love, monologues, metaphors etc. Which is why I answered the way I did. I'm sorry that I misunderstood your words but please do not insult me. Once again, it's really easy to misinterpret someone's words, it is even more so when said words are not in your mother tongue... Want me to write a reply in French and let you try to answer it?
I came over here staying neutral, telling my side of things, answering the question "Am I the only one who hates this book?" because this is a forum, this is what people do. I have not once been agressive, disdainful or disrespectful. I was just trying to understand what people disliked about this book because I think it is always nice to see things from more than your own point of view and to try to understand others, that is how you keep an open mind and put yourself in question, and evolve and get better.
I'm sorry that I misunderstood your words but it was no reason for you to lash out at me in this fashion...
Anyway, then I do not understand what you meant by the lack of plausibility. Could you please tell me? (Once again, not saying you're wrong to think so, just trying to understand other people's point of views to keep an open mind, please do not bite my head off...
so.... the trailer for the movie just totally rekindled my hatred for this godawful book. in fact, hearing the artificial cheesy dialogue in the mouths of real people made it seem even more ridiculous than it is in print. and can we talk about those names? "hazel grace," "augustus waters" - these are names out of a harlequin, or a low-budget soap opera. eveything in this book just comes off as being so polished, so tryhard and fake. it's impossible for me to accept these characters as potential people, and this is part of why.
Alice wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "Alice wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "Personally, I find eggs an anytime food. We used to do egg and chips (fries) for dinner. So I didn't see the point of her rambling for so long about eg..."Je said un peu Francais
But that's no excuse to not read properly, because again you didn't. I didn't insult you, I asked you not to put words in my mouth. I said I got pissed off, but that's not insulting you? Don't just skim, absorb. Although why I'm saying this I don't know, you'll probably just read the cuss again and think I'm insulting you further. Though not reading through my response and acting like I'm the rude one is plenty insulting itself.
To get on ones soapbox is to make a stand for a belief and to shout about it loudly. Which is all well and good, but when it's reactionary to an imagined insult, you're the one who's going to come across as foolish. Please take this as advice, not an attempt at being derogatory.
I don't know why you're trying to defend yourself from being so rude, I gave a good rebuttal, you ignored it. My only explanation for it is that you don't have a counter-argument or examples that could contradict me, which kinda makes me think it's because you know I'm right, hence why you're jumping on the defensive and still putting words in my mouth.
It'd be funny, if I didn't already have a tonne of shit being thrown my way. So thanks for heaping more on, I guess?
Pilcrow wrote: "so.... the trailer for the movie just totally rekindled my hatred for this godawful book. in fact, hearing the artificial cheesy dialogue in the mouths of real people made it seem even more ridicul..."I like Shailene, it disappoints me she's involved. My iPad is also telling me I spelt her name wrong, so sorry if I did that!
There seems to be a lot of hidden Harlequin in teen books these days, so I'm really not surprised you'd say that about the names. But I agree with you, it tries too hard. Way too hard.
My Fault in Our Stars review is here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
And my Julius Caesar review is here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
I didn't do a very good job on either one, but oh well.
Hopefully you'll understand why the title upset me so much.
And my Julius Caesar review is here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
I didn't do a very good job on either one, but oh well.
Hopefully you'll understand why the title upset me so much.
The fault in our stars is rubbish, but I love Shailene Woodley.
Shailene was very good in the descendants with George clooney and she was ok in divergent.
The TFIOS trailer is literally everywhere. You can't escape it! D:
Aria wrote: "The TFIOS trailer is literally everywhere. You can't escape it! D:"Ugh! I loath it especially the second one, if someone tells me again how sweet and cute that effing kissing scene in Anne Frank's house was, I'll go break something.
Welcome back Pilcrow, I missed your hilarious comments.
Brooke wrote: "My Fault in Our Stars review is here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...And my Julius Caesar review is here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
I d..."
I had to read Julius Caesar in 10th grade, I really hated the way JG twisted the original quote.
"The fault, dear Brutus is not in our stars but in ourselves."
It also reminds me of my favourite quote by Shakespeare
"it's not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves."
