Am I the only one who hates this book with burning passion? Showing 1,401-1,450 of 1,640

[Siobhan]

Brooke wrote: "And that's another thing. They've known each other for like a few weeks and they're already having sex? Riiiight."

See, that in and of itself I don't have a problem with so long as in the narrative it serves a purpose, which in this case it didn't. I thought they were still dancing around the idea of going out with each other, and the next thing you know they're getting it on and then nothing. It was a pointless, poorly thought out, wholly disrespectful scene. What was the reasoning? They didn't want to die virgins or something? Because that's the worst state to be in when you die *rolls eyes*

[Siobhan]

Mochaspresso wrote: "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 ..."

Please come to Britain. Uptight, my left butt cheek.

[Emily]

@Mochaspresso- A memorial is somewhere that people should hold a level of respect. It's wrong to make out in a memorial site. That is all.

@Aly- I hate how most of the TFiOS fans who comment in this forum are so rude just because people don't like the book. It's actually ridiculous. Being hateful isn't going to change anyone's opinions on the book. It isn't like all of the forums are supposed to be TFiOS appreciacion forums. It's to discuss the book, which is exactly what everyone here is doing. We have valid arguments about why we don't like it and people need to respect our negative opinions the way we respect their positive opinions.

[A]

Emily wrote: "@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, you..."

Yes, The Book Thief is a masterpiece!

[Mochaspresso]

Siobhan wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "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 p..."

I have been to England twice. I'm planning visit again in two years. European cruise.....

It may or May not be accurate, but The stereotype is common and the only reason I mentioned it was because another poster kept mentioning how one could be prosecuted for it in the uk.

[Emily]

@Ayesha- it was the first book I read this year and it is one of the best books i have ever had the pleasure to read. I just wonder how The Book Thief has a lower GR rating than this book??? I don't understand.

[Siobhan]

Emily wrote: "@Mochaspresso- A memorial is somewhere that people should hold a level of respect. It's wrong to make out in a memorial site. That is all.

@Aly- I hate how most of the TFiOS fans who comment in th..."

I thought this post was purely somewhere for those who disliked the book to find mutual ground. Trying to ignore most of the rationalisations for the book, I'm not in a pros and cons thread, just a con one.

[A]

Emily wrote; "@ Aly- I hate how most of the TFiOS fans who comment in this forum are so rude just because people don't like the book. It's actually ridiculous. Being hateful isn't going to change anyone's opinions on the book. It isn't like all of the forums are supposed to be TFiOS appreciacion forums. It's to discuss the book, which is exactly what everyone here is doing. We have valid argum......"

You should see the comment thread on my controversial review of TFIOS, it's swarming with trolls, death threats and cyberbullies.

[A]

Emily wrote: "@Ayesha- it was the first book I read this year and it is one of the best books i have ever had the pleasure to read. I just wonder how The Book Thief has a lower GR rating than this book??? I don'..."

IKR! That's so unfair, I blame teenagers' lack of critical thinking skills, respect and appreciation for history and good literature.

[A]

Emily, you should also read Jellicoe Road by Melina Marchetta, it's a masterpiece. Unfortunately, it's underrated and not many people know about it.

[Mochaspresso]

Emily wrote: "@Mochaspresso- A memorial is somewhere that people should hold a level of respect. It's wrong to make out in a memorial site. That is all.

@Aly- I hate how most of the TFiOS fans who comment in th..."

I agree but I don't think it's as big a deal as some are making it. I don't view the world in such rigid black and white terms,

Challenging an opinion is not being rude and valid arguments is a highly subjective concept. Hitler believed that he had valid arguments to justify genocide.

[Emily]

@Siobhan- I feel that the same way that the people who like this book don't have to give reasons why, we who don't like it shouldn't have to either. But because those who do like the book think we have no reason to "mindlessly hate" on TFiOS, we have logical reasons behind our dislike.

