The Fault in Our Stars
discussion
DEBATE: Are the characters in this book too pretentious/smart?
You shouldn't really put "pretentious" next to "smart" separated only by a slash. They're quite different.
Dramapuppy wrote: "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; p..."
Don't send me to a cheap online dictionary, c'mon, I'm talking about Aristotle and classic Greek drama here. Big kudos to Lia for bringing up White Teeth, that's one kickass novel, and one that has (in Irie Jones) a truly fleshed out teenage female, who is both sarcastic and intelligent.
Ebony wrote: """Nazi" should be capitalized - you know, proper noun and all. :)
Lia 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..."
Lolita's been on my list forever! If you like bad characters, you're going to love Kevin. He collects computer viruses. The story is Eva's perspective on how she and her husband raised Kevin, and his sister Celia, and how Kevin could have been one of the teenagers to commit genocide at his school. Three days before Columbine, Kevin was bitter about them stealing his glory. The film's worthwhile too.
Hazel was extremely pretentious and annoying.I couldn't pity her for having cancer, because she was a bitch.
Throughout the whole book, she thinks she's better than everyone else going around, screaming 'oblivion is inevitable.'
Never have I hated a character as much as Hazel Grace Lancaster.
And the fact that they were prentious wasn't a flaw to make you relate to them.
I think John Green actually thought they sounded smart when he was writing the book, but obviously didn't realise that they sounded like two annoying teens quoting a philosophy book and running around thinking they're better than everyone.
Pilcrow wrote: "Ebony wrote: """Nazi" should be capitalized - you know, proper noun and all. :)"
Well I didn't make the meme, I simply uploaded it.
Pretentious? Nope, not at all. (Evidently, not for me!)(Oh no...Why?)
For starters...
They neither made me use dictionary, nor made me think 'Oh wow, that's too deep and philosophically intriguing' or go 'seriously!'...they were pretty normal, fresh, considering they were quite fictional lol. And regarding pretension, I could nitpick the shit out of real people, all day; so define 'pretentious' in this context.
The readers haven't read the Imperial Affliction book anyways; if (after some deep nitpicking) they may conclude that how come they know so many words and why in the world they sound like that! Well, maybe those words were in that book; their communication was entwined through the theme of the book, their version of 'its characters seeking for an ending'. Or at least, twas a very generous attempt by the author.
I stopped reading generic YA books cause I couldn't tolerate those vexing cliche formats of conversations, storytelling, wordplay in almost all of those YA books out there, anymore. Realized why they are often called, 'fast food for brains'.
This one was a hell lot better, unique. No wonder why it pissed buncha readers...
Most/some critics must have hated the flick "50/50", TV show "Breaking Bad" etc; Guess, one of the reasons could be, those cancer ridden characters were atypical to their versions of cancer patients; characters being too edgy for them, too shiny lol. But I enjoyed those evolved, innovative takes (still do)...later :)
I think you're wrong. I get that they're really bright and two people who are so clever and in such a similar circumstance are unlikely to meet. But all sorts of unlikely things happen in books, you don't read books about thing that are happening all the time (unless your weird or the book is really about deeper meaning or stuff) the fault in our stars is so refreshing because its not sugar coated but at the same time not too depressing. The characters are original and i really enjoyed reading their views. maybe if their too smart your just not a smart enough person to understand what their talking about. Joh Green is a brilliant writer who wrote a brilliant book about two brilliant teenagers and their brilliant story. i don't see how anyone could diss this book at all.
