Allegiant
discussion
Allegiant ending: Do you agree with me?
date
newest »
newest »
I think the way she died actually makes sense in the fact it is senseless and unfair. Death in reality is senseless and unfair and hard to understand, many people don’t have a noble death. People die from senseless acts all the time, even good people - drink driving/muggings/wrong place, wrong time/drive-bys/etc.I think it holds a strong and powerful message that death is senseless and unfair, and this message should be kept. It’s one of the only few good points in the last book.
I respect your opinions but I very much disagree with both of you.If your going to do something like kill a main character you have to have a really good reason for it. It needs to advance the story or open up other stories to be told. Or by going out the other characters have to make huge jumps at character development.
Did Tris death actually accomplish anything? Would the story have been different if Tris was alive and Caleb or better yet no one died? No the story would have ended the same if she had escaped. No one learns anything from this or gain any character develpoment other then "My life is so sad now"
Also think about the amount of things that had to go wrong to make this ending work. There is a building that no one can get into that has a super death serum that will kill anyone that goes in it. Caleb suit breaks, the door takes a long time to open, Tris is on time limit. Tris survives the death serum. David comes in at that exact moment. So to sum it up, Yes her death saved the town but it also would have saved the town if there was no death serum at all or if they had another hour or any number of events. If you have to have a million Deus ex machina to make a storyline work, that's not good story telling and again makes her death feel meaningless because it's just the result of really bad luck.
This type of character death just feels manipulative. It feels like the only reason the author did it was to scream at us "THIS IS SAAAAAAD" Not helping is the million things she put in there to make it work. This is the charcter death I hate. The shock value death. And that is exactly what this felt like.
But ok, maybe as Nuran said it was meant to be meaningless. Now personally I don't think that's what the author was going for, it doesn't seem like that type of book. But for the sake of argument let's say that this is meant to be a comment on how meaningless death is.
Well for starters it comes out of no where. Besides other characters death (Which felt just as meaningless to me) this was never mentioned so why bring this up at the last minute?
Also you are just asking for trouble if that's the case. You give us this character that you get really attached only to rip her away from us to make a statement, it may work but of course it's going to make people mad.
Finally think about the ending, they rebuild Chicago, Peter creates a new life, Tobais and Cristina try to move on. They push this idea of hope, that you can always try again and never give up in life. That very much conflicts with the idea that death is meaningless and will grab you at any moment. That's basically saying "Always try again but it won't matter because you will die and lose all that"
A better moral would have been that war is meaningless. That fighting will never lead to anything and that is always another way. If that's what she was going for, well it works and that would explain the ending. But too many ex machina's and manipulation to truly make it work.
Overall it's not the worst character death i've seen (At least she died for something) but it still was an awful ending.
Nuran wrote: "I think the way she died actually makes sense in the fact it is senseless and unfair. Death in reality is senseless and unfair and hard to understand, many people don’t have a noble death. Pe..."While senseless deaths are all too common in real life, they often flop utterly in fiction because it disrupts the flow of the story. If senseless deaths had been more common and better executed throughout the series, it might have worked, but it here it just came out of nowhere while negating the primary moral of Insurgent: that one should live for one's cause to honor those that have sacrificed their lives, rather than follow them in martyrdom.
Joseph wrote: "I respect your opinions but I very much disagree with both of you.
If you're going to do something like kill a main character you have to have a really good reason for it. It needs to adv..."
Yeah, this is pretty much my sentiment.
There were plenty of unfair deaths throughout the series - Will, Uriah (merely a bystander in an explosion), Tori just before she could be reunited her brother, Marlene (there was a chance to save her but Tris couldn't save two at once) and the kid killed by Eric just because he was divergent. Do their deaths mean less just because they're not the main character? Tris's death didn't come out of nowhere, it shows even the main character is not immune to an unfair death. Tris wanted to live, she hoped she would have a chance to survive above her brother because she was divergent, so it didn't feel like she martyed herself. And she was right, she would have survived if it wasn't for the bullet.
