Emily May's Reviews > The Fault in Our Stars
The Fault in Our Stars
by
by
It seems silly that I have to say this, but I've seen many a negative review of this book met with backlash from John's nerdfighter fans, so I want to make one thing clear: I like John Green. You'll find plenty who worship him as a god amongst men and many who are highly critical of him, I fall into neither of these categories but I do like him and I enjoy watching his videos. I find him funny and I agree with a lot of what he stands for; I also appreciate the amount of charity work he does and the way he helps the "nerds" feel better about themselves and make it out of high school a little less scarred than they might have been. I like John Green.
But I do not particularly like this book.
There are plenty of people raving about this book on goodreads, on Kirkus, in various magazines and newspapers... so I realise I am in a tiny minority. I will also admit that I might not have felt the same if I hadn't already subjected myself to numerous "cancer books" but, as it is, I do not feel anything that unique or interesting has been brought to the table here. For the first half (approx), despite my lack of enthusiasm, I expected to give it three stars because I didn't consider it to be a bad book and it was well-written enough; however, as the book wore on, I began to realise that I was growing more and more bored and found myself struggling to read on. This was something I hadn't anticipated. I'd prepared myself for many different possibilities: heartbreak, a changed perspective on life and death, disdain, annoyance... but not bored indifference. Hence the lower rating.
One of the first problems I encountered was that the kids were wise beyond their years. And I don't mean intelligent, I mean wise. They came out with things that really only suit people who've been alive a few centuries - like Dumbledore or Gandalf - or at the very least people who are sat comfortably in middle age. I like that Green doesn't patronise his readers by oversimplifying things or dumbing down characters in a condescending effort to appeal to teenagers, but these characters behave in a way that is unnatural to the point where sometimes it is verging on ridiculous. It's not completely unbelievable that some kids exist who are actually like this, but they definitely don't all speak and behave in this way.
The characters are all, in one way or another, John Green. They all have his quirkiness, his sense of humour; I was picturing several John Greens sat around having a conversation while I was reading The Fault in Our Stars. In fact, reading this book was a little bit like watching one of Green's vlogs, which might have worked well if JG hadn't dampened the humour with philosophical musings. As it was, I had a book that was trying so very hard to be both funny and sad at the same time and ended up failing to deliver either one as successfully as I would have liked. The dialogue felt false and scripted because of the teens' tendency to showcase their depth and intelligence. Natural conversation between anyone of any age doesn't work like this and I couldn't shake the feeling that there should be a laughter track playing in the background.
The Fault in Our Stars, in my opinion, would have been far better if Green had stuck to humour like Andrews did in Me and Earl and the Dying Girl. I believe that the exaggerated characters and their unrealistic conversations would have been fine in a straight-up humour book because that's not supposed to portray something real and deep and moving. But Green loses it by trying to be philosophical and, in the end, I think he has produced a book that is as melodramatic and message-driven as any other on this issue. And his attempt to balance humour and sadness left me somewhat devoid of emotion throughout and provided fewer laughs than I'd hoped.
Ultimately, I feel that JG sacrificed humour in order to be deep and philosophical - perhaps this book tried to be too many things, perhaps JG tried to be too clever. But Me and Earl and the Dying Girl was a much better book, in my opinion, because it did the whole serious illness + humour thing but didn't over-complicate things by being philosophical. Like I said near the beginning, perhaps I am just tired of these books and The Fault in Our Stars needs to be appreciated by someone who has not already exhausted themselves on similar efforts.
Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | Tumblr
But I do not particularly like this book.
There are plenty of people raving about this book on goodreads, on Kirkus, in various magazines and newspapers... so I realise I am in a tiny minority. I will also admit that I might not have felt the same if I hadn't already subjected myself to numerous "cancer books" but, as it is, I do not feel anything that unique or interesting has been brought to the table here. For the first half (approx), despite my lack of enthusiasm, I expected to give it three stars because I didn't consider it to be a bad book and it was well-written enough; however, as the book wore on, I began to realise that I was growing more and more bored and found myself struggling to read on. This was something I hadn't anticipated. I'd prepared myself for many different possibilities: heartbreak, a changed perspective on life and death, disdain, annoyance... but not bored indifference. Hence the lower rating.