Kitcat wrote: "I think you're wrong. I get that they're really bright and two people who are so clever and in such a similar circumstance are unlikely to meet. But all sorts of unlikely things happen in books, yo..."Wow, that's one of the worst arguments I've ever seen. For or against anything. So, TFioS is good because it's not sugar-coated and not depressing? First of all, it is incredibly sugar-coated, but let's ignore that. A book isn't good because it achieves some imaginary middle ground you have in your head; that just means it's vainilla, soft, and uncompromised. The best books are the ones that REALLY plunge into things. The ones that are REALLY depressing, REALLY passionate. The characters are original? In what universe? They're just Nicholas Sparks characters with a thesaurus. The characters are "too smart"? Nobody's saying that, we know people can be smart. What they are is too pompous and pseudo-cultured. They are definitely not as knowledgeable as they (and you) think they are, and thus their shitty attitude towards others feels petty and rancid. Most of the time, when they talk about "bright" things, they haven't the faintest clue of what they're talking about. I've already exemplified this. And lastly, whilst I have a hard time believing that someone with as poor a thought process as yours didn't have to use the dictionary for this book, or any other, that is not a good thing either. You're just praising an author for spoon-feeding you simplified, easily digestible concepts about love, sickness and culture, without ever digging deep into the true condition of all those involved, or challenging you as a reader to investigate them yourself. You don't see how anyone could diss this book? Sorry, but that's because you're a superficial, inexperienced reader. I advice you to do a little research and begin reading books "about deeper meaning or stuff", you know, those for "weird" people. Maybe then you'll get our complaints.
Okay. Lia, your point about Patrick. I'm not denying that Hazel is cynical. Very cynical. I am also very cynical and I found it refreshing that an author gave her that character trait. Because that's all it is: a character trait. It's an unpopular character trait and I can see why you don't like it, but that doesn't mean the book was poorly written.On hamartia: You may be right but considering most dictionaries agree that it can mean either, can we really expect a teenager to not use that definition? The fact that it is in the dictionary means it is now a commonly accepted definition of the word. Even if I'm wrong and it isn't, this proves you can't really hold it against Hazel.
Pilcrow, that's not the theme I was talking about at all. Green wanted to communicate that teenagers can feel "real" emotions. Hazel's life was short but full. Her love, (if unrealistic) allowed her to feel complete. The theme was that a short life doesn't mean a pointless, empty one.
Daniel, what's wrong with simple? Yeah, it's not as deep as most adult books but what do you expect in YA? It's deeper than the crap most teenagers read. If Green made it any deeper kids wouldn't be interested and they wouldn't even get the little meaning in TFIOS. Also, people on this thread seem to be missing the deepest themes in this book. TFIOS probably has more levels than you think.
Kitcat wrote: "But all sorts of unlikely things happen in books, you don't read books about thing that are happening all the time (unless your weird or the book is really about deeper meaning or stuff)"This is my least favourite argument ever about books. Please read Life of Pi, and you'll understand the significance of fiction, of the need for us to tell each other stories THAT HAVE SOME BASIS IN FACT AND HAVE BEEN REWRITTEN TO BE MORE DIGESTIBLE.
You cannot include anything in a book without researching it first, without being sure that what you write has some backing in real life. Green chose a real life setting, you cannot apply rules you may find in fantasy (which are still anthropomorphic to some degree) to a book written in a real life setting.
Fiction exists to reflect something about our lives back at us. If you can't derive anything from the books you read, then there is little point you reading. They're meant to carry a message, a point, a new way of thinking, a different approach, an appeal for humanity … or are you saying all story-tellers are "weird"?
Siobhan, I think you misunderstood what Kitcat was trying to say. There's a difference between making teenagers more intelligent and inventing your own cancer drug, and doing no research. Say, having Hazel's cancer get cured by eating soybeans. She was talking about suspension of disbelief. And while it's important to research, I wouldn't go so far as to say you can't include ANYTHING. If authors couldn't even make stuff up a little bit, nothing would happen that wouldn't happen in real life. The point is keeping the details of your story consistent and making the world more realistic. Quirky teenagers, (who by the way, aren't that different from some real people. You might not any people like that but they're out there), aren't going to ruin a story.
