Looking for Alaska
discussion
Did anyone else find this book repulsive?
Maybe you'll be offended by my reply, just bear in mind that I do not intend to offend you or your lifestyle.I think that John Green tries a little too hard to appeal to teenagers, and in this book you can see in the way he attempts to portray our lifestyle (I'm 17, by the way so I can relate right now). The fact is that I swear, a lot. I swear when something is very good, or very bad or very mediocre. I hardly ever use swear words aimed at offending people, because even if I say that someone is a bitch I don't really think so. I don't see anything wrong with swearing unless it's used to verbally abuse someone else. I did find the language in the book colloquial, but I didn't even notice the swearing until you brought it up.
Now with the illegal part of teenage lifestyle. Another thing I should clear up, in my country you can smoke when you're sixteen and drink at 18, so it might be considered more outrageous to do so in America, where I assume all of the internet is from :). Well, I smoke too, I've been a smoker for a bit over a year. I started socially smoking (half of my friends smoked at that time), then I started to stress-smoke and now I just smoke mindlessly. I know it's bad, I'm aware, I've tried to kick the habit way too many times, but everyone around me smokes, so I can't. Everyone in my school smokes, almost literally, I go to a small school of about 200 students and I can only name less than 10 students who don't. Teachers don't care either, my parents don't care either, and they're not neglectful in any way, they just see it as teenage rebellion.
And now for the drinking, oh the drinking. I go out every Friday and Saturday, I don't always get fall down drunk but I always drink. I've learned my boundaries, I know that even though I might feel fine now, a shot is probably not a good idea, and also, I have gotten so drunk I've made a fool of myself, but I know what I'm doing when I drink, then again, I don't drink to evade myself or anything, I drink because it's fun and I'm young.
I'm not going to talk about the sex so much because that is a very personal topic, but my group of friends is a pretty large, mixed sex one, and of course, we talk about sex a lot, and very openly. We are very natural about it, too. No need to use euphemisms to refer to genitalia, we're not 7 any more. Anyway, I found the sexual references in the book fairly vanilla.
Now, I imagine that if I were in the situation of the book's characters, I would behave the same way as they do. Probably minus the pranks because I don't get the point of those.
What did bother me in the book, though, is that, even if I could relate my life to theirs, it felt as if the author was trying too hard for me to relate, not even exaggerating,these "vices" just throwing it at my face.
Again, sorry if I was too blunt, but I would love it if you'd reply expanding your point of view.
Lide wrote: "Maybe you'll be offended by my reply, just bear in mind that I do not intend to offend you or your lifestyle.I think that John Green tries a little too hard to appeal to teenagers, and in this bo..."
I do understand what you're saying, and I guess it was really the last sentence you said that I agree with.
John Green is an adult, and married. So to read something you know an adult wrote, and have it be as... The way it was, was pretty gross.
On further thought, i guess that's more what I meant. He was trying to appeal to teens in a way that doesn't necessarily appeal to all teens.
The fact that he was an adult trying to write as a stereotypical american teen was just wrong.
I don't know where you live, but you did say your laws are different then America's, which definitely changes the situation I think.
Hi I pretty much enjoyed reading this book; didn't feel offended by the choice of wording.I think it's hard to write something that would appeal to all teens; that seems fairly impossible to me; since we are all (teens & adults) different.
I didn't like it. It just didn't feel realistic for being a realistic fiction book.
Susannah wrote: "I think it's hard to write something that would appeal to all teens; that seems fairly impossible to me; s..."I do feel, though, that coming of age is a universal experience we can all relate too.
no the book was amazing. how can one find it repulsive? john green perfectly carved this book piece by piece in a manner that will want the reader to read more and more because of the suspense they are left in word after word. it is a coming of age themed book that i think every teenager can relate to in one way or the other.