@Ayesha- Oh my God, I'm not surprised. TFiOS fans really can be vicious. They all think John Green is a literary god or something. I really liked LfA and enjoyed Paper Towns but this book really is ridiculous and people defend it like it's something incredible. The fact that the majority of these crazy fans are teenage girls really makes me ashamed of being a teenage girl. I wish all of the people who read this book had read The Book Thief instead. I can imagine that it's have something ridiculously high (but deserved) as the GR rating. This book is really an embarassment to literature when compared to a masterpiece such as The Book Thief.

[Emily]

@Ayesha- Jellicoe Road has been on my to-buy list for a while and I've really been needing to read it! I think I'm going to buy it soon. I've heard amazing things about it.

[Emily]

@Mochaspresso- I'm not talking about those who challenge my opinion, I'm talking about the people who are straight-up rude about it.
Also, Hitler had no proper reason to justify the mass murder of millions of people. He was just completely fucked up and in need of serious help. He may have thought he did, but don't compare anything to him because he must have had a real problem to think it's okay to kill millions of people.

[Mochaspresso]

Emily wrote: "@Mochaspresso- I'm not talking about those who challenge my opinion, I'm talking about the people who are straight-up rude about it.
Also, Hitler had no proper reason to justify the mass murder of..."

I am speaking for me. I have not been rude to you or to anyone else here.

The point is that Hitler genuinely believed that his justifications were valid and he wasn't alone. There were others that agreed with him.
Just because you think an argument is valid and others agree with you doesn't mean that it actually is. One poster said that that the YA genre didn't exist 20 years ago. That is not an opinion. That person said it as a statement of fact. A fact that is actually not true.

Another poster said that people go to the Anne Frank House to mourn. That is also not necessarily always the case. It is a museum and a memorial and I saw a bunch of tourists there during my visit.

If such a thing is so universally offensive to all, why did the directors of the Anne Frank House allow that scene to be filmed on location there?

http://fishingboatproceeds.tumblr.com...

Don't let your passionate hate of something cloud your ability to think pragmatically, listen and examine all sides.

[Mochaspresso]

Aly∞ wrote: "@Mochaspresso: I never said you can be arrested. I said you can be prosecuted: fined, community service, letter of apology."

Semantics. That is a very minor colloquial difference. The bigger concept is still essentially the same.

...but whatever.....I'll edit my comment to say "prosecuted".

[NL]

On a different note, I'm reading the book thief... Is it any good ( if you've read it)?

[NL]

TFIOS IS SHIT-SUCK IT UP AND GET OVER IT,

[Mochaspresso]

Aly∞ wrote: "It's not semantics if you put words in my mouth I never said. You've done this before.

Honestly, what do you get for trolling a thread designed for those who don't like the book? Why come here and be rude and upset people and force your opinions down our throats?

I'd like to point out I also never said your opinion was wrong, but you've told us a hundred times that we are wrong.


My apologies for saying that you said "arrested" as opposed to "prosecuted". I've edited my comment accordingly.

I'm not trolling. I am discussing the book just like anyone else. This is an open forum. You don't own it and you don't get to dictate what can or can't be said in it or who can post in it.

I was not rude and the expression of an opinion is not forcing it down your throat. You have the freedom to agree or disagree/accept or reject it. You have the freedom to not even read it all.

Some of the things that were said in this thread have actually been wrong.

So, you didn't actually say the words "you are wrong".....big whoop. You did insinuate it, though. I'm not even concerned with that anyway. I would actually prefer that over your rude question about "what the hell I teach my kids" and how "people like me" worry you.

[Mochaspresso]

I haven't read "The Book Thief" yet. Several adults have told me that it's good and a must read. Kids have given me mixed reviews about it. I downloaded the kindle sample. I haven't finished the sample but my first impression of the first few pages is that death is a rather annoying narrator. His POV takes away much of the "feeling"....the humanity. I should have been sad at the boy dying on the train and at the sister having to be dragged away from his grave. I should have been sad when she was given to foster parents and had to be dragged away from her mother. I wasn't sad because death is devoid of emotion and is telling the story like an impartial and impassive bystander.

I may come around as I read on, but I don't always like when books don't make me feel.