One of the first problems I encountered was that the kids were wise beyond their years. And I don't mean intelligent, I mean wise. They came out with things that really only suit people who've been alive a few centuries - like Dumbledore or Gandalf - or at the very least people who are sat comfortably in middle age. I like that Green doesn't patronise his readers by oversimplifying things or dumbing down characters in a condescending effort to appeal to teenagers, but these characters behave in a way that is unnatural to the point where sometimes it is verging on ridiculous. It's not completely unbelievable that some kids exist who are actually like this, but they definitely don't all speak and behave in this way.
The characters are all, in one way or another, John Green. They all have his quirkiness, his sense of humour; I was picturing several John Greens sat around having a conversation while I was reading The Fault in Our Stars. In fact, reading this book was a little bit like watching one of Green's vlogs, which might have worked well if JG hadn't dampened the humour with philosophical musings. As it was, I had a book that was trying so very hard to be both funny and sad at the same time and ended up failing to deliver either one as successfully as I would have liked. The dialogue felt false and scripted because of the teens' tendency to showcase their depth and intelligence. Natural conversation between anyone of any age doesn't work like this and I couldn't shake the feeling that there should be a laughter track playing in the background.
The Fault in Our Stars, in my opinion, would have been far better if Green had stuck to humour like Andrews did in Me and Earl and the Dying Girl. I believe that the exaggerated characters and their unrealistic conversations would have been fine in a straight-up humour book because that's not supposed to portray something real and deep and moving. But Green loses it by trying to be philosophical and, in the end, I think he has produced a book that is as melodramatic and message-driven as any other on this issue. And his attempt to balance humour and sadness left me somewhat devoid of emotion throughout and provided fewer laughs than I'd hoped.
Ultimately, I feel that JG sacrificed humour in order to be deep and philosophical - perhaps this book tried to be too many things, perhaps JG tried to be too clever. But Me and Earl and the Dying Girl was a much better book, in my opinion, because it did the whole serious illness + humour thing but didn't over-complicate things by being philosophical. Like I said near the beginning, perhaps I am just tired of these books and The Fault in Our Stars needs to be appreciated by someone who has not already exhausted themselves on similar efforts.
Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | Tumblr
1513 likes · Like
∙
flag
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Fault in Our Stars.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
February 4, 2013
– Shelved
March 28, 2013
–
Started Reading
March 30, 2013
–
20.77%
"This requires you to stretch the boundaries of belief a fair bit. JG's characters are all intelligent, quick-witted and have a very dry sense of humour. They are all different shades of him and quite unlike any teens I've ever known. However, if you view the characters as deliberately exaggerated to be funny and not realistic, then I suppose it is forgivable. Maybe."
page
65
March 30, 2013
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 232 (232 new)
message 1:
by
Wylie Kay
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Mar 28, 2013 11:36AM
Oh boy I loved this book. Got your tissues handy? Your gonna need em.
reply
|
flag
I haven't read it yet, but a lot of people have given it 5 stars. Did you find it boring or something?
I really enjoyed reading your review Emily. You addressed a lot of things I had problems with as well. I read A Monster Calls last year and I cried my eyes out reading that book, but TFioS just didn't bring up any emotions like that for me. I really wanted to love this book, but it just wasn't for me I suppose. Great Review :).
I agree with you that the two main characters in this book seemed wiser beyond their years but it did not feel unrealistic to me. Some, though not all, kids and teenagers with terminal illnesses are in fact wise beyond their years. Wisdom of middle age is relevant. In our time it comes at age 50. In ancient times it may have come at 35. For some one who is 16 but looking at death regularly, some of it may come at age 16. Like I wouldn't expect them to be wise about everything, like finances and stuff. But to be wise about death, philosophy, and the meaning of life, etc isn't entirely unrealistic in my opinion.