Rachel wrote: "I've been seeing a lot of love for this book and was wondering if anyone else hated it like I did. I couldn't see a conflict in it all all, I hated all the characters too. But then we get to the f..."
i don't know HOW you could possibly find the book repulsive just because of the sexual references. this book is not NEAR as sexually graphic as 50 shades of grey. the best john green talks about (referring to sexual talks) is the part where pudge watches porn with the colonel (in alaska's room i think. You have to grow up and realize that you are maturing every day whether you like it or not. The things john green talks about in the book actually happens in real life and it is about time someone stopped just putting it somewhere and just write fantasy themed stories where there is a loving ending. John Green brought people to their senses relating to mature matters because it is something we will all have to face one day. you don't have to do all the "bad" things that the group does in the book, i just think john green chose to talk about them because he is one of the fearless young authors who will talk about it because we are growing day by day, second by second, and we cannot afford to be ignorant and illiterate about such important matters. In the phillipines, YOUNG CHILDREN RANGING FROM AGE 3-14 SMOKE LEGIT CIGARETTES AND WE SHOULD JUST BE HAPPY THAT JOHN GREEN BROUGHT THIS BOOK TO OUR ATTENTION, SO BE GRATEFUL AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SEXUAL REFERENCES MADE IN THE BOOK. BE MATURE.
Abey wrote: "Rachel wrote: "I've been seeing a lot of love for this book and was wondering if anyone else hated it like I did. I couldn't see a conflict in it all all, I hated all the characters too. But then ..."
Ok, I have a couple comments on this and I'm going to be as polite as I can.
First of all, the way that that the subjects are shown in the books is very positive. Yes, they do happen ever day. Kids smoke, kids drink, kids have sex, I get it. However, the way John Green showed it was under NO circumstances "brought to our attention" as you said. He was portraying it as if every teen did this and it was perfectly fine and normal.
Second of all, I really don't appreciate you yelling at me the way you did. I posted this seeing if anyone agreed with me. If you don't, then ignore the post and move on.
Third, watching the porn was not the most sexual part. That was either the blow job or Pudge and Alaska making out the night she dies. I also have not read 50 shades of grey. I knew that one was inappropriate, it isn't even aimed at YA, like Looking for Alaska is.
I still can't get over the fact that you called John Green brave for bringing up growing topics. If he was doing that, he would have shown the drinking and smoking and everything else in a negative light, not a positive one.
I'm sorry if that was rude, but you were literally yelling at me in your last post, which I did not see necessary.
This is all my opinion. You can disagree with me, that's fine, you are entitled to an opinion too. However, just because you don't agree doesn't mean you have to say my opinion is wrong. It certainly doesn't mean you have to yell at me.
Now you can like the book, you can say it's "mature" all you want. You are simply wrong on your statement that John Green was raising awareness of situations, because he wasn't.
Aww, I really don't want to offend anyone! I'm a big VlogBrothers fan and have been for years now. I really do love John Green and I'm happy that he's become the author he has but I never enjoyed his books as much as I thought I would.He has good prose and a great sense of dialogue but I just can't really stick to his stories.
Looking for Alaska was the worst book I have ever read. I loved the characters and the settings but I absolutely hated the plot. I was swept in with certain words only to be bored with a flat turning point in and long dragging and nagging chapters.
Once again I apologize, but I really think he was trying to hard in this book. It felt like it was almost forced.
I, like Rachel, read The Fault in Our Stars before reading Looking For Alaska. I was disappointed that, for me, Looking for Alaska did not grip me and appeal to me in the same way The Fault in Our Stars did. The relationship between Pudge and Alaska was realistic enough to keep me reading though. While I did not find the novel to be repulsive (I have read way worse), I can see where Rachel is coming from as a Christian myself. As a librarian, I consume a lot of pop culture (books, movies, music) that challenges my beliefs and gives me questions to think about regarding society and the way I live my life. As I am in my late 20s now, I am more comfortable with myself and the decisions I make which was not so much the case at 17.
My advice to Rachel would be to not force yourself to read anything that makes you truly uncomfortable, which this seems to have made you. Reading is meant to be enjoyable! People will try and tell you that you are immature for not experiencing sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll by a certain age. Don't listen to them. You have the choice to experience it all (don't do drugs) when you are ready - they can't undo what they have experienced. In saying all that, you do have to be prepared that there are people like the characters in the novel out in the real world. You will have to take classes with these people and go to work with them later on.
As for my opinion of Mr. Green - I think he has grown as a writer and am interested in what his next book will be. Would I call him brave for addressing sex openly in young adult fiction? No, not really. He is addressing what some teenagers (and adults) want to read about. I haven't read all his books so not sure if he addresses religion at all. I would be interested to read his take on the topic as it can be a sensitive issue.
This contains spoilers. When John Green write this book, he was in his twenties and not married. He has since explained that every dodgy thing that the characters did was done by either him or his friends when he went to boarding school.