[Mochaspresso]

Aly∞ wrote: "Sorry, but it's true. It DOES worry me.

I re-read the passage where they kiss in Anne Frank's house, and the tourists actually expressed their distaste and disrespect. I'm surprised John Green sti..."


???

That isn't true. That didn't happen in the book. It says that they were staring and Hazel's first thought was that they were angry but then they started cheering and applauding.

I realized that my eyes were closed and opened them. Augustus was staring at me, his blue eyes closer to me than they’d ever been, and behind him, a crowd of people three deep had sort of circled around us. They were angry, I thought. Horrified. These teenagers, with their hormones, making out beneath a video broadcasting the shattered voice of a former father. I pulled away from Augustus, and he snuck a peck onto my forehead as I stared down at my Chuck Taylors. And then they started clapping. All the people, all these adults, just started clapping, and one shouted “Bravo!” in a European accent. Augustus, smiling, bowed. Laughing, I curtsied ever so slightly, which was met with another round of applause. Read more at location 2156

[Sara]

@Mocha: by making Hazel and Gus kiss at Anne Frank's house he was romanticizing the Holocaust and deaths of millions of people. No matter which way you cut it, it IS wrong. Who cares if other things are more or less disrespectful? At the end of the day if something is wrong, it's wrong. No need to compare it to worse things. (Sorry if I'm late with this argument lol.)

[Mochaspresso]

Sara wrote: "@Mocha: by making Hazel and Gus kiss at Anne Frank's house he was romanticizing the Holocaust and deaths of millions of people. No matter which way you cut it, it IS wrong. Who cares if other things are more or less disrespectful? At the end of the day if something is wrong, it's wrong. No need to compare it to worse things. (Sorry if I'm late with this argument lol.)

I don't think it was appropriate but I don't think that it romanticizes the Holocaust and the deaths of millions of people either. Not by a long shot. I think that's gross exaggeration. Perhaps we have different perceptions/definitions of the word "romanticize"? Romanticize means to make something seem better or more appealing than it actually is. This doesn't make the Holocaust seem more appealing and based on the conversation that Hazel and Gus have during their visit, they seem to be very mindful and reverent of the history of the location. The Anne Frank House is a place that is merely the setting for one particular scene in the story. TFIOS is not about Anne Frank or the museum. It is about Hazel and Gus.

If that one scene in TFIOS romanticizes the holocaust, it seems to me that "The Reader" should have caught way more flack for romanticizing it as well.

[Mochaspresso]

Aly∞ wrote: "That's not what it says in my copy. Please ask before accusing me of lying. I gave the unedited version, which I just saw now in the notes at the front."

???

I didn't accuse you of lying. I said that what you stated wasn't true and that's not what the book says.

You inferred something negative that wasn't there, implied or even intended. There are many reasons for a person saying something that is not true. (honest mistake, misinformation, misunderstanding, etc..) Flat out lying is not the only one and you shouldn't have automatically jumped to the most negative conclusion. If there is one thing that I am, I believe that it is direct and clear. If I think you are lying, I won't mince words. I will come straight out and say so.

Out of curiosity, is your review based on an unedited version? If so, is that really fair if significant changes have been made?

[Sara]

Charlotte wrote: "Sara wrote: "@Mocha: by making Hazel and Gus kiss at Anne Frank's house he was romanticizing the Holocaust and deaths of millions of people. No matter which way you cut it, it IS wrong. Who cares i..."

Yes! In this book John Green did try to romanticize death if not the Holocaust in particular. Why else would he make them kiss in the Holocaust memorial—a memorial for millions of people who were murdered on the basis of their religion, looks, and, for some, their sexuality. If I'm not mistaken, he didn't even highlight the history of this genocide, he just made them have their innocent little first kiss there. Also he made both the main characters have cancer for honestly no reason except to make the story seem tragic and deep. He was in no way trying to inform people about cancer itself. Is there any reason Hazel and Gus had cancer besides the certainty that one of them was going to die at the end and for the novel to seem deep? I believe that's the only reason because he didn't even really go into detail about how they truly felt about having cancer or how it impacted their lives so greatly. Instead he made up things like "cancer perks." I think Green was just trying to make Gus's death at the hands of cancer seem like something poetic or whatever.

