The Fault in Our Stars
discussion
DEBATE: Are the characters in this book too pretentious/smart?
message 1:
by
Rachael
(last edited Jul 21, 2014 12:00AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Jul 15, 2014 08:01AM
I've heard many people argue that they don't like this book because the characters are too smart/pretentious/wise/like mini John Greens. I personally don't think this detracts from the book. Thoughts?
reply
|
flag
I think all main Green's characters are intelligent, tbh. Not just Hazel and Augustus, but also characters from his other books. I mean, all major characters are intelligent, sarcastic, not really social and all of them have this one special characteristic which makes them special. On the other hand, I don't think that TFiOS characters are pretentious. Well, as Lia said, maybe their dialogues seemed a bit pretentious, but I don't think that characters themselves are pretentious.
Well, it makes sense that they would have character traits. It even makes sense that they'd be similar. They might be more likely to be drawn to each other. I liked it.
Their verbiage was a bit unrealistic, but I don't think it detracts from the overall message or themes.It reminded me a lot of dialogue you used to hear in Dawson's Creek or Gilmore Girls.
Nimotalai wrote: "They were pretentious."
True. End of.
True. End of.
I thought that they were pretentious but it didn't detract from the story because I viewed it as an intentional character trait.
Okay, the hell is up with people thinking pretentious and smart mean the same thing?Being too "smart" is never a bad thing.
Being pretentious is always a bad thing.
Augustus was pretentious. But I didn't think that was a bad point; it's part of his character. The dialogue wasn't too unrealistic (I'm a teenager and I KNOW some teenagers talk in exaggerated ways.)
It's just...I felt like Augustus and Hazel's relationship was too perfect. IDK man. That's just how I felt.
✿Lilac✿ wrote: "Okay, the hell is up with people thinking pretentious and smart mean the same thing?Being too "smart" is never a bad thing.
Being pretentious is always a bad thing.
Augustus was pretentious. B..."
I agree with most of what you said. But I think Green made the relationship perfect on purpose. TFIOS was about teenagers living full, if not short, lives. Since it wasn't about the relationship in and of itself, it would have felt wrong to have to flawed.
I think they were a bit unnaturally intelligent, yes, a bit like mini John Greens, but the book was still good.
Hannah wrote: "I think they were a bit unnaturally intelligent, yes, a bit like mini John Greens, but the book was still good."I wouldn't say "unnaturally."
They're not on the center of the bell curve for intelligence, that's for sure. Because of their high intelligence, they're more aware of what's happening to them than an average kid with cancer would be.
What they say and do really isn't that smart when you break it down. It reminds me, in a way, of chinese food. You eat it, and you're like, oh wow, this is delicious - and then you start thinking about what it's actually made of, and it kind of makes you sick. The cigarette metaphor is one of the stupidest and most fake-smart things I've ever come across in a book.Check out Act's analysis of chapter 12 to see what I mean:
http://dragon-quill.blogspot.co.uk/20...
http://dragon-quill.blogspot.com/2014...
Also Whittler's:
http://das-sporking.livejournal.com/7...
http://das-sporking.livejournal.com/7...
But Aimee, is it a problem that they were pretentious? Characters are more interesting when they have flaws. This shared flaw even helps justify their ''perfect'' relationship.
Insanely pretentious. The only character I can think of, off the top of my head, who surpasses them is Ignatius Reilly in A Confederacy of Dunces, but he was a) actually smart, though not in daily life, and b) a hyperbolic parody of over-educated postgraduates.
Lia wrote: "Dramapuppy wrote: "But Aimee, is it a problem that they were pretentious? Characters are more interesting when they have flaws. This shared flaw even helps justify their ''perfect'' relationship."..."
Hazel was a total betch. At the end, when Gus's sisters show up, to spend time with their brother in his final days, they (understandably, since they haven't seen him since he was little) get all sentimental and call him "our Gussy" and blah blah blah. Hazel's response is to, in her words "model appropriate behavior" and so she's like, "What's up Augustus?" Uggggh. The thing is, I imagine John Green is just like her - arrogant over the dumbest shit.