The external conflict is when Pudge and his friends are trying to figure out what choice Alaska made the night of the car crash. Another conflict is the discovery that Alaska was more then what they knew her to be.
You are supposed to hate Alaska. She was a pretty shitty person. Most teenagers, such as me and my friends, are.
I'm not sure what age you are, my guess is around thirteen, fourteen? If I had read this book when I was thirteen, I would have agreed with you. I would have said it was unrealistic and inappropriate. But I didn't.
Teenagers drink, teenagers smoke, teenagers have sex and give blowjobs and watch porn. It is pretty realistic. Being a teenager is not like High School Musical. It's a lot more complicated than that. You'll see.
As for religion, that's actually one of the central themes in the book. How can we escape the labyrinth of suffering? The Colonel says that the labyrinth sucks, but he chooses to suffer and reap it's rewards. That's an atheist point of view. Alaska says that the way to escape is straight and fast, trusting that something will save her.
Pudge has the Christian view. He says that the only way out of the labyrinth of suffering is to forgive. He believes forgiveness will save him when he dies. That is in keeping with your religion.
I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but I think you were too young for the book. Maybe you might read it later on and like it. Or maybe not. But dismissing it as repulsive because it doesn't relate to your experiences isn't a good way to judge any book.
Maire wrote: "This contains spoilers. When John Green write this book, he was in his twenties and not married. He has since explained that every dodgy thing that the characters did was done by either him or his..."
I'm fifteen. I just finished my freshmen year of high school, I ride the bus. I see it, I hear about all of it. But at the same time, it's not like every kid at my school watches porn or does drugs, which seems to be the case in Looking for Alaska.
I will say, knowing he wasn't married yet definitely helps, because that was what I disliked the most. Seeing him as married, and writing about all of this stuff just didn't feel right.
David wrote: "I, like Rachel, read The Fault in Our Stars before reading Looking For Alaska. I was disappointed that, for me, Looking for Alaska did not grip me and appeal to me in the same way The Fault in Our ..."Thank you very much for this response! I usually wouldn't read things like this, but when I read about it, it seemed like it would be ok.
The way I've seen the mature part is always as two different definitions. One being that you no longer see yourself as a kid, you can do whatever you want, whenever you want. Be it try drugs, have sex, whatever.
Then there is another definition, which is also no longer seeing yourself as a child, but rather than acting like you aren't one, you act like an adult. You have the actions have consequences thinking, so you don't try the things other kids might.
It seems to me that most younger kids see the first definition as correct, and most adults see the second.
Like you, I simply think he was writing what he did because it's what the readers wanted, not to be brave.
I'd really like to see his opinion as well, especially on the religion aspect of the book.
I read An Abundance of Katherines before I read any of John's other books. I personally like to read a different book by the author before I read the most popular (The Fault In Our Stars). And I think that everyone should be aware that just because the book is by the same author doesn't mean you'll like it. I read Eleanor and Park by Rainbow Rowell and thought it was just okay. Then I read Fangirl by the same author and loved it. Now, John does use mature themes there is no denying that. But they were there in TFiOS too, they just weren't as obvious because cancer was the main theme and they're easy to overlook. And here they seem a little overwhelming, I understand. And honestly I liked this book, but I liked An Abundance of Katherines and TFiOS a lot more.
It's really all up to you to monitor what you read. If mature themes are too much for you than it is up to you to avoid them because there are people out there who can handle them, even enjoy them. When a book is written it's not going to please everyone, but I'd say John's doing an okay job for himself, wouldn't you?
Abey wrote: "Rachel wrote: "I've been seeing a lot of love for this book and was wondering if anyone else hated it like I did. I couldn't see a conflict in it all all, I hated all the characters too. But then ..."
Just as a comment: I don't think that "looking for Alaska" and "50 shades" were meant to be in the same category. According to me 50 shades is not intended for YA at all.
Susannah wrote: "Abey wrote: "Rachel wrote: "I've been seeing a lot of love for this book and was wondering if anyone else hated it like I did. I couldn't see a conflict in it all all, I hated all the characters t..."
Not at all, that's advertised for adults. That's why I didn't read it.