Maybe JG tried to covey the message that we cannot decide our destiny by contradicting Shakespeare.
The Fault in our Stars, was good i can't give a higher praise than that cause it is the truth. i felt that i expected a bit too much from this book and i guess that's why i though it felt a bit flat..but hey who can really blame me after all the hype and the OMG! THIS BOOK IS AMAZING!! reviews i intantly thought the best of this book. i agree with most of the reviews on this discussion, like you i didn't connect with characters...like not at all. But i did understand their situation and i did think the story was quite inspirational but it just fell flat. maybe it was the super big words used in this novel in a way it kinda acted like a barrier stopping you from really connecting cause hello! who really understood all of that smartly writen text? im gonna be honest i didn't, most of it to me was just yabba-gabba that i just kinda skimmed through.
Not hating on John Green, i just didn't really like the book.
Leona wrote: "I'm right with you. 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..."It was an attempt to give you something you could do in your free time. Read.
I have a 3-star rating on this book because I feel like all my friends will stab me if I say that I don't like this book. Easily my lease favourite John Green book. It is ridiculously unrealistic and Hazel and Augustus don't act like normal cancer patients. I have a friend who has leukaemia and I am completely aware of all the treatments and such that people with this disease have to suffer through. I am completely heartbroken for anyone who has to suffer from this disgusting illness, but this book frustrated the hell out of me as Hazel and Augustus didn't seem like sick teenagers at all. Many teenagers with cancer spend the majority of their time in a hospital bed, and I don't remember any scenes where Hazel is in a hospital bed. The thing is, I'm actually 15, so no one can tell me something like "Oh, you didn't like it because it's YA and aimed at teenagers" as I happen to be a teenage girl (the stigma that YA is only for teenagers pisses me off as YA can really be for any age). The fact that I am 15 and not 24 doesn't mean I have to like this book. It was ridiculously pretentious and way too cheesy for a book dealing with cancer. I may be two years Augustus Waters's junior, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be blurting out pretentious love declarations and ridiculous metaphors in 2 years time. This is not because I am unintelligent and not wise enough to make up something like this (in no way do I mean to sound rude, but I'm not at all a stupid person, I am an intelligent person). This is a love-at-first-sight story and I hate those kinds of books. Hazel was a complete BITCH and she was so rude to her parents. She said that it was creepy when an unattractive boy stared at you but it was fine for Augustus to stare at her in the first few pages, and that just made me hate her. Being Jewish and having family who died in the Holocaust, I am disgusted by the fact that she and Augustus kissed in the Anne Frank House because that is just fucking disrespectful. The fact that people clapped for them made me even madder; if I were there when that had happened, I would have thrown a rock or something at them (I probably would have thrown my copy of The Fault in Our Stars). I hope that people take me seriously even though I am in the middle of the target age range for this novel. I don't understand the hype at all, honestly.
Emily, welcome to the thread! We all feel that way. Totally agree with what you said about YA too, some of the best themes and story lines are in YA (obviously, not this one)
Siobhan wrote: "Emily, welcome to the thread! We all feel that way. Totally agree with what you said about YA too, some of the best themes and story lines are in YA (obviously, not this one)"Thanks! And I agree with you completely. I've read a lot of fantastic YA novels (Green's Looking for Alaska being one of them, funny thing) and this one was just ridiculous and I honestly don't understand why so many people love it.
When i hears about this book being 'One of the best!' or 'Gets you right in the feels' i said to myself dayuumm imma read this book. NO!
Anne frank wrote about her first kiss in the very same place. Hazel was sick and hospitalized in the book and Gus was clearly very sick toward the end. Tfios focused more on the life moments that hazel and Augustus had as opposed to the sick moments. It was deliberate and I liked that about the book. Just like how I liked the fact that my sisters keeper also focused on the family dynamics. It was never intended to be a medical drama whose sole or primary purpose was to chronicle their illness.
The pretentiousness was a deliberate character trait.
Despite her illness, hazel was otherwise a typical angsty teen. Some typical angsty teens occasionally are rude and ungrateful toward their parents,
Mochaspresso wrote: "Anne frank wrote about her first kiss in the very same place. Hazel was sick and hospitalized in the book and Gus was clearly very sick toward the end. Tfios focused more on the life moments th..."