I agree with matthew and joseph. Yes, in real life 'senseless' tragedies occur all too often. But this is a book, not real life. The fact that people are debating this ending shows something was not executed well. The author's point was lost. Authors do need to follow certain literary rules, not formulas necessarily.
I think the author make a good decision to let Tris die. This was a real plot twist for me. I really didn't expect her to die. I read a lot of fantasy books and most of the time the "hero" doesn't die, that Tris dies here makes the book more unique. (Still I was very angry and sad, because I really liked her and it was very sad for Four!)
I have nothing against a main character dying as long as it makes sense and furthers the story. In this case, it did neither. I think killing off Tris was not only unnecessary, I believe it was was simply done, in my opinion, for shock value. At best it was simply anticlimactic. I got that a lot of people thought that it showed how brave and self-sacrificing Tris is, but that was endlessly emphasized throughout the whole Trilogy, so it didn't add a single thing to the story.I also saw both on Goodreads and Amazon that many readers felt Ms. Roth used the Deus ex Machina method far too much in Allegiant and to a smaller degree in Insurgent. In fact, I felt she relied on it far too much throughout both books. She simply wrote herself into a corner too many times and needed some contrivance to get her out. When used right, it's great, but in the case of Allegiant, it became ridiculous.
The story just got totally lost. Add to that killing off the main character which in no way added to or furthered the story and it became confusing & left me quite simply at a loss for what to say or think about whether reading the whole trilogy was simply a waste of time. It was all over the place, which is sad because after reading Divergent, I was so looking forward to the whole trilogy. It seems to me that Ms. Roth used all of her best storytelling on Divergent, and simply ran out of ideas starting with Insurgent & and moving onward to Allegiant, thereby making it necessary to add some shock value by killing off some of the characters unnecessarily including the main character as well as backpedaling on some parts of the story in order to make it fit the new direction in which she moved the story, which just became confusing & frustrating. All I want out of an author is a well-told story, when it becomes less than that for me, I feel like it was simply a waste of time.
In the end, the directionless telling of the backstory and the unnecessary killing off of the main character as well as some of the other characters, my reading experience wasn't as enjoyable as I expected it to be.
I read a post from realty today that Veronica Roth said they will stick to the book ending. It said tris dies near end of film. Blah. That stinks if it's true. I know people will say these reports may not be trup but it even says 'in spite of petitions...' disappointed.
And then another source says they may alter the ending. This is tiring. I just want to know so that I can drop this whole matter once and for all. As I've said, I won't bother seeing any more movies is she dies.
And then there's another source saying she may alter it. I just want to know so I can move on and leave it behind. Are they doing this on purpose? I'm actually getting angry over this. Without being too mean, the author gives us a disappointing ending, and people who CARE ask the movie executives to change it(so it doesn't bomb) and she still won't / might not change it? I read young adult because it's a safe read. It's usually adventurous and all that. If i had wanted tragic, senseless death i would watch american sniper. So angry at the absence of logic. That's my rant. I'm just done with it.
I guess her death could've gone a little bit more poetically, but no matter how strong her mind was, she was never invincible. Dying by getting shot kind of made you realize that truth about her; I think that if you read into it the right way, it made sense.
I think, honestly, her death was meant, it was ironic! She goes through two books not being able to shoot people without immense guilt, to being shot herself. I feel like the way she died was the way her mother died, which is most likely why she sees her mum in the end. They both died doing what was right and saving someone they loved.I mean there are many other ways she could have died but i think this way was fitting.
I think being shot was okay, but I think someone else should have shot her. It wasn't really a shock that David was an enemy, we mostly already knew that. It was also upsetting that both Uriah and Marlene died.
I think Tris was little stupid. She was always want to go death. I am just so bored to that. And the death of the main character isn't good thing.But yes, it did sense. That don't mean I like it. And now Four is alone.
I agree with you!! 100%
i don't agree she was a main character that didn't deserve to die so they should change that part to i agree with anita
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Ok so some say tris's death did make sense. Some say it didn't. I honestly believe that tris's death isn't the problem here, but the real problem is how she died!! Like are u kdg?? She actually survived the death serum, but then got shot?! I dont want them to change the ending in the movie, but i do want them to change this part.