I did; but honestly it's poorly written, very repetitive and far from reality.
i didnt think it was badly written. and quiet on the contrary, i think John Green is just great at writing YA books. so what if hes married. that makes it even more amazing that he can appeal to young readers. i do however agree that this wasnt one of his better books. it was actually probably my least favorite out of all of his books that i have read. i didnt like the main character, and the characters in general just kinda got on my nerevs. the cussing didnt bother me at all to be honest though. but still, i love John Green and his books (GO NERDFIGHTERS!) and im not trying to offend anyone or anything. everybody is entitled to their opinion. :)
I don't have a problem with adults writing YA. Most YA writers are adults. Probably a lot of them are married. And many of them write about controversial topics. John Green is known for writing teen sex in a non-shaming way. A lot of adults like his books for presenting sex in a 'healthy' way--or so I've gleaned from reading a lot of posts around Goodreads. So, if you don't share that opinion, you might steer clear of some of his other books. TFIOS, while not graphic, also presents it as a completely normal part of teenage life. It wasn't a huge deal in the book at all. It just happened.That said, I did not care for Looking for Alaska. Like many others here, it seemed like the author was trying too hard. I felt like he was trying to show how clever and witty he was. I thought TFIOS did the same, but not nearly as bad in that regard. The author is smart and I understand that, but I don't need it shoved down my throat so hard.
As far as the sex--this was one of the first YA books I read as an adult, and I do remember being shocked that the BJ scene was included in a book for teens. Since then, I've read much, much more graphic YA.
@Rachel--have you tried reading Christian fiction for teens? I don't read much of it, but there are some funny, clean ones on the market nowadays.
I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but I think you were too young for the book. Maybe you might read it later on and like it. Or maybe not. But dismissing it as repulsive because it doesn't relate to your experiences isn't a good way to judge any book. I agree and I probably would've said similiar things when I was Rachel's age.
I think this is one of John Green's best written novels and despite what some may think, much more realistic than The Fault in Our Stars.
I did really like Looking for Alaska. That being said... I agree with Rachel. I am a Junior in High School so I know what SOME high schoolers are like. The problem becomes, this is what John Green portrays ALL high schoolers as being. He has this steriotype not just in Alaska but in Katherine's, Paper Towns, and TFiOS as well. All of his books seem to say that high schoolers should and will be reckless and do crazy things because "they are young". Many of the things that the characters do in Alaska scare me to death because (besides not wanting to do them) I would never have the courage. Yes these are things that happen in the society we live in. BUT that does not make them good or universally true.
I am a Nerdfighter, but that does not mean I agree with all of the things John (or Hank) say. But I do think that if we brought this to his attention he would first be willing to discuss it with us, and second maybe in future books write a different style of character.
i just think the story is fantastic to go with his awesome quotes he has. its not a bad book but damn i love the way he portrays emotions with his awesome quotes. thats why i liked this book a lot. not replusive at all, could be just a lil tiny tiny bit cause he could of found another way to describe this great love he has in mind.
Rachel wrote: "I've been seeing a lot of love for this book and was wondering if anyone else hated it like I did. I couldn't see a conflict in it all all, I hated all the characters too. But then we get to the f..."
I totally agree. The reason I read young adult is to help keep my mind pure so I can maintain consciousness of God's love and light in my life. I got to the part where the author was describing Alaska's "tight curves " and quit ..I know poison to my soul when I see it. John Green may have had a good story here but Ill never know because he unnecessarily interjected such grahic depictions of smoking and lust ( I quit before the [art about drinking
Have you tried Kenneth Oppell's books ? Ive been slack in updating my bookshelves but I will try and Im going to add you as a friend too "blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God"
Rbbiefrah wrote: "Rachel wrote: "I've been seeing a lot of love for this book and was wondering if anyone else hated it like I did. I couldn't see a conflict in it all all, I hated all the characters too. But then ..."
Your response made me break out in a grin. This is exactly what I was trying to get across, but I had no idea how to do so without sounding like I was beating people with a bible. "Keep my mind pure so I can maintain a consciousness of God's love and light in my life"
Thank you so much!
Iris11 wrote: "I did really like Looking for Alaska. That being said... I agree with Rachel. I am a Junior in High School so I know what SOME high schoolers are like. The problem becomes, this is what John Green ..."I think that's exactly it, it's a stereotype. I'm fully aware that there are kids in my school showing up high, drinking the night before, and having sex. I know that. However, that's not the whole school, and it isn't done openly.