Dramapuppy wrote: "Siobhan, I think you misunderstood what Kitcat was trying to say. There's a difference between making teenagers more intelligent and inventing your own cancer drug, and doing no research. Say, havi..."I didn't misunderstand her take on "it's just a book" at all. It's the most infuriating non-argument to make on a literary website, except for maybe "it's subjective" (which is just plain redundant).
I have no problem with quirky characters - teenagers or not - but they were not Hazel or Gus. They were Isaac, and Kaitlyn, and van Houten, whatever else their faults were (ha, look at me making a TFIOS joke there!)
Dramapuppy wrote: "Okay. Lia, your point about Patrick. I'm not denying that Hazel is cynical. Very cynical. I am also very cynical and I found it refreshing that an author gave her that character trait. Because that..."For the most part, I agree with you on this, but I do have to give her this - the OP put the question as whether they're too smart or pretentious. If she was responding to that, then fair do's, it just needed to be clearer that the response was for the OP and not the conversation developing.
"It's just a book" is often abused. It does not justify everything. The author can take some liberties without messing up the story but not others. Saying it because you can't justify your claim is one thing. But sometimes it's justified. Research is due for events. Could this actually happen. But I'm not even sure what you're arguing about Isaac and Kaitlyn anymore. I'm just saying that the author creates the world. Research makes it realistic but not everything has to be realistic. Ex. JK Rowling can invent wizards but should probably make sure it makes sense geographically or whatever.
On the original point, these kids are very smart and pretentious but there seriously are kids like this. You just haven't met them if you think there aren't.
Dramapuppy wrote: ""It's just a book" is often abused. It does not justify everything. The author can take some liberties without messing up the story but not others. Saying it because you can't justify your claim is..."What? I can't even read this, it makes no sense. From the little I can gather, you're repeating my point?
Sorry. You're right that "it's just a book" is often what people say when they don't have a better argument. I'm just saying that sometimes it's use is justified.
Dramapuppy wrote: "Sorry. You're right that "it's just a book" is often what people say when they don't have a better argument. I'm just saying that sometimes it's use is justified."Myself and the thousands of other people attempting to be authors thank you for underlining the fact our hard work has clearly no point. I guess we just fart words onto a screen and hope it looks pretty enough to sell books?
Trust me, with the time and effort a book takes to write, it is never justified to dismiss it as "just a book". That invalidates the author, and as fans, do you really want to do that to John Green? If he is as intelligent as I'm led to believe, he'd find that the most insulting thing of all.
What? That's not what I meant at all! I write all the time.I was saying that authors have the liberty to make up some stuff, such as the drug Hazel was taking. And it's okay because it's a book, not real life.
Dramapuppy wrote: "Daniel, what's wrong with simple? Yeah, it's not as deep as most adult books but what do you expect in YA? It's deeper than the crap most teenagers read. If Green made it any deeper kids wouldn't be interested and they wouldn't even get the little meaning in TFIOS. Also, people on this thread seem to be missing the deepest themes in this book. TFIOS probably has more levels than you think. "I'll give you that much, it's definitely better than most YA. In fact, when people ask me what I think about this book, I tell them just that: "It's fine for a YA book". But that's not what fangirls like Kitcat are claiming, though. To them, TFIOS is OH MY GAWD, THE BEST BOOK EVERRR, and Green is an infalible god.
And about the hamartia thing, I think you're misunderstanding something. Let's take the link you referenced me to. Only one of the definitions it offers simplifies it down to the words "tragic flaw". So far so good, but you'll notice that the words "tragic flaw" are also bound by a single hyperlink. When you access that link, this emerges: "Tragic Flaw: the character defect that causes the downfall of the protagonist of a tragedy". See? Character defect. As in hubris, or arrogance, or short foresight. Not as in "any condition that makes life difficult, and ends up in sad consequences". Also, the operative words there are "sad" vs "tragic". This book is sad, but not a tragedy, since it lacks the basic interpretative mistake/character defect that tragedies require. Hamlet died because of his procrastination, Oedipus's downfall was for lack of information, Antigone died for choosing family over law. Augustus just dies because he's sick, not because of any decision he made. The word "hamartia" had nothing to do with this story.