Thank you, Savindi! I had exactly the same experience with A Monster Calls too - I was a wreck after reading that. But this one failed to touch me :( Meherin, I could understand that if it was just Hazel but I felt it was a bit of a stretch to apply it to all the characters - even the ones who weren't dying. The vast majority of us have experienced death of someone close to us, many of us have gone through the pain of losing a loved one... and yet most people don't act/talk like this on a regular basis. Well, that's how I feel about it. But thank you for your perspective, I'm glad you enjoyed the book more than I did.
meherin.. i agree.. but somehow i think, faced with dying at any age, we are a bit wiser than the undying. (not that im dying but its just a guess)
I know it's the unpopular opinion - not just with this book, but in general - but I kind of feel like dying/illness doesn't make you any wiser. I think people want it to because they want it to mean something and they want people to take something good from a bad thing. But I liked how in Me and Earl and the Dying Girl dying wasn't a lesson and it didn't give the characters new perspective, it was just a matter of bad things happening sometimes. And that made more sense to me than any philosophical message ever did.
I'm so glad you brought up the unbelievable wisdom and style of speech of these teenage characters. For me, that was the biggest weakness. I think that by creating characters who pontificate in such a way that it is obvious that an older adult is giving them their words, Green undermines himself. I've always seen John Green and the nerdfighter community as a place for offbeat teens and people to find and express their own voice, but I don't see my voice or the voice of anyone I know in the words of these characters. All I see is John Green.
My experience with death in patients and loved ones sorta aligns with there is some sort of growth or evolution in those who survive.... Of course this depends on how one dies and is entirely too subjective to nail i have one comment or in one book... However of the kids I know with terminal illnesses or general life long illnesses, it's almost as if they had to grow too quickly to adapt and maybe this is confused with being wise, but somewhere in there those kids just know a bit more about the darkness in life and in the world compared to a typical kid. Regardless of whether or not the author did that justice is a different story. I don't think is about goodness though or taking something good away from it. It's an entirely different and more complex thing when young people die and leave behind others.
I really enjoyed this book BUT I also felt my problem lied within the characters. I read it right when my friend was diagnosed with cancer himself so I cried through the whole book...not for Hazel or Gus but for my real life friend and what might happen to him... I thought that Hazel and Gus had a sweet romance but they were too old for their age. I know that you have to grow up fast in certain situations but I just didn't see H & G and the other characters as teens, but much like you say - middle age adults. I am in the minority here as well that I find Looking for Alaska Green's best book & by far would be a more fun flick than the soon to be TFiOS. But *sigh* Minority we will be in.........
I very much agree with you, Emily. I'm just halfway through, but I had to pause because I'm getting bored.
Yeah it really seems like they're not teenagers at all, and the story is boring, that's why I've stop reading it.
I have a feeling I'm going to have this reaction to it, too. I should read it one of these days and find out.
Thank you for a review Emily, I have enjoyed this book a lot, but your review was thought provoking and made me re-evaluate this book in a different light. I also agree that John Greens' characters are so much more philosophical than your typical teenagers out there, which makes them less believable in my opinion.
I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it as much as many others did, including myself. I too enjoy JG's vlogs and such but TFIOS is thus far the only JG book I've enjoyed. I, however, have not read any other books in the same realm and that probably benefited me. I loved the maturity/wisdom of the characters but it did require some grain of salt acceptance.
Great review. I keep feeling like I should read John Green, I mean, I should probably know what this guy is all about, and everyone says start here. But I don't want to start with a sad cancer book, and this review sort of confirmed a few of the apprehensions I had. Funny/sad/philosophical are a rough combination. That said, I still want to read him, any better first book recommendation? Fantastic review, very well thought out and honest.
Thank you all!@Use-your-imagination I agree. I also think you can excuse it to a certain extent like, for example, if one character was like that or they were all like that SOME of the time. But it was too much to be believable for me.
@Nikki I do think that makes a big difference. While I don't believe this book would have been a favourite of mine anyway, I think I would have enjoyed it considerably more if I didn't feel it was a story I'd read many times before. I'm glad it worked better for you :)
@s.penkevich Personally, I'd say Looking for Alaska 100%. I loved that book and I've been looking for more of the same in his other works and found nothing that can compete with it, IMO.
Emily wrote: "Thank you all!@Use-your-imagination I agree. I also think you can excuse it to a certain extent like, for example, if one character was like that or they were all like that SOME of the time. But ..."
have you read paper towns? i haven't just curious. i have it but just havent read it.