The Anne Frank House wasn't a memorial for a young girl who died in the Holocaust when Anne Frank herself lived there. Hazel and Augustus, on the other hand, decided to kiss in a memorial for this girl and it's disrespectful and utterly disgusting. They don't get to make out in the Anne Frank House without being called out on as disrespectful just because they have cancer. It's terribly disrespectful and just disgusted me.
Hazel might have been hospitalised in the book, but there's no chance it happened more than once and only for a very short part of the novel as I barely remember it, and I would have remembered it if it were longer. Augustus only dies at the end to make the book seem less cheesy and more deep and tragic. In my opinion, it was a book about two pretentious teenagers who fall in love at first sight rather than a deep and inspiring novel about enjoying the good moments of life while living with a terminal illness. I don't mean to bash you opinion in any way because that's just rude, but I disagree.
It seems to me that a lot of people like to dictate for everyone else what can and can't happen at a memorial or near it. NYC is going through that with the 9/11 memorial.
Mochaspresso wrote: "It seems to me that a lot of people like to dictate for everyone else what can and can't happen at a memorial or near it. NYC is going through that with the 9/11 memorial."It's sick to kiss in a place that is commemorating people who died in tragic circumstances. Not making out at the memorial site of a girl who died in war is just having a decent level of respect. The fact that people think it's okay honestly sickens me. It's like making out on someone's grave when people are trying to mourn that person.
Emily wrote: "I have a 3-star rating on this book because I feel like all my friends will stab me if I say that I don't like this book. Easily my lease favourite John Green book. It is ridiculously unrealistic a..."Yes, I too hated that kissing scene in Anne Frank's house. What surprises me is that JG had been to that place yet he wrote something so disgusting. Doesn't he have any shred of dignity and respect. It's even more surprising that NO ONE from the Dutch Nerdfighter community said anything against it! Weren't they offended? Or did they idolise those pretentious characters so much that they forgot how real people had suffered in the past? Honestly, if someone makes out at such a revered site, they would be kicked out regardless of who or what they are, people standing around would be disgusted and they would never clap for them or see how important thier love is.
Anne Frank kissed in that same house. So what? It's now serving some other purpose. It's now converted into a memorial in honour of Anne Frank and all those who died in the Holocaust. Besides, Anne Frank had more important things in her mind than wanting 2 pretentious and obnoxious teenagers falling in love and making out at a revered site of Holocaust.
I agree with your other points too, Emily.
Aly∞ wrote: "Shakespeare's rolling around in his grave thinking, "Your destiny ain't worth living, Green, you little hoe."Hahaha, imagine gangster Shakespeare. Dear God."
May Shakespeare's soul rest in peace. Oh, probably that won't happen when writers like JG come on the best selling lists....poor Shakespeare :(
Aly∞ wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "It seems to me that a lot of people like to dictate for everyone else what can and can't happen at a memorial or near it. NYC is going through that with the 9/11 memorial."..."It doesn't matter that they had cancer, it was still an outright disgusting and horrible thing to do. What irritates me is that people swallow this up and they talk about how "cute" and "adorable" it is when they don't realize the true nature of what Gus and Hazel did.
I've been to the anne frank house and many other memorials. My experience has been that the vast majority of people visiting these places are "tourists", not necessarily "mourners ". Want to see genuine disrespect of the dead, visit Arlington national cemetery on Memorial Day or Veterans Day and observe some of the behaviors of some of the tourists. Kissing is the least of the offenses. Then there is also that crazy Westboro baptist church that likes to protest outside high profile funerals. That is probably why I'm not seeing it as that big of a deal.
Aly∞ wrote: "@Mochaspresso: Tourists visit memorials out of RESPECT. They go to pay their RESPECTS to those who have died in horrible circumstances. Kissing is an act of disrespect, to mock a place of mourning ..."With all this talk of respect, do you actually think your tone toward me is respectful, right now? No worries, though. I'm a big girl with a thick skin.