Well, if Kitcat hasn't read any adult books, this probably is the best thing ever.If my definition hyperlinks to your definition, doesn't that make them the same for all intents and purposes? But even if you're totally right and I'm totally wrong, it doesn't matter. You can see how a couple of teenagers could miss that last step. They probably just read it somewhere. I don't even remember where this was in the book so it clearly isn't central to the plot. You originally brought it up to prove they weren't all that intelligent. I don't think this proves that point. Maybe they were wrong about the definition, (although I still don't think they totally were), but the intelligent part was the way their brains analyzed it at a higher level than that of most teenagers. Which ties back in with TFIOS being good for YA.
The thing is, it's not enough to simply keep saying they're brilliant to make them brilliant - dropping literary and science references isn't an indicator of intelligence, either; it's a lazy writer's shorthand for intelligence. Especially when they frequently mangle the concepts they're referencing (Whittler and ACT have kept a good running tally of these if you're interested, which you're probably not.) So most of what they say is stupid, or at least not smart. Most of the things they do are stupid, too. The stupid, stupid cigarette metaphor. The painfully dumb obsession with eggs. Making out IN ANNE FRANK'S HOUSE. Hazel (and Isaac) frequently misinterpreting idiomatic speech as an attack ("You'll see", etc.). Hazel being a bitch to Lida because she inexplicably feels Lida's rubbing her remission in Hazel's face. Hazel's pity party about being a "grenade" despite never making any real effort to stay away from Gus. I can keep going, if you want.
Dramapuppy wrote: "Pilcrow, that's not the theme I was talking about at all. Green wanted to communicate that teenagers can feel "real" emotions. Hazel's life was short but full. Her love, (if unrealistic) allowed her to feel complete. The theme was that a short life doesn't mean a pointless, empty one. "Again, this isn't deep. This is trite. Not to mention totally not backed up by what's in the book. Hazel's life wasn't full; she spent most of TFiOS either whining, snarking on other people, being a bitch, having other people make her wishes happen for her, and generally shitting all over everything (the 'oblivion" speech right at the beginning). And this mostly doesn't change by the end of the book. Again, way too much telling and not enough showing.
Pilcrow, these kids may not have been intelligent in the way you're familiar with but they certainly are smart in an abstract way. I can tell how people who do not have abstract thinking would miss this but it isn't a fault of the author. I don't know how to explain this theme any better. It's on Green's website. Hazel experienced true love.
Dramapuppy wrote: "Pilcrow, these kids may not have been intelligent in the way you're familiar with but they certainly are smart in an abstract way. I can tell how people who do not have abstract thinking would miss..."I don't think it was true love.
I think it was infatuation, a rush to have a relationship before Hazel died.
We wasn't eased into the love story, it was thrust into our face, and happened way to quickly.
Another reason why I dislike The Fault in Our Stars.
Nimotalai, I believe the point of the book was that it doesn't have to be a rush to have sex before death. I saw the book a different way then you. There's no real debating past that. If you saw the book in a way you didn't like, that's not Green's fault. Lia, what I'm trying to say is that because most people see personalities like Hazel's as "flawed," it was nice that Green didn't. I have a personality like that. I know many people don't like that. But if you don't, maybe don't read a book that glorifies it. Glorifying it isn't a fault in the book; it's a reason you specifically didn't like it. Not that Green should have done it differently.
Dramapuppy wrote: "Nimotalai, I believe the point of the book was that it doesn't have to be a rush to have sex before death. I saw the book a different way then you. There's no real debating past that. If you saw th..."No, it may not be John Greens's fault, and it must be hard work to write a novel, so I do respect him, but I do think he could've wrote the book better, as I don't think that he put enough emotion into what he was writing.
And yes, that may just be my view and the way I interpreted the book, but at the end of the day he did write the book.