I also feel that rather than accept that people do these things and putting it in books because it's the "average teenage life", we should be trying to change it.
Drinking and smoking at their age is illegal! While the whole sex part is all opinion-based, not a lot of good comes from it. STDs, pregnancies, relationships failing and falling apart.
It may be a stereotype, but why do we have to keep it? The "dumb blonde" one is changing. The "glasses means you're smart" is changing. Why can't the one that says all teens drink, smoke, and participate in sexual activities change too?
Elle wrote: "I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but I think you were too young for the book. Maybe you might read it later on and like it. Or maybe not. But dismissing it as repulsive because it doesn't relate to y..."I'm still not getting what you all mean by "my age" I'm 15, almost 16 actually. I'm in the exact age category this book targeted. Plus, I'm pretty mature for my age. I'm not 15 acting like 12. I read this book because it was flying around my school like crazy, people my age and younger kept saying it was awesome and I HAD to read it.
I'm old enough for the book, that wasn't the issue.
Well I admit it was a bit disappointing but REPULSIVE is a VERY extreme word to describe it. I admit until you get half way through the book and ***SPOILER***Alaska dies there isn't a conflict. Nor I'd this conflict actually solved. I admit its not my favorite.
Roni wrote: "Well I admit it was a bit disappointing but REPULSIVE is a VERY extreme word to describe it. I admit until you get half way through the book and ***SPOILER***Alaska dies there isn't a conflict. Nor..."That's one of the first things you learn about stories, in second or third grade. Every story has a problem or a solution. Yet, this one does not, and it was published.
Like you said, a problem arises halfway through, but there's no solution.
Rachel wrote: That's one of the first things you learn about stories, in second or third grade. Every story has a problem or a solution. Yet, this one does not, and it was published. I think you need to keep an open mind when reading and not restrict certain stories to a certain pattern or structure. My favorite part of this book is where Pudge is talking about his view of the after life in the final chapters. I think it's a beautiful description of how a part of someone has to go somewhere, and isn't just recycled. Even though this isn't my own belief, and it wasn't a part of a 'problem/solution' concept, I think holding an open mind allows you to grow as an individual. I believe you need to look beyond the characters and the 'adult themes' and make yourself available to the new things you could learn from the themes.
Tara wrote: "Rachel wrote: That's one of the first things you learn about stories, in second or third grade. Every story has a problem or a solution. Yet, this one does not, and it was published. I think you..."
I'm not trashing your opinion here, but I found that part overdone and simply to deep. I felt like Green was pushing it too hard.
That is my opinion. I am fully aware that other people love the deep, deep thought that Green puts in his books. Nothing wrong with that.
Now, about the restricting stories. I wouldn't call that restricting them. I would call it a plot.
There are two kinds of books: problem/solution books in which the characters are working towards something.
The second is a chain of events spilling out over a period of time.
The first one is more common because it creates tension, you want to know if the problem is solved or not. There's things to root for and characters to support.
In chain of event books, there is hardly any tension because you aren't expecting anything to happen in the first place. You aren't asking "will so-and-so win?" "Will they solve the problem?" "How are they going to fix this?" You are asking "what is going to happen?" You also can't root for anything because there's nothing to root for. And you can support characters, but you're supporting their lives then, not what they're trying to accomplish.
Just look at some classics and great books:
The oddesy: getting home
Harry potter: defeating voldemort
And for some other John Green's:
TFIOS- Hazel and Gus's love/cancer battles
Paper Towns: Finding Margo
I haven't read An Abundance of Katherines, but I know that one has a clear conflict in it as well.
Conflict books make you want to know what happens, chain of events simply don't have that,
Rachel wrote: I'm not trashing your opinion here, but I found that part overdone and simply to deep. I felt like Green was pushing it too hard. I understand that delivery is an important thing and that it's easy for some readers to miss the point. I respect the fact that you didn't connect with that section, or even the book, but I still think you're not keeping an open mind.
And I don't believe that's because you didn't like the book. I think that comes down to the fact the John Green wasn't able to communicate effectively in order to challenge readers like you. It's understandable.
But the fact that you need a simplistic 'conflict/resolution' format is concerning. Harry Potter is more than just about defeating Voldemort. It's about sacrifice and struggling with grief for the characters who are remaining. Voldemort is simply a personification of evil, but themes of friendship and senselessness are the true tensions of the book.