[Mochaspresso]

Before I say what I intend to say, let's get something clear. It's great that people are sharing opinions. When I post something in response to someone's opinion, it is not to shove my own opinion down anyone's throat. One of the things that people should understand about opinions is that some can actually be false if they are based on faulty information.

@sara said If I'm not mistaken, he didn't even highlight the history of this genocide, he just made them have their innocent little first kiss there.

This is not true. Their visit to the Anne Frank House is too long to post, but I think you should go back and read from pg. 197. Now, whether you think he gave enough history is certainly up for debate. I personally think that he did. However, to say that he gave none is not true at all. He did give some history. Also, considering the fact that the "Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl" is required reading for just about every middle schooler or HS aged student in the United States and this is a YA book that targets that age range, the average reader likely already knows the Anne Frank story and does not necessarily need it retold to them in yet another history lesson. This next part is my opinion, but I think that type of deviation would have been unnecessary and detracted from the original story that JG was trying to tell, Hazel and Gus' story.

@sara said Also he made both the main characters have cancer for honestly no reason except to make the story seem tragic and deep. He was in no way trying to inform people about cancer itself. Is there any reason Hazel and Gus had cancer besides the certainty that one of them was going to die at the end and for the novel to seem deep? I believe that's the only reason because he didn't even really go into detail about how they truly felt about having cancer or how it impacted their lives so greatly. Instead he made up things like "cancer perks." I think Green was just trying to make Gus's death at the hands of cancer seem like something poetic or whatever.

A lot of this is also not true. John Green has stated that the inspiration for TFIOS and for Hazel''s character is based on a girl who died of cancer that he met while he worked as a chaplain in a children's hospital. Her name was Esther Grace and her diary was published.



Hazel Grace and Augustus do not have cancer for no reason or to just seem deep. They have cancer because the girl that Hazel's character is based on had cancer.

I disagree that JG didn't go into detail about how they felt about having cancer or how it impacted their lives. I could probably write a thesis with tons of quotes from the book on just that subject alone. The first page of the book starts with the fact that Hazel had been diagnosed with depression. That was the reason why she began going to the support group in the first place. I also think that the book does a very good job of giving info on how cancer has affected Hazel's, Gus' and Isaac's life without detracting from their characters and thus, making them and the book all about their illness. I think that was deliberate on JG's part considering that when Gus and Hazel meet and are getting to know each other, he asks her "What's your story?", when she starts to talk about her illness, he interrupts her and says, "No, not your cancer story. Your story?"

I'm curious as to why you say that JG tried to make Gus' death poetic? Please, explain. How so? I saw his death as ironic. Not as poetic. Again, please explain.

[Tayler]

I don't hate it, but I will say that John Greens other books are better. I don't really understand all the hype. I mean, Paper Towns and Looking for Alaska are true masterpieces, and TFioS was just OK.

[Sara]

Mochaspresso:

Actually in my middle school (in America) it wasn't a required reading. You shouldn't speak for all schools when you only attended one. It's also not impossible for someone to have known about the Holocaust but not Anne Frank and her life. TFIOS was published in more countries than just United States and I can't say wether they're taught about Anne Frank or not so.

Also I didn't know that Green based the story off of a girl who had cancer. All I'm saying is that he didn't give much detail about Hazel having cancer which in turn made it seem pointless to give her this illness (now I know he based the book off that girl though). Now I read this book in early 2013 so correct me if I'm wrong, but John Green didn't talk much about her treatment or medication. He didn't speak on the side effects of this treatment. I think he wrote that she threw up a few times but other than that all I really remember about her having cancer is that her dad cried a lot and she had an oxygen tank named Phillip.