Well, what people are saying about hating Hazel is all based on the kind of people you like. Hazel would probably hate people like you. So I can see why that would cause you to dislike the book. That's totally reasonable and when I feel like a character and I are enemies, I put the book down too. However, I don't think this is a fault of the author. John Green didn't write a bad book because you specifically don't like the characters.
Dramapuppy wrote: "Well, what people are saying about hating Hazel is all based on the kind of people you like. Hazel would probably hate people like you. So I can see why that would cause you to dislike the book. Th..."Hmm... you're quite right.
I'm not sure they were necessarily pretentious, just poorly constructed and therefore they came across as pretentious. Hazel is meant to be arrogant, thinks-she's-better-than-everyone because she got her GED, is taking college class and has cancer. Cancer, guys! And Augustus decided to get his creep on and try to impress her and realised from her first speech that the best way to do that was show off the complex vocabulary he had a slight understanding of to make himself appear smart. That's what's meant to come across, a boy impressing a girl who can parrot information she learned for exams (neither of which, I'm afraid, is a sign of intelligence) but John Green never backed up his dialogue or character actions with a justification in the text, and that's why we perceive it as pretentious.So there's my two cents, poorly characterised, poorly written. Sorry if it offends.
Pilcrow wrote: "What they say and do really isn't that smart when you break it down. It reminds me, in a way, of chinese food. You eat it, and you're like, oh wow, this is delicious - and then you start thinking a..."It reminds me of a Sophie Kinsella book, Can You Keep A Secret. Emma, an office junior, goes on a plane ride and blabs all her secrets to the guy next to her when they hit extreme turbulence (she's a nervous flier) said guy turns out to own her company. He asks her to be at a meeting, knowing one of her secrets was "I don't know what logistics means. Or any of those words." In the meeting, someone's giving a presentation using all the buzz words, and the CEO keeps making them stop, and dumb it down. Once they use actual English, it goes from sounding intelligent and formal to pathetic. Love that scene so much!
Okay, good point, Lia. Let me rephrase what I said.There are really good books about really horrible people. You're right that it's about being relatable. You said, "I'd disagree with you when you say that my dislike of the book is based off whether or not I'd like Hazel in real life. It's that I didn't think any of the main characters, Hazel in particular since she's the narrator, were relateable or likeable enough that I'd care what would happen to them in the story." I think what you're trying to say is that you don't have to like a character personally (like best friends), but you have to be able to empathize with them and tell where they're coming from. Is this correct?
If so, I go back to my original point. I personally, am kind of similar to Hazel. I saw parts of myself in her and I was able to empathize just fine. So I have to conclude that your problems come from being dissimilar, and therefore disliking of, Hazel.
To adress some of your and Siobhan's other points: Siobhan, Hazel specifically stated that she doesn't like sympathy. Remember the scene in the Anne Frank house? She was determined to climb to the top. I don't feel Gus and Hazel were just parroting information. Their brains are more abstract. Able to understand metaphors. Maybe the fact that my brain works this way helped me understand it but Gus wasn't using fake intelligence to woo Hazel. He realized that smart people like other smart people and tried to impress her. It's just like a jock showing his athletic ability to a cheerleader. Yes. Hazel and Gus are VERY, VERY, cynical. I suppose most people would see that as a character flaw. Now, I myself am very cynical. I like hanging out with other cynics. I understand that this in a book can annoy people. However, I would have hated it if she had changed. This connects back to what I was saying earlier. Because Green used it as a character TRAIT, not a character FLAW, (since they didn't grow out of it), if you hate cynics, you're not really going to enjoy Green's (awesome) book about people being cynical.
I do think these characters grew though. Maybe not out of their cynicism, but Green has stated that he wanted to say that teenagers can have real feelings. Hazel and Gus had a full lives, if not long ones. So their relationship definitely allowed them to grow. At the beginning Hazel was bitter and afraid of her death. At the end she knows her parents will go on. That was her greatest fear. She knows her life was complete because of Gus.
And thanks Hannah!