I agree with you Emily-- although "pre naturally-wise-beyond-their-years" works for a kid character like Manny of "Modern Family" since it's SUPPOSED to be a farcical comedy where you EXPECT the characters to have slight exaggerations that might not ring as true in real life, it's a bit different when you're dealing with more of a drama, and if you want the drama & pathos to touch the readers/viewers, then they have to be able to believe in the reality of the characters; and like you said, although SOME kids might have insightful "gifts" of wisdom beyond their years, it's certainly not going to be ALL of them (especially not in this day and age, where self-absorbed, under-educated ignorance of the history of the world beyond anything that happened in the last ten years seems to be the standard norm among a LOT of these apathetic, entitled little pinheads! God forbid they have self-awareness of anything outside their social-networking ephemera!); there's not even that many ADULTS possessed of that kind of that kind of insightful & deep wisdom, never mind less-experienced kids! And like you, there's also nothing I hate worse than an author/screenwriter who sacrifices humor in a story for the sake of taking it too seriously-- even the darkest dramas have some really good dark humor in them to make an effective counterpart to the drama & tragedy (like Twin Peaks, for example, or the Coen Brothers movies, even Shakespeare knew that was important!), and characters who take themselves way too seriously are a big turnoff for me. I think I'll definitely pass on this one, judging by your insightful & intelligent review! Thanks! :)
I rated 5 stars for The Fault In Our Stars, but I admit I've read very few cancer-themed book, so I might be biased with my rating. That said I agree with the overall of your review.
Karen wrote: "I agree with you Emily-- although "pre naturally-wise-beyond-their-years" works for a kid character like Manny of "Modern Family" since it's SUPPOSED to be a farcical comedy where you EXPECT the ch..."I can appreciate what you guys are saying, that it's the odd teenager that's as wise and/or intelligent as those in TFiOS, I think that's actually why I loved it. Growing up I tended to find the usual authorial representation of a teenager lacking, even popular, well-known books like The Perks of Being a Wallflower. It made for a nice change.
As you say though Emily, I'm not someone who has exhausted themselves reading books like this.
Shauna wrote: "Karen wrote: "I agree with you Emily-- although "pre naturally-wise-beyond-their-years" works for a kid character like Manny of "Modern Family" since it's SUPPOSED to be a farcical comedy where you..."it had this "my so called life" feel and appeal to it.
Jas wrote: "it had this "my so called life" feel and appeal to it. "That it does, now that you say it.
I'm one of the people who Looooooved this book, but I appreciate your honesty and felt you explained your reasons well, and no matter how good bad a book may be, it sometimes isn't right for us.
Yes, the philosophizing (is that a word?) was over the top in this novel, down to the hotel in Amsterdam. It felt like he was trying too hard at something that could have come out better if he'd just let it flow.
I also agree about the intelligence vs. wisdom stuff. You know, when Hazel worried, he told us she was worried. He never showed her worrying about anything. She had no outward indications or even thoughts that explained the worry. She just tells herself worry doesn't help, but I'll worry anyway. Next scene. That was kind of strange for me, to have no indication of how this worry was affecting her. It was a bit robotic. I don't know if the dying suddenly become sage and accepting and able to spout poetry and intellectual metaphors. These kids do it constantly and I just wished they would go back to talking normally. They spoke to each other as if they were in a 16th century morality play or something. And yes, if ONE of them was like that then fine, it's a character thing. But all of them, no. We didn't get a good enough idea of the rest of the support circle, either. But he did make sure to make that one girl (the strong one in remission for her appendix cancer) seem like an idiot. I guess she didn't get the "sage" treatment because she was in remission.
Momo wrote: "I also agree about the intelligence vs. wisdom stuff. You know, when Hazel worried, he told us she was worried. He never showed her worrying about anything. She had no outward indications or even t..."me before you threw this one out of the park... its more adult like too.
Lovely review. I think John Green is a fun guy and is a great internet personality, but after seeing quote after quote from his books both on GR and tumblr, I've had to do a polite pass. For example, Augustus' love declaration comes of way too composed/abstract to me to be real.
