Finally Getting Around to Reading TFiOS

That's just how I am. I love storytelling as well as the study of it. I like looking at something and figure out the meaning behind it, and what certain things mean. Look at that Frozen thread I posted up a while back; that came from wanting to figure out for myself the ins and outs of that movie. Read reviews that I write. I can go into something and enjoy it for what it is, even if it is dumb (I absolutely love 47 Ronin, even if it wasn't all that good), but that doesn't mean I don't recognize the faults.

But even if I absolutely hate something, I will recommend people to form their own opinion on it and see it for themselves. Hopefully, they'll understand my view, even if we disagree.

 

You're not missing much. Teen Lit is deader than Benoit Mandelbrot anyway.

 

One of the unfortunate pitfalls of an interest in literary criticism & analysis is that you sometimes can't just let go and enjoy something for what it's worth. When I read books for school professors usually start off with the "did you like it" question and it's so hard for me to answer because I've usually by that point gone beyond liking something, but rather evaluating it. It's far more prevalent with assigned books as opposed to those I read for leisure, but it does leak over at times. I also have a habit of analyzing other people in this way; so, for example, I was recommended/forced to read TFiOS by a dear friend, who told me that I reminded her of Hazel (which I didn't see much but it's not important). I spent much of my time reading the book thinking about why she enjoyed it, why she recommended it to me, what qualities she felt I had because of her comparison to Hazel, and so on.

It's usually the mark of a really masterful novel when I'm completely distracted from thoughts about narrative or plot structure or symbolism or allegory and I just get lost in the story, the prose, the emotion. Only a few books I've read in recent years have done this and they are ones very dear to me for that reason. It's not to say that I can't or don't analyze these works, far from it, but they're often the subjects of my habitual and obsessive re-reading. They're usually the most challenging for me in that regard. Pride & Prejudice is a great example here, as probably my favorite novel. When I first read it I was completely engrossed in the story and the characters and the experience of reading it that I missed out on many of the finer skills of Jane Austen in writing it. It's through my several re-readings since that I've discovered new things about it. Another example would be Mrs. Dalloway, though slightly different -- I struggled to really get a hold of the narrative and purpose of the book, but instead let myself get lost in Virginia Woolf's emotive characters. I've always wanted to return to the book in hopes that I can dissect it further, but for both of these, it's a labor of love. For books like TFiOS, I'm so distracted by the problems that I can't enjoy the book for what it is.

tl;dr i drive myself crazy

 

I'd probably start with Looking for Alaska or Paper Towns (which I did lol). I thought they were better than Fault in Our Stars & kept me more invested in the story and characters. Both also have pretty pretentious writing, so Will Grayson, Will Grayson may be a better launch pad (especially since it was written by David Leviathan as well so it doesn't have too much of the usual flow of Green's work),

 

Basically what I wanted to say lol.
Those three are my favorite books from John Green. Yeah, they're pretentious, but at least I was much more invested in the characters compared to TFioS.

(also Will Grayson, Will Grayson is pretty funny)

 

So basically....The Fault in Our Stars isn't that good? Sigh...she got me to plan on reading that one first ._.

 

I mean it's still decent in my opinion. People just have different opinions of it.
Read it /for her/ and make your own opinion. It's really not that long :v

 

Okay; finished the book earlier today. Everything I've said still stands. A very well written book, but I just can't get myself to like it. The characters had absolutely nothing to like about them at all, and the plot was pretty meh. My biggest complaint is that it didn't feel like these people were living with a terminal disease; it only popped up when it was convenient for the plot, but other than that, it didn't feel like they were "sick kids".

It's not a book I would really recommend to anyone, and that's kind of depressing because the writing is good. It just feels like it navel gazes too much.

Spoiler

And the stuff at the Anne Frank House; both the kiss and Hazel talking about "Oh, Anne was like this, and I know this because blah blah blah" was really out of place, and really unrealistic when you think about it.

And when she replied to that post on Gus's wall; that's just not right. Like hell no one would reply; she'd be flooded with messages saying that she's wrong, and she shouldn't be trying to start fights when all the guy was doing was mourning and paying respect.

That leads to another problem with the book: they either shy away from consequences, or don't show them at all. Gus died because he chose to go on the trip. He shouldn't have taken the trip in the first place; the doctors should've stepped in and said he wasn't healthy enough to go, which would cancel the trip via the Genie Foundation. They don't make that point clear enough. And then with Hazel's comment, she doesn't get told anything at all for it, or any other time that she is rude to other people who are only trying to help.