You need to worry about the people who think it's ok and their 2nd amendment right to try to bring a concealed weapon into a place like the 9/11 memorial or the guy with a bomb in his backpack at a public event like a marathon. People like you worry me because you worry about things that aren't truly that important in the grand scheme of things. I don't think that I would kiss at the anne frank house but I don't really care if someone else does. At least kissing is usually quiet and unobtrusive. Talking loudly during a wreath laying ceremony at Arlington cemetery, .that is disrespectful, obtrusive and it bothers me
Btw, Tourists have all types of motivations and some visit certain places simply because the guidebook said its a place of interest.
There are some countries where people are prosecuted for kissing in public period. The us and the Netherlands where tfios is set are not one of those countries.
Mochaspresso wrote: "There are some countries where people are prosecuted for kissing in public period. The us and the Netherlands where tfios is set are not one of those countries."Hazel and Augustus didn't kiss in some public area, they kissed in the Holocaust memorial and that's wrong, disgusting and disrespectful.
" You need to worry about the people who think it's ok and their 2nd amendment right to try to bring a concealed weapon into a place like the 9/11 memorial or the guy with a bomb in his backpack at a public event like a marathon....."Two pretentious teenagers who make out at a memorial are as bad as those people because they have absolutely no respect towards a teenage girl who died in Holocaust, they give absolutely 0 consideration towards the deaths of millions of people during Holocaust, they don't care about the fact that they are surrounded by so many Europeans who were affected and are still recovering from something so horrendous. All they care about is how important thier lurve is and that shows me that they're selfish as well.
Ayesha wrote: "" You need to worry about the people who think it's ok and their 2nd amendment right to try to bring a concealed weapon into a place like the 9/11 memorial or the guy with a bomb in his backpack at..."Actually, that's not what it says in the book at all. Several pages were devoted to the visit. They were very mindful of what transpired there and hazel even has a moment where she thinks that what she is doing might not technically be appropriate. It was a little naughty but I think horrendous is a bit of an overreaction.
Aly∞ wrote: "@Mochaspresso: I do worry about more important things but considering we are talking about a scene from a book, I'm going to talk about that. Problem? You're free to leave any time."Thing is, you didn't just talk about the book. You attempted to insult me on a personal level and pass a moral judgement on me for having an opinion that doesn't jive with yours. So, excuse me for saying this so bluntly, but I think all the lip service to the idea of respect from you Is a bunch of bullshit.
Actually, I wouldn't call you narrow minded and stupid for not supporting gay marriage. Liberal and open minded pragmatics like myself don't ted to do that right off the cuff. I would hear you out first and It would depend on your reasons why and how you go about expressing them. My father is a devout catholic. He's a kind man and he doesn't have any prejudice against homosexuals but he just can't separate his religious beliefs when it comes to that issue. I don't agree but I respect his rationalization for the beliefs. In other words, I understand why he feels the way he does and it is possible to respect the opinion of someone that you don't agree with.
This will sound patronizing, but one day when some of you are older, you may grow to realize that the world isn't always simple and clear cases of black and white, right and wrong. Everyone that holds a belief that is different from yours isn't an evil narrow minded monster. I respect Barack Obama and voted for him twice but I disagree with his position on improving education via the expansion of charter schools. I'm an animal lover but I don't agree with throwing paint on someone's fur coat to make a statement about it. I don't believe in abortion but I do firmly believe in a woman's right to choose. Perhaps you could ask the Dutch nerd fighters how they felt about the kissing scene and find out why they were or were not offended by it. Even if you don't agree at least you understand how they feel and why they feel that way. That seems way more productive than talking trash about an entire group of people that you admittedly don't know much about.
@Mochaspresso I think you should ask both the Dutch and Jewish nerdfighters about the kiss as the Anne Frank House commemorates both Anne Frank and every other person who died in the Holocaust, including 6,000,000 Jewish people. Being Jewish myself, I think it's disgusting that they kissed in the Anne Frank House. It's disrespectful both to Anne Frank and to the other people killed by the Nazis in the Holocaust, which includes some members of my family. It really is wrong. How about two teenagers make out while standing on the grave of a family member of yours? Yeah, I know you'd be appaled.