It's not his fault that I don't like the book, but my reasons for not liking this book are due to the way he writes.
I'm not contradicting any of this. (No, it may not be John Greens's fault, and it must be hard work to right a novel, so I do respect him, but I do think he could've wrote the book better, as I don't think that he put enough emotion into what he was writing...)I'm just saying we shouldn't call the book poorly written because you didn't like it. Yes, Green did things you didn't like but that doesn't make the book bad. He just did good things you didn't happen to enjoy. I'm not saying the book is perfect or that you should like it; I'm just saying it's well-written.
Dramapuppy wrote: "I'm not contradicting any of this. (No, it may not be John Greens's fault, and it must be hard work to right a novel, so I do respect him, but I do think he could've wrote the book better, as I don..."I don't think it was well written.
The whole thing sounded as if he was vomiting the dictionary.
He was just showing a character trait. Some teenagers do talk like that.
Dramapuppy wrote: "I'm just saying we shouldn't call the book poorly written because you didn't like it. Yes, Green did things you didn't like but that doesn't make the book bad. He just did good things you didn't happen to enjoy. I'm not saying the book is perfect or that you should like it; I'm just saying it's well-written."By that logic, you also shouldn't be calling the book well-written because you liked it. Or are we only allowed to make judgments about the writing as long as we liked the book?
Dramapuppy wrote: "Nimotalai, I believe the point of the book was that it doesn't have to be a rush to have sex before death. I saw the book a different way then you. There's no real debating past that. If you saw th..."The problem isn't so much that JG doesn't see cynicism, bitchiness and arrogance as flaws - though most people would disagree - it's that she has no flaws at all. Even the things you generally don't like in other people - again, bitchiness, cynicism and arrogance - are treated by the author as positives, things that make her better than your average cancer-stricken YA protag. This is bad writing and bad characterization.
Dramapuppy wrote: "Pilcrow, these kids may not have been intelligent in the way you're familiar with but they certainly are smart in an abstract way. I can tell how people who do not have abstract thinking would miss..."More evidence for bad writing: you need to set up an FAQ page to explain what you were trying to say.
Also, again, saying they're smart isn't sufficient evidence to back up the theory that they are smart. You're going to need something called "evidence," preferably in the form of examples from the book.
Dramapuppy wrote: "He was just showing a character trait. Some teenagers do talk like that."Maybe some teenagers talk like that, but we all know what the stereotypical teenager is. And yes, it is always refreshing to see a book challenging stereotypes, but usually it's stereotypes that society/ the public are more avid to change, therefore the reader can approach the book with more avidity. Yes, the stereotype of a teenager isn't good, but I'd rather a book be challenging stereotypes on races, e.g. Whites, Asians, black etc., etc.
Hazel and Augustus' dialogue -especially Hazel's- added an air of arrogance, and that's why they were pretentious.
And some teenagers who do talk like Hazel and Augustus are either very intelligent or very pretentious.
Pilcrow wrote: "Dramapuppy wrote: "Pilcrow, these kids may not have been intelligent in the way you're familiar with but they certainly are smart in an abstract way. I can tell how people who do not have abstract ..."And he has to make up a book in-verse to reference the emotions he wants the audience to feel. That's a cheap ploy. If he had any worth as a writer, he would choose narrative and dialogue to make those emotions appear naturally within the reader. Which is probably why he included that crappy end statement about the book ending being the last on the subject. We're not meant to discuss TFIOS because then we'll see through his smoke and mirrors. He failed.
Nimotalai wrote: "Dramapuppy wrote: "He was just showing a character trait. Some teenagers do talk like that."Maybe some teenagers talk like that, but we all know what the stereotypical teenager is. And yes, it i..."
I'm not understanding how the way Hazel and Gus talk is perceived as a character trait. That's not a trait, it's an affectation as a cause of a trait, like arrogance.