About Gus's death, I didn't mean necessarily that Green made his death like poetry in the literal since. He just...how do I say this? He didn't talk about the ugly side of cancer. If Gus didn't tell Hazel outright that he was dying, I wouldn't even have noticed. Wouldn't he have felt some sort of pain or wouldn't he even feel upset? Angry? Sad? He was in remission for a while and as far as he knew, safe from death. Then all of the sudden his cancer is back and he's seventeen and he's in love and he's going to die. After he met this girl that he loved so much, he's just going to die. I just find it hard to believe that he didn't feel any of these types of emotions and that he didn't go through any type of pain or suffering. He was just there in Europe having sex with Hazel one night and in a coffin the next. So that's what I meant by that.

[Sara]

I guess I wanted to know more about how they balanced their everyday lives (being a teenager, boy/girlfriends, and so on) with cancer. You know, doctor visits, chemotherapy, medication, etc. But the book didn't deliver as much information on cancer as it did about the everyday trials and tribulations of being a teenager. If I wanted to read a story just about love, I'd read any other young adults novel, but I came to this book to learn how Hazel coped with having cancer at seventeen. It didn't deliver because she didn't really like talking about sickness. I would've liked the book better if it was about Lucas (was that his name?) because his life as a teenager was more heavily influenced by his cancer. His eyesight was taken away thanks to his illness and his girlfriend left him because of that reason. Hazel was able to maintain a somewhat normal life with her illness but I can't say the same for Lucas. I hope I properly articulated my point.

[Alyson]

My teen had cancer. Am I biased, yes. Hated it. So much.....

[Mochaspresso]

@sara check the required readibg lists available online. most schools post them these days. many schools do in fact have that book on their list. either in hs or middle school.

[Sara]

Mochaspresso: my school didn't so the list is apparently wrong. I asked my friends who attended different middle schools in my district and they weren't required to read it either.

[Mochaspresso]

a general suggestion to any young people. find the required reading list for the best hs in your area and try reading some of the books on it. even if it isn't required at your school. you will be better off and better prepared for college.

[Makaela]

I kind of agree with you. Yet, at the same time, I don't.

TFioS is absolutely amazing. I am not speaking for you, but I do know that most people don't like it because the ending is not what most people expect out of a book. Everyone expects that the author will write an ending where everything turns out perfectly and everyone gets what they want. In TFioS, John Green did the unexpected and wrote an ending that would surprise everyone and that some people would not like. I get that.

I think that the reason why there is so much talk about this book is because John Green does what nobody really wanted him to do. Most authors don't do this. They decide that they want to keep their readers happy and write the ending that is expected. John Green has the courage to write an ending that actually shows people that not everything always works out. In fact, life is unfair and it is NOT like what people write. Miracles don't always happen. People die. This is why so many people have fallen in love with Hazel and Augustus. Their life is unconventional. The book shows the truth about life that not everything works out.

The reason that I agree with you is that I was disappointed with the book in some ways. Mostly with the ending, but also with parts of the plot that seemed so implausible.

All in all, I like that you have the courage to stand up and say that you don't like a book that everyone else seems to cherish. Personally, I loved the book, but think that the obsession over it needs to stop.

[Mochaspresso]

also check the summer reading lists.

[A]

JG had mentioned on his tumblr about shooting in Anne Frank's house-

"I know I speak for everyone involved in The Fault in Our Stars film in thanking the Anne Frank House for sharing their sacred space with our story. It was the best place to end the journey of filming the movie, and they were such gracious hosts."

I'm pretty sure the curator of the museum was not aware that the movie makers were going to shoot a kissing scene in the attic or that shot was simply taken in the studio because in no way such a disgusting scene would be allowed to be shot at a revered site especially in front of so many Europeans. Whatever it is, if it's wrong it's wrong, don't try to prove it's right or ok. That kiss in ANF's house was disrespectful and no amount of links, photos, comments etc. from fans' side will change my opinion. Honestly, I'm not even taking fans' defense of that scene seriously.