Pilcrow wrote: "Hazel was a total betch. At the end, when Gus's sisters show up, to spend time with their brother in his final days, they (understandably, since they haven't seen him since he was little) get all sentimental and call him "our Gussy" and blah blah blah. Hazel's response is to, in her words "model appropriate behavior" and so she's like, "What's up Augustus?" Uggggh. The thing is, I imagine John Green is just like her - arrogant over the dumbest shit. This person is blocking me, so this isn't in response to her directly, but in response what she has said. I'd just like to offer an alternate perspective that I have on that part of the book. I don't necessarily see myself in the characters per se. But I do know what it's like to grow up with a nickname that you'd like to outgrow but can't. Gus hated being called "Gussy" and Hazel knew that about him. His sisters loved him, but they didn't realize/acknowledge that. It's possible that calling him their Gussy makes THEM feel better, but not necessarily him. Hazel did know it and that is what motivated her actions. Her attitude toward the sisters was on the condescending side, but I think I understand where it stems from. I'm not saying that she's right or is modeling "appropriate behavior". She's portraying what I thought was understandable and natural "human behavior" under those circumstances, imo.
All of John's characters seem pretentious to me.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Pilcrow wrote: "Hazel was a total betch. At the end, when Gus's sisters show up, to spend time with their brother in his final days, they (understandably, since they haven't seen him since he was l..."Agreed.
Dramapuppy wrote: "Siobhan, Hazel specifically stated that she doesn't like sympathy. Remember the scene in the Anne Frank house? She was determined to climb to the top."Yes, I remember that scene, but it has nothing to do with my actual point. Actually, you seemed to have misunderstood my point by a large margin. I went to a grammar school, which means I took exams to get there, and I was led to believe, at 11 years old, that it made me intelligent. Not true, it just meant I was good at exams.
Let's take a famous quote so you can understand my point, that I illustrated in my second post with another book. "my thoughts are like stars I cannot fathom into constellations" (I admit, I'm ad-libbing, so sorry if one or two words are not exactly correct. That's the ethos of the quote) it sounds so pretty, so eloquent, he must be so intelligent!
No. He basically said 'I have disconnected thoughts'. Which isn't intelligent at all.
Lia, my favourite book ever is We Need To Talk About Kevin, by Lionel Shriver. I would hate to meet any of the Plaskett-Khatchadourian family. They're repugnant, but so interesting. Kevin's oedipus complex had me hooked. Eva's lack of awareness was gripping. She was meant to be an unreliable narrator, not acknowledging her shortcomings, and it worked so well.
Good points, Lia. I'm not quite sure what you mean, though. You say you disliked the book because you didn't like how Hazel was PORTRAYED, not that you disliked Hazel herself. What was it about her portrayal that you didn't like other than her character?
Siobhan wrote: "Dramapuppy wrote: "Siobhan, Hazel specifically stated that she doesn't like sympathy. Remember the scene in the Anne Frank house? She was determined to climb to the top."Yes, I remember that scen..."
Okay, that was admittedly a bad example. My point stands, however. Hazel may feel like she's better than everyone else but it's definitely not because of the cancer.
Lia wrote: "Dramapuppy wrote: "Okay, good point, Lia. Let me rephrase what I said.There are really good books about really horrible people. You're right that it's about being relatable. You said, "I'd disagr..."
Okay, that makes sense. However, I can't remember a time when Hazel actually said her cynical remarks to the person they were referring to. And even if she did, we're back to you disliking Hazel. Or at least the Hazel Green wrote. Is that what you mean by portrayal? Like you don't mind who Hazel is, you mind how she acts? If this is your point, I would argue that Hazel acts that way because of her personality. And not liking her actions is pretty much the same as not liking her. Or maybe there's something I'm missing in your point.
Dramapuppy wrote: "Lia wrote: "Dramapuppy wrote: "Okay, good point, Lia. Let me rephrase what I said.There are really good books about really horrible people. You're right that it's about being relatable. You said,..."
She was poorly characterised, and had nothing of substance to connect the reader with her. That is why she is dislikable, she does nothing to earn the reader's empathy.
Dramapuppy wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "Dramapuppy wrote: "Siobhan, Hazel specifically stated that she doesn't like sympathy. Remember the scene in the Anne Frank house? She was determined to climb to the top."Yes, I re..."