@Charlotte- exactly. Someone else commented on here a bit further back that it's a hard job to be an author. Well, this book has made John Green millions of dollars, both from sales of the book itself and from selling the rights to adapt the book into a film. He's probably become a millionaire just because of TFiOS- let alone his other books as well- and people act like he's got it hard because some people don't like the book.
I hated this book. But I'm not the audience. I'm old enough to be the characters parents. And also my husband died of cancer. So this book did not ring true for me in the slightest. False melodramatic drivel. There are so many better books out there for teen readers. You know when I was a teenager twenty years ago there was no such thing as a YA genre. At least we didn't have to our intelligence insulted by the likes of John Green.
@Morrigane- Agreed. It makes me ashamed to be a part of this generation when books like this are #1 NYT Bestsellers. Thank goodness for books like Daughter of Smoke and Bone and The Book Thief, young adult books that are of high quality and are well known.
The kiss in the Anne Frank house cannot be justified by Anne's actions! Her kiss was about adolescence, and seeking reassurance in a troubling time, it was part of a beautiful relationship she had been fortunate to have.The kiss between Hazel and Gus was crude because a) there was no build up b)they were showboating, playing up to their "audience" c) fucking disrespectful to both those whose lives were torn apart in that building and those who have kept the memory alive and d) the only kiss Hazel and Gus shared before they had sex.
I don't know why that last one gets glazed over. They make out and flip the metaphorical finger at the holocaust then go back to their hotel room and have John Green Trademark awkward sex. Then never seem to kiss again. Guys, the holocaust made them freaking horny, it's not me thinking that's wrong, is it? I'm not anti-sex-in-a-teen-novel (because I would be the biggest hypocrite going if I was) but the timing made me cringe so badly. There was something so off about that entire trip.
Morrigane wrote: " You know when I was a teenager twenty years ago there was no such thing as a YA genre. At least we didn't have to our intelligence insulted by the likes of John Green. This isn't true at all. YA as a genre most certainly did exist twenty years ago. It even existed 30 and 40 years ago. I read Judy Blume when I was 9. i read Paul Zindel. I read "The Outsiders" when I was 10 and that book was originally published back in the late 60's. The libraries I grew up going to always had a YA section. The genre has evolved and changed over the decades but it did exists and many of the same discussions and criticisms have always been going on. Judy Blume was not universally loved by all. In her day, she received a great deal of criticism for her work. So, the cycle continues......
Emily wrote: "@Mochaspresso I think you should ask both the Dutch and Jewish nerdfighters about the kiss as the Anne Frank House commemorates both Anne Frank and every other person who died in the Holocaust, inc..."I've been to the Anne Frank house and know of it's history and significance. Her remains are not there. It is not a cemetery. (As an aside, that is one specific distinction that has created so much controversy with the building of the 9/11 memorial in NY. People's remains are actually at that location.) You are insinuating that every single visitor is there to "mourn" in some capacity and that just simply isn't true in the literal sense. Many are also "tourists". I'm not saying that they are not affected by their visit in any way. I certainly was....but I did not specifically visit the Anne Frank House to "mourn Anne Frank". At least, not in the same capacity that I would visit a loved one's gravesite at a cemetery to mourn.
Would I care if someone kissed on my loved one's grave? Honestly, probably not. I've visited my grandmother's grave and found an old woman sitting and reading on it because her husband is in the grave next to hers. I just say excuse me and she moves. It's not a big deal. I'd probably do the same with kissers. She didn't vandalize it or destroy it and my grandmother is already dead so she can't be offended by it either.
Also, there is a big difference between saying something is perfectly acceptable and saying something is not that big of a deal. I never said that it was ok for them to kiss in the Anne Frank House. I said that it wasn't that big of a deal and that I thought people were overreacting to it.
Why weren't the people around Hazel and Gus offended by what they did? From a realistic and pragmatic point of view that is partially based on my past experience with the Anne Frank House, my guess would be because those people were most likely "tourists" and not "mourners". Also, the British might stereotypically be a little uptight, but other Europeans are not stereotypically uptight about public displays of affection. I think the term "cultural relativism" can indirectly apply to this discussion. TFIOS was not set in the UK.