And anyone who believes that the Fault in Our Stars is just a 'cancer' story/love story really missed the point. Gus and Hazel represent two opposing thoughts; the idea that your life means nothing and the concept of striving to be remembered so that life isn't wasted. Sure love and cancer are important to the plot but I got a lot more out of it then just the resolution.
But hey, if you only see the solution to the problem in books, that's fine too. You're obviously young and still have time to evolve your reading potential. I'm encouraging you to broaden your horizons and reflect before condemning.
I hated 1984 when I first read it, believing that Winston's execution/love of Big Brother was an unsatisfying ending. Now it is one of my favorites as the restriction of rights and constant anxiety of being detected as someone different are really thrilling.
So perhaps my advice is to remember the books you disliked and explore them again when you have an opportunity. You might be surprised.
Tara wrote: "Rachel wrote: I'm not trashing your opinion here, but I found that part overdone and simply to deep. I felt like Green was pushing it too hard. I understand that delivery is an important thing an..."
I think you may have misunderstood my last comment.
I'm not saying that defeating Voldemort was all that the Harry Potter books were about. There was also friendship, romance, growing up, finding yourself, etc. I was simply saying that it had an Overall conflict.
The same thing with TFIOS. of course ot had other themes and conflicts and ideas to it, that's what makes the book enjoyable. However, the whole time they wrre still working at those underlying main ideas, their love story, and their cancer.
Under no circumstances was I saying that's all the book was about. That's the conflict, the main idea to support the story.
Posts in the water support a bridge, the solve the problem of holding the bridge up. But, if you don't put a road over it, it's useless.
You need the conflict to support the story and the rest to make it worth something. The events and other ideas are what makes people like it, enjoy it, laugh, and cry. The conflict is what makes the book have a plot in the forst place.
So no, it isn't a "simplistic format" and it isn't "concerning" that I think books need one. It's as close to a fact as opinions can get,
Also, exactly how young do you think I am? I'm not a little kid! I've been a reading addict since the second grade. I read 91 books this school year, for fun. I know what makes books good.
If that's not enough for you, I write as well. I've finished several books and have played around with many different concepts. So when I say I know what works, I do. I don't really feel you are in a position to tell me I'm too young to have reached my reading potential.
And yes, I am mad now. You completly missed the point of what I'd said and treated me as if I was an incompetant child because of it. I'm not.
You're right, Voldemort was the overall conflict and I'm glad you're able to recongise themes and conceptual ideas in stories.I can understand that an overall conflict is an important part of supporting a story, but I don't class it an necessary. If you do enjoy it as an essential aspect, I recommend the Count of Monte Cristo by Alexender Dumas.
I respect that you have a wide amount of experience in reading and writing and I encourage you to keep that up. The skills I have obtained from my countless years of reading are invaluable and I'm sure you also feel or will feel this way.
The reason I encourage you to look beyond the conflict is that it becomes secondary when you actually review and reflect on books. In my university course we don't talk about 'how' the character/(s) overcame the big challenge. We explore their reasoning, character development, the author's intentions and the importance he/she stresses through certain events and imagery. That's why I suggest a wider view point because it will strengthen you as a reader and writer, and you seem to have a lot of potential already.
Rachel Paige, I hated this book too, although for different base reasons than you did (I'm not religious/don't mind explicit things). I just found it to be really, really pretentious, as well as boring. For whatever reason, I don't connect with the John Green frenzy at all.
Hayley wrote: "Rachel Paige, I hated this book too, although for different base reasons than you did (I'm not religious/don't mind explicit things). I just found it to be really, really pretentious, as well as bo..."I can definitley agree with you on pretentious.
You misunderstood what I meant by you being too young. This is something I can't really say without offending somebody, so I'm really sorry if I do. It doesn't matter what age you are. It doesn't matter how many books you've read for pleasure or how many you've written. It doesn't matter that you're a full year older than I was when I read the book. None of that matters. What matters is that you read this book at the wrong time in hour life. You were too young for this, and I don't care if you are a mature fifteen year old. That doesn't matter. You weren't ready to read this particular book.