I don't think she thinks she's better than people because of the cancer. I tacked that on because she uses her cancer, despite protesting that she dislikes when cancer patients do that. Millhouse van Houten had a point, you know.
Siobhan wrote: "Dramapuppy wrote: "Lia wrote: "Dramapuppy wrote: "Okay, good point, Lia. Let me rephrase what I said.There are really good books about really horrible people. You're right that it's about being r..."
Well, that's just not true. I connected with her seamlessly. I'm sorry you didn't but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad book. It makes it not a book for you.
Siobhan, it's been awhile. Could you remind me when exactly she used her cancer? I don't recall her ever using to the extent that some people do.
Siobhan, your edit.Are you trying to say that Hazel and Gus sound smart with all their metaphors but underneath they're not? I would disagree. That is sometimes the case but sometimes not. I don't even think that's the case with your quote. You say "I have disconnected thoughts" isn't intelligent. No, of course not. But it doesn't matter. Writing isn't about having awesome profound ideas all the time. Sometimes it's explaining them in a smooth, easy to understand, metaphor. And that takes a certain amount of intelligence.
Honestly, the characters do at times strike as pretentious and downright self-righteous. But isn't that exactly what makes the story real? I mean no one in real life is always thoughtful and caring. Isn't it their flaws that really make us think that Hazel and Augustus are people that could be related to
Medha wrote: "Honestly, the characters do at times strike as pretentious and downright self-righteous. But isn't that exactly what makes the story real? I mean no one in real life is always thoughtful and caring..."Agreed.
Dramapuppy wrote: "Medha wrote: "Honestly, the characters do at times strike as pretentious and downright self-righteous. But isn't that exactly what makes the story real? I mean no one in real life is always thought..."Thank you!
I don't mind cynical and bitter narrators - I find I relate to those better, because they're like me. Also because I really don't like oversentimentality in what I read. But it's like Green wants edginess points for making Hazel bitter and irreverent but doesn't want to own it, or the implications of it. So Green is constantly trying to make you feel sorry for her at the same time.
Hazel is also cynical and bitter in ways that are just cruel for no reason - she's cruel to Patrick, van Houten, Gus's sisters, Lida, anybody who fights their cancer in a "positive" way, etc. And because Green is constantly telling you in the book how to feel about TFiOS - "this isn't your average cancer book," and the nonstop hand-holding through van Houten and AIA - you can't help wondering how much of this is how Green himself feels about these kinds of people.
I dunno, just a lot of disorganized thoughts on this.
So we shouldn't feel sorry for someone dying as a teenager because they aren't ''nice''? I love Hazel and I can see why people might dislike some of her views, but being someone who shares a lot of those views, I don't think Green should have ''owned'' it in the way you're suggesting. And what's wrong with Green's views influencing the book. Isn't that the case for all books? and it isn't,your average cancer book. I probably wouldn't have read it if I thought it was. So again, I understand why you don't like it but that doesn't make it a bad book.
Nimotalai wrote: "They were pretentious."agreed :D
Dramapuppy wrote: "So we shouldn't feel sorry for someone dying as a teenager because they aren't ''nice''? I love Hazel and I can see why people might dislike some of her views, but being someone who shares a lot of..."No, you should; but you shouldn't feel sorry for ficticious people dying of cancer unless they are well written. All characters in this book, except perhaps for van Houten, are nothing but pseudo-intellectual cardboard cutouts.
I don't understand a character is automatically poorly written if they are intelligent. And even if they were a little too smart, it wouldn't matter because the author can design his characters to tell the story he wants to tell.