Siobhan wrote: "The kiss in the Anne Frank house cannot be justified by Anne's actions! Her kiss was about adolescence, and seeking reassurance in a troubling time, it was part of a beautiful relationship she had been fortunate to have. Within the context of the book, I would say the exact same things apply to Hazel and Gus as well. Their kiss wasn't about adolescence? They weren't seeking reassurance in a troubling time? There was no war going on, but I consider being sick a troubling time to an individual. I thought it was clear that both Hazel and Gus believed that their relationship was beautiful and that they were fortunate to have had it.
The kiss between Hazel and Gus was crude because a) there was no build up b)they were showboating, playing up to their "audience" c) fucking disrespectful to both those whose lives were torn apart in that building and those who have kept the memory alive and d) the only kiss Hazel and Gus shared before they had sex.
I don't know why that last one gets glazed over. They make out and flip the metaphorical finger at the holocaust then go back to their hotel room and have John Green Trademark awkward sex. Then never seem to kiss again. Guys, the holocaust made them freaking horny, it's not me thinking that's wrong, is it? I'm not anti-sex-in-a-teen-novel (because I would be the biggest hypocrite going if I was) but the timing made me cringe so badly. There was something so off about that entire trip.
"
That is not exactly how it happened in the book, though. There was build up to the kiss. Hazel pushed herself to make it all the way up the stairs. Making it all the way was monumental for her. That kiss could easily have taken place at the Eiffel Tower or the Statue of Liberty or any other attraction that involves stairs. The Holocaust did not make them horny. They are teenagers with hormones. It's also not exactly true that they never seem to kiss again. They kiss in the hallway outside his room before they have sex and after they return from the trip, Gus begins treatment again and his health continues to deteriorate. They didn't go there with the intent to kiss. It just happened.
And that's another thing. They've known each other for like a few weeks and they're already having sex? Riiiight.
Aly∞ wrote: "Whether you're a tourist or a mourner, a memorial should be a sacred place that should be respected by everyone."I agree and memorials typically are. But I think societies differ on what actually constitutes "disrespect" and what level of offense should be taken toward it. I also think what the memorial is for, where it is and what's going on at the time also plays a part in that. I doubt that the typical American would get outraged if a couple kissed during the "History of The Star Bangled Banner" video inside the memorial at Fort McHenry. They might not think it's appropriate, but they wouldn't necessarily become "OUTRAGED" either. Also, the feelings of inappropriateness would probably stem more from the likelihood for children to be present at that particular memorial. Not necessarily because of any special sentiment of sacredness attached to the place. The memorials at Arlington National Cemetery are different because it is actually a cemetery and live ceremonies are taking place.
This clip is of a soldier demanding silence from the noisy crowd (of TOURISTS...not "mourners") during a ceremony at Arlington.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsdHxU...
Rightly or wrongly, I'm just pointing out the fact that the average visitor to the Anne Frank House (or to Arlington Cemetery) might not necessarily be attaching the same sentiments to it that you seem to think that they are or should be. A tourist might regard it as another museum that they've visited during their trip.
Aly∞ wrote: "*snort* Right.Can you please stop trying to change our opinions on the book and telling us our opinions are wrong? It's really not fair."
I can do as a I please and this discussion is extremely fair. Everyone is voicing their opinions. Fairness stems from the ability to voice them freely....not from the irrational notion that everyone has to agree with it. I think your opinion is wrong and said so. You think mine is wrong and said so. There is nothing "unfair" about that at all. I'm not trying to change your opinion. I am pointing out something that I disagree with and explaining why. You don't have to agree with me or change your mind. That is your choice. There is nothing unfair about that either.
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)
They won't show season 9 here. There are petitions! But yeah, it was an amazing weekend, they're in Italy doing JIBCon this weekend now. Going again in October for the next one. Matt Cohen, DJ Qualls, Jim Beaver, Richard Speight Jnr and Tahmoh Penikett. Going to be good! Jared was there this weekend. He's so yummy! but Misha *sighes*
And those weren't even the "cancer perks" touched upon in the book. It was 'oh, I got a new playstation, cancer perk!' who thinks like that?