[Nayelly]

I don't hate this book with a burning passion, but I agree it's not as good as everyone said it would be. I guess it was alright, I enjoyed it for the most part, but when asked if I would recommend it I am honestly left to say "no comment"

[Nayelly]

Zyair wrote: "Over hyped and wasn't very interesting"
agree

[Emily]

Do people not understand that this is a thread for people who don't likw the freaking book?? It's not like everyone on this thread goes to one that is for people who enjoyed the book and comments that they hated it and all of the reasons why.

If you don't dislike the book, don't come here. I don't mean to sound rude but no one really cares why you think TFiOS is a masterpiece and it's not going to change the opinions of anyone here.

[Emily]

@Ayesha- All of my friends think that the kiss in the Anne Frank House was okay and honestly I'm disgusted. Even if I weren't Jewish and had no "connection" to the Holocaust, I would still find it disrespectful. How do people not realise how rude it is and defend the book? It's honestly ridiculous.

[Siobhan]

Makaela wrote: "I kind of agree with you. Yet, at the same time, I don't.

TFioS is absolutely amazing. I am not speaking for you, but I do know that most people don't like it because the ending is not what most ..."

Sweetie, I'm going to do a public service here, and recommend you read two of my favourite books. We Need To Talk About Kevin, by Lionel Shriver. The End Of Mr Y, by Scarlett Thomas. Read, absorb, and then rationalise whether John Green did anything truly remarkable with the end of TFIOS. He followed a trope. Read these. And if it doesn't overwhelm you, The Count Of Monte Cristo, by Alexandre Dumas and Anna Karenina, by Leo Tolstoy. Hell, The Portrait Of Dorian Grey as well!

There you go, five recommendations, five awe-inspiring books, intricately told, well characterised, easy to imagine, all far more devestating and unexpected than this book.

[Aria]

In my opinion, a lot of the plots and characters between John Green's books are the same.

[Sara]

Aria: that's exactly how I feel. Looking for Alaska and Paper Towns were so similar it was ridiculous really. Both main characters were smart, not very popular teenage boys who were in love with mysterious, damaged girls who never end up loving them back. I haven't read An Abundance of Katherines yet but the plot sounds just the same as the others: a smart high school boy is in love with an unattainable girl.

[Sk888888]

Not a fan of this book either. Didn't hate it, but wondered what all the fuss was about.

[Aria]

@Sara
I read An Abundance of Katherines and although I didn't finish it, I could still tell it was the same plot all over again. Once you've read one book written by Green, you've read them all.

[Emily]

I have read TFiOS, Looking for Alaska and Paper Towns and completely agree. The characters are really similar (Hazel is more of a female Augustus/Quentin/Miles than a MPDG kind of character such as Margo or Alaska) and the plot is quite similar between Paper Towns and TFiOS (road trip in Paper Towns/Amsterdam trip in TFiOS). I love Looking for Alaska and enjoyed Paper Towns, but TFiOS just annoyed me. It was ridiculously pretentious, even for a John Green novel, it romanticised cancer and disrespected all of those who were killed in the Holocaust.

[Janae ｡◕‿◕｡]

I do think this book was basically pointless, but overall, to me, it was a good book. John Green is just an amazing author.

[Emily]

Rumour has it that Green's writing a new novel about teenage double amputees that fall in love. I'm not even kidding. (Romanticizing health problems/illness much?)

Just to top it off, the male love interest/lead's name is d'Artagnan. Literally the most pretentious name there ever was.

I'm going to read it. I don't know why. Let's hope it's better than TFiOS.

[Sara]

He is romanticizing illnesses in almost all of his novels. In Looking for Alaska it was depression. Although it was never stated that Alaska had depression, it was easy to conclude. In Paper Towns Quentin was so quick to label Margo as suicidal and was obsessed with trying to save her. It was even to the point that he was just planning to find her body. Then in TFIOS he romanticized cancer.

[Emily]

I would actually like his novels more (apart from this one) if he had left illness out of it. I would still not like TFiOS because of the insta-love. It isn't necessary in every story, John Green. Some stories need it as one of their main plot points but it isn't needed in stories where it's not an actual part of the plot that impacts the story in one way or another.