They're not poorly written because they're intelligent, that's not the point. They're poorly written because they're made to sound intelligent by using big words, but actually commit major interpretative flaws and simplifications in the Oh So Smart stuff they say. Like the "hamartia" thing, they completely misunderstand what that word means, but Green makes a huge deal about it. Oooh, look at these poor kids with a "fatal flaw". Hamartia is not any kind of fatal flaw; it is a fatal error of interpretation, made for lack of information. Likewise, they reduce Howl to "sodomy and angel dust"; no mention of madness, isolation, the real motors behind the poem. Ultimately, they just sound like dilettantes to me —people who haven't bothered to really disentangle the nuances of the stuff they claim to know.And yes, people can be like that, and they can also be included in a story, but Green's not making their intellectual flaws evident (like Kennedy Toole did with Ignatius Reilly, to retake the example of my first post). It does not even feel like he is aware of these flaws. He truly thought he was writing really smart kids, but all they do is spew mutilated cultural references and useless pomposity. And I don't want to assume too much about the guy, because I don't know him, but the way he tackles big issues in his Youtube channel does lead me to think he has the same flaws as his characters. He simplifies too much. Like when he tried to explain the Ukrain-Russia conflict, and completely forgot to mention the strong ethnic ties between Russia and Crimea. Or, returning to the book, the fact that money is never a real issue for any of the families. You know, even in the dreadful state of US health service. I don't buy that.
Daniel, hamartia can actually mean either of those things. http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...And I bet the families do have money problems. But their kids have problems enough; parents aren't going to talk about it much. And anyway, it wasn't the point of the story so John Green didn't include it. Simplification doesn't necessarily mean a lack of intelligence. I seem to be hearing two different arguments against these characters. One that they talk with big words teenagers don't use and one that are oversimplify things. It can't be both!
Even if Hazel and Gus's references and facts were messed up, it wouldn't mean they weren't intelligent. As I've said many times, the constant use of metaphors prove these kids have abstract thinking styles. They may have unimpressive/incorrect facts, it's their interpretation and understanding of these facts that give them their intelligence.
Dramapuppy wrote: "So we shouldn't feel sorry for someone dying as a teenager because they aren't ''nice''? I love Hazel and I can see why people might dislike some of her views, but being someone who shares a lot of those views, I don't think Green should have ''owned'' it in the way you're suggesting. And what's wrong with Green's views influencing the book. Isn't that the case for all books? and it isn't,your average cancer book. I probably wouldn't have read it if I thought it was. So again, I understand why you don't like it but that doesn't make it a bad book."I don't love Hazel. She's not real to me. She can't be real because she has no real flaws. Readers like me or Siobhan or Daniel might be able to pick up on her pretension and cynicism as something we don't like, but they're not presented as flaws in this book. Green wants you to like Gus and Hazel because they're pretentious and cynical. For some reason, he seems to think that's what makes people "smart." And for being such a fresh and innovative writer, Green's stuff actually seems kind of simplistic. You're supposed to like Hazel's nurse because she rips on pop culture; Gus's sisters and Lida and Patrick are supposed to be pitiable dweebs for being so earnest and positive and - gasp - mainstream about things.
And the problem isn't so much that Green is putting his opinion in books - like every writer does - but that he's so heavy-handed about it for such a critically acclaimed writer, has millions of impressionable young followers, and has some pretty messed up and disturbing ideas about how kids should be handling their illnesses. Things that sound pretty ableist and condescending coming from a healthy, privileged guy. Not to even get into some of the misogynist and elitist themes in TFiOS...
Pilcrow wrote: "And the problem isn't so much that Green is putting his opinion in books - like every writer does"Man, if you read some of my fan fiction and attributed that thought process … I distinctly make characters different from me to avoid doing that.
It almost reads like John Green wants to prove the popular kids wrong, that being a hipster and not loving anything can be edgy and cool and it didn't matter that he had to take his cousin to prom, he's won at life! I mean, I try not to judge the guy, but when all his books are so samey-samey and lacking in passion it's hard not to apply some kind of antagonism as the baseline for his subplots.
and agreed, John Green is exceptionally ableist, but I really don't want to sit here and have a quote war in order to prove how little he actually considered the cancer thread of the storyline. Suffice to say, in my opinion, the cancer was there as a deus ex machina, and a poorly executed one at that.
I found them a bit annoying, in my opinion, but yes, they were smart.
Being cynical often means someone is smart but it doesn't MAKE you smart. And I think it's nice having a YA book that actually has a deep theme for once. Plus, I don't really see the problem with simplistic. I do like Hazel because she's cynical. That's just what I like in a person. Her faults lay elsewhere. If you don't like it, that's fine. But don't blame the author.
You misused the word "to" in the topic title. You should have used "too".
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