Maybe in some months or years you might try it again. I doubt you will, but it's a possibility. The point is that sometimes people read books at the wrong time in their lives and it doesn't have the effect on them it would have if they had either read it sooner or later. It's happened to everyone; a Great book they never finished first go, but loved the second time. It happened to me with The Catcher In The Rye,the second Lord of the Rings and Pride and Predijuce, to name a few. This wasn't the right time for you to read this book. That is what I meant by saying you were too young.
Sometimes the reverse happens and that's amazing. Sometimes you finish a book and realise that that particular day, that particular moment was the perfect time to read it. That happened to me with Looking For Alaska and I think that's why I love it so much. It came at a perfect time for me.
I'm sorry you didn't have the experience I had with this book, because I love it to pieces. It was the wrong time for you. That is an issue. And for the record, not everyone at that school watched porn and smoked. Just the central characters, because smoking was used as a symbol of rebellion and the porn watching was important character development for Alaska.
Have a nice day.
Maire wrote: "You misunderstood what I meant by you being too young. This is something I can't really say without offending somebody, so I'm really sorry if I do. It doesn't matter what age you are. It doesn't..."
I know this wasn't directed at me, so I hope you don't mind if I respond anyway.
I can see what you're saying because this has happened to me too with certain books; but I also feel like sometimes there are books that people just won't connect with because of who they are no matter what point they're at in their lives. Not to say that anyone is better because of their opinion about a book, it's just the way it is.
I read Looking for Alaska for the first time four years ago. I've since changed a lot, but I still can't stand this book any more now than I did back then, and who I am now can connect more with the risqué parts of the book. But it's never going to be a book for me. Just like The Fault in Our Stars was a huge miss for me too. I'll never be a nerdfighter.
My favorite book of all time is Gone With the Wind, but there are people who hate it with every fiber of their being. And I really don't feel like it was the wrong point in their lives to read it, but that it just wasn't the book for them. To me it's timeless and beautiful, and there's something to be learned even from its failures. To other people it's a dreadfully long novel full of racism with a dissatisfying conclusion--and will always be.
I guess essentially what I'm trying to say is that while Looking for Alaska means the world to you, there's also going to be people who it never works for, no matter when they read it.
I agree with you completely and that's happened to me as well but the first few comments, where the starter of this thread explained how she didn't understand the conflict and found the book inappropriate, made me think that if she had waited for the right time, she might have actually enjoyed it. You however, just found it pretentious and while that's supposed to reflect the teenagers trying to act grown up, it's a common complaint. By the way, I really want to read Gone With The Wind and I've heard some mixed reviews, so it's nice to see someone who loves it.
So, is it really that weird for a man to be writing about teenage experiences? No, not at all considering he was once a teenager and knows what it was like just as much as the rest of us. This book was not at all un-realistic or far fetched and it was basically just a compilation of the best/most interesting part's of John Green's high school experience. The thing's these characters do are so normal it hurts. Wow so someone got their first blow job, how repulsive! I understand that you may not enjoy reading things like that but this is YA, and in young adult lives kids drink, smoke, have sex and whatever else is repulsive and you're bound to come across it. My advice, just skip that chapter or read middle grade.
Rachel Paige wrote: "Roni wrote: "Well I admit it was a bit disappointing but REPULSIVE is a VERY extreme word to describe it. I admit until you get half way through the book and ***SPOILER***Alaska dies there isn't a ..."SPOILER. Alaska dying isn't what Pudge need's to solve, it's not the problem that needs a solution, it's just something awful that happened along the way in this life. The problem is given to you in the opening chapters and the solution for Pudge is finding his great perhaps, it's discovering who he is and what he believes in, also finding out about Alaska, post 'after'. If you thought that figuring out if she committed suicide or just drunk too much was what Pudge had to discover you seriously missed the mark.
sorry for not write in EnglishYo lo descargue hace varios meses en PDF porque aún no llega a Chile... y me aburrió TANTO! que aún no soy capaz de terminarlo, por lo tanto no puedo dar un opinión completa del libro sino hasta donde llegué (156), y aún no comprendo porqué a la gente le gusta tanto!.
Saludos!
Constanza wrote: "sorry for not write in EnglishYo lo descargue hace varios meses en PDF porque aún no llega a Chile... y me aburrió TANTO! que aún no soy capaz de terminarlo, por lo tanto no puedo dar un opinión ..."
I'll translate that for you :)
"I downloaded it a few months ago in .pdf because it wasn't available in Chile yet... an it was SO BORING that I haven't been able to finish it, so I can't give an opinion on the whole book, only what I've read (156 pages). And I still can't understand why people like it so much!"