Daniel wrote: "And about the hamartia thing, I think you're misunderstanding something. Let's take the link you referenced me to. Only one of the definitions it offers simplifies it down to the words "tragic flaw". So far so good, but you'll notice that the words "tragic flaw" are also bound by a single hyperlink. When you access that link, this emerges: "Tragic Flaw: the character defect that causes the downfall of the protagonist of a tragedy". See? Character defect. As in hubris, or arrogance, or short foresight. Not as in "any condition that makes life difficult, and ends up in sad consequences". Also, the operative words there are "sad" vs "tragic". This book is sad, but not a tragedy, since it lacks the basic interpretative mistake/character defect that tragedies require. Hamlet died because of his procrastination, Oedipus's downfall was for lack of information, Antigone died for choosing family over law. Augustus just dies because he's sick, not because of any decision he made. The word "hamartia" had nothing to do with this story. Hamartia is a weakness or flaw that leads to the downfall or ruination of a character. Augustus' hamartia was that he thought of himself as invincible. That is partly why he completely fell apart when his cancer forced him to accept the reality that he is not. Being forced to face his own mortality took away all of his grandiose hopes and dreams for himself and "killed" his spirit. The cancer is not the hamartia and his physical death was not his "downfall". Some of his ideas about life and death and his own infallibility led to his "emotional/spiritual" downfall.
I never thought Augustus saw himself as invincible, just trying to mentally play down a vulnerability which, deep down, he knew was there. But okay, let's say he considered himself invincible. He does suffer depression in his last days, but I wouldn't say it killed his spirit. Just read the final letter. He had some wit left, some snark, and he ends on a bright note, saying he was lucky to have loved Hazel. Now, that all feels saccharine to me, but it does prove that he wasn't dead inside. He, in fact, seems to have learnt a lot about life in those days, and achieved some kind of peace. Yes, he had to give up his grand dreams, but that sounds like no spiritual downfall to me; not when he's replacing those dreams with strength and the zen-like tranquillity of love (as portrayed here). Being sad for some weeks before having a spiritual epiphany hardly beats taking your eyes out in shame, or commiting suicide with your sword, like Oedipus or Ayax did. Besides, in the lines of the book which mention the actual word, it is strongly remarked that Hamartia is cancer itself, i.e. "Everyone in this tale had a rock-solid hamartia: hers, that she is so sick; yours, that you are so well".
Daniel wrote: "I never thought Augustus saw himself as invincible, just trying to mentally play down a vulnerability which, deep down, he knew was there. But okay, let's say he considered himself invincible. He does suffer depression in his last days, but I wouldn't say it killed his spirit. Just read the final letter. He had some wit left, some snark, and he ends on a bright note, saying he was lucky to have loved Hazel. Now, that all feels saccharine to me, but it does prove that he wasn't dead inside. He, in fact, seems to have learnt a lot about life in those days, and achieved some kind of peace. Yes, he had to give up his grand dreams, but that sounds like no spiritual downfall to me; not when he's replacing those dreams with strength and the zen-like tranquillity of love (as portrayed here). Being sad for some weeks before having a spiritual epiphany hardly beats taking your eyes out in shame, or commiting suicide with your sword, like Oedipus or Ayax did. Besides, in the lines of the book which mention the actual word, it is strongly remarked that Hamartia is cancer itself, i.e. "Everyone in this tale had a rock-solid hamartia: hers, that she is so sick; yours, that you are so well". I think he was much more than just "sad for some weeks". He was very depressed and his personality was markedly different. He does recover somewhat, but that recovery of some of his wit and spirit happens toward the very end, though....after "the last good day" and "the pre-funeral". Before that, there was....
He came home from the hospital a few days later, finally and irrevocably robbed of his ambitions. It took more medication to remove him from the pain. He moved upstairs permanently, into a hospital bed near the living room window. These were days of pajamas and beard scruff, of mumblings and requests and him endlessly thanking everyone for all they were doing on his behalf. One afternoon, he pointed vaguely toward a laundry basket in a corner of the room and asked me, “What’s that?” “That laundry basket?” “No, next to it.” “I don’t see anything next to it.” “It’s my last shred of dignity. It’s very small.” Read more at location 2581
I'm not trying to imply that John Green's handling of the concept of hamartia is on par with the more classic examples. It isn't. I just don't think that he got the concept completely wrong.
Regarding the Van Houten's line about "Everyone in this tale had a rock-solid hamartia: hers, that she is so sick; yours, that you are so well", I took the hamartia for each of them as not necessarily being the cancer per se, but how they each perceived their respective illnesses.
It's been two years since I've read this book, and I don't intend on re-reading it. That being said, I want to comment, though it appears I'm a bit late to the party.I didn't think they were "too smart." If anything, I wish they were as intelligent as the book kept insisting they are. (Misunderstanding infinities, hamartia, etc.) It seems to me that it's becoming a "John Green-ism" to try to take complex concepts and simplify them, at the expense of accuracy.
As for pretension, I remember thinking that Hazel and Augustus (even their names scream pretension) seemed to be unrealistically so. I get that in some circles it's cool to judge people and criticize them and be a bitch to your parents, even though they probably had to take out a second mortgage to keep you alive. But it was so over the top. I suppose the author was trying to make a whiny, "intellectual" cancer patient because that's refreshing. I will acknowledge that it is a trope that the Littlest Cancer Patient is used as a device to spur other characters' growth, by being so selfless or whatever they put in those feel-good cancer movies.
However, it was heavy-handed and I lost my proverbial marbles when Hazel slapped PvH in his own home and then got all hot and bothered at a Holocaust memorial, using Otto Frank's speech about his murdered daughter to make it about Hazel. Shameful. I lost all respect for John Green and stopped reading the book for a while. I finally finished it because I hate leaving books unfinished.
To finish my rant, these characters just seemed to be constructed for teenagers who like to say they "aren't like other girls" and maybe wore Converse to prom because it's quirky.
Anyway, that's my two cents. I think that the idea of having a "not-your-typical-cancer-book" is a good idea; this wasn't an example of good execution.
Leslie wrote: "It's been two years since I've read this book, and I don't intend on re-reading it. That being said, I want to comment, though it appears I'm a bit late to the party.I didn't think they were "too..."
It's been two years for you, but you're spot on :)
they're teenagers who haven't had enough social interraction with others their age throughout their lives. of course they'll seem pretentious
I don't really think they were pretentious. You kinda have to take into account their situation. For instance Hazel: When you aren't just around kids your own age you act a lot different. I am around a lot of adults and kids of all different ages and I am not considered to act like a "normal" kid. Yeah sometimes they act a little stuck up in a way but overall I don't think they are pretentious
No, I feel as though them being smart and intelligent adds to the book, as it is an intelligent books if the characters were less so I'm not positive if the book would be as good. There are many parts in the book that wouldn't have happened if they had not been as smart/intelligent.
I LOVE the characters being this way.
I'm not surprised Green wrote Hazel as a smart home-schooler. Part of her hesitation to get involved with a boy is her incompatibility with teens. She treats her mother poorly, but this seemed very realistic to me.
They were really pretentious and this made me dislike them a tiny bit. They didn't feel like real teenagers, because how many teenagers actually talk like that? I loved the book and the characters, but they felt just a little unrealistic because of their heavy use of metaphors, no one talks like that, especially not teenagers
I don't think the characters are too smart/pretentious. If anything, I think it was actually really refreshing to see characters that we're going for higher thinking.
I found them to be a bit pretentious... I would have been more satisfied if they seemed more aware of it. It was kind of a whole 'I've finally found my equal' situation which sorta discredits normal people who don't talk the way that they do in the novel.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
What deep theme? People with cancer can be "smart" and irreverent? Wow, this is news to absolutely nobody who has ever known somebody with cancer, which is most people.