I waited a few days before I replied, so I apologize if my reply no longer flows well with the rest of the conversation...Anyway, I'll put some of my cards on the table. I'm a Catholic Christian, more on the conservative side personally, currently attend a conservative university, and was raised in a conservative part of the US. Some of these things can be uncomfortable to read.
However, I am more on the side of the swearing, drinking, smoking all being part of some larger whole. I don't think John Green was trying too hard to appeal to teenagers because the characters are a very specific brand (for lack of a better term) teenagers who have very real problems but lack a way of properly expressing it.
Alaska is the greatest example of this, and I don't want to spoil anything for people who wander into this discussion without reading the book. No one can say she doesn't have her problems. Think about what happens after the zoo, but her relationship with her father (admittedly as she portrays it) doesn't leave her room to grieve and adequately deal with her feelings which inevitably spiral out of control.
And I think this being set in a boarding school adds another dimension to it. Some parental philosophies involve shipping your children off whenever they have problems and just hope it goes away. And I don't mean to a treatment center. I mean ship the kid off to a relative until they stop feeling depressed or rebellious. When I read it, I wondered and still do if that's not the real reason why Alaska is there. She picks her name from that desire to get away, but if her father just sent her there assuming everything would be okay, it doesn't mean she's not going to feel abandoned.
I know people who are like these characters who have problems that no one else seems to acknowledge, and they--in big or small ways--lash out against the world. Very rarely do people, particularly teen, choose to act out inappropriate just because it's something to do. We, as human creatures, instinctively act with purpose even if that purpose is to, in some small way, attack the world that hurt them. So I read these misbehaviors as signs of deep personal difficulty.
And that's why I think people like it so much. I think Western culture is shifting to a denial of real emotion devastation, particularly and especially for teens. This book acknowledges both that pain and that it is never going to be easily resolved.
Marci wrote: "I waited a few days before I replied, so I apologize if my reply no longer flows well with the rest of the conversation...Anyway, I'll put some of my cards on the table. I'm a Catholic Christian..."
Well said
Rachel Paige wrote: "Abey wrote: "Rachel wrote: "I've been seeing a lot of love for this book and was wondering if anyone else hated it like I did. I couldn't see a conflict in it all all, I hated all the characters t..."
The book aside I just felt the need to point out the hypocrisy in this statement.
"This is all my opinion. You can disagree with me, that's fine, you are entitled to an opinion too. However, just because you don't agree doesn't mean you have to say my opinion is wrong." Then you said "You are simply wrong on your statement that John Green was raising awareness of situations, because he wasn't."
I'm all for a great book discussion, and online you have the added benefit of getting to proof read yourself before putting your thoughts out there for the world to see. I suggest you take that advantage.
Celeste wrote: "Rachel Paige wrote: "Abey wrote: "Rachel wrote: "I've been seeing a lot of love for this book and was wondering if anyone else hated it like I did. I couldn't see a conflict in it all all, I hated..."
It's not an opinion that he was raising awareness, it was a fact. That's why it was wrong. His intention wasn't to raise awareness of anything, you can tell by the book and interviews he's done on it.
His intention was to explode the themes of suffering. The drinking and smoking was supposed to represent Miles joining the crowd and recklessness. Just in case you're all wondering.
I couldn't stand this book at all. I found the characters irritating and difficult to relate too. Getting through it was a struggle.
The problem I have with this, or any John Green book, is that it's kind of forbidden to talk negatively about his work. I didn't like this book, I didn't understand the hype, and I'm sick of seeing that "sshhh, I'm sleeping" quote all over the internet. But if you want to admit these things? People are going to attack you on it. And that's not fair just because TFIOS is big right now.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
I couldn't see a conflict in it all all, I hated all the characters too. But then we get to the fact that it swears every other line, the characters spend have the book drunk or smoking, and the sexual references are WAY too graphic.
I read The Fault in Our Stars first. I gave it five stars because it was very well written and, for the most part, clean. Then I read this.
As a Christian and simply a girl who wants to keep her mind clean, I was disgusted. Nothing about the book screamed "read me, I'm inappropriate!"
Anyone else as disappointed as I am?
Feel free to branch this out of any part of the book, not just the sexual stuff.