"I'm in love with you, and I'm not in the business of denying myself the simple pleasure of saying true things. I'm in love with you, and I know that love is just a shout into the void, and that oblivion is inevitable, and that we're all doomed and that there will come a day when all our labor has been returned to dust, and I know the sun will swallow the only earth we'll ever have, and I am in love with you."
I mean, did he rehearse that? Because it's a mouthful. I'm not saying it isn't a lovely book in places, that it's all bad, etc. but I suppose I just don't find this kind of dialogue compelling enough. Your review confirms a lot of the doubts I've had about picking up any of JG's books. I think I would just rather not, because they don't seem like they're for me.
I wonder how a lot of TFiOS's quotes will translate over to the big screen, personally. In the end, I suppose it's all just a matter of taste.
Thanks for the review!
Courtney, I missed your comment earlier but thank you :) and I completely agree with everything you said. Jas^ is right, it is a pretty quote but it reads like the person saying it is about a thousand years old, in my opinion. JG is too intelligent for his own good sometimes and his writing style feels too try-hard.
Yah i imagined them both being pompous, self indulgent undergrads. Rules of attraction sorta casting (movie not the book) . Once I applied this logic it was a terrific book. I do agree it took some willpower not to toss it across the room. The characters developmental stages versus are was an eye rolling experience. Though i adored the book
It's good, Jas, that you found a way around JG's somewhat pretentious veneer. I might be able to handle it in a book that wasn't about two teenagers with cancer, because I simply don't think anyone would be so composed as they seem. As I have not and probably will not pick up this book, my impression is from other reviews/the many quotes.I don't know, if I am reading about the romance of two young people who are sick, I really don't care for it be philosophical. I don't believe it - anger, sadness I believe. Not shouts into the void or whatever. But I think you're right, Emily, about how John Green's intelligence got in his way. Have you read Second Chance Summer? I appreciated the way that the author, Morgan Matson, handled the mortality of its dying character and the reactions of his surrounding family.
As I said, I do think this book seems like a matter of taste and tolerance. Everyone seems to love it, so I'm sure there's probably some redeeming qualities to the book.
I have been wondering just how this is going to go as a movie. One of my JG criticisms has been that I din't think anyone in the world talks the way that Gus and Hazel do - unless rehearsed. I know a lot of people love the confession in print but I would love to see what they think of it seeing it said by a teenaged boy. So I will definitely be seeing the movie.
Courtney wrote: "It's good, Jas, that you found a way around JG's somewhat pretentious veneer. I might be able to handle it in a book that wasn't about two teenagers with cancer, because I simply don't think anyone..."absolutely. i have worked with children w/ terminal illnesses as well as clients (mostly adults) with horrible depression. Escaping the sickness, the horror, the scary sh*t, the anger, and fear seems like the only way they can properly survive, if even for a little bit. Children tend to be able to do this more than adults. the utility of catastrophizing is often employed and distorts our reality. I have seen this fairly often in suicide patients too, though it takes time. One of the real problems with building characters that 'decides' to be in the position they are is when the author doesnt give enough back story to their struggle and their development in regards to their illnesses. Even if they were out of denial, our of grief, and out of mourning, i would still have liked to see some sadness here and there, some struggle. but maybe they were actually still in denial. granted it was over done here, but i get the idea of surviving ones last breath in dignity; though maybe children at certain dev ages just are unable to understand the complexities of their situation. i can surely see children below ten doing this. Gets a little cloudy when you include the 13-24 crowd. it was def one of those novels that i sorta had to just say 'suspend judgement, enjoy it for what it is... move on'... took a lot. the language wasnt my major issue with the book... there was a certain trip they took that was a bit randomishhhh. forcing a different age on them was rather difficult, though and i could see how others would just give up. if this tends to be a trend in his novels i may drastically reduce my rating.
@Jas, I completely agree.Children have a way of with escapism. For me, (again I say this with all the foundation of the quotes I have seen and little else) I feel like John Green might have had a stronger novel on his hands with a few other options. One of which, would have been in the hands of children. Obviously many elements would be seriously altered by this, but I think then that I could have endured and perhaps enjoyed a story such as TFiOS.
But his novel is about two very sick teenagers. It's contemporary YA. And unless there is a very specific, forward whimsical or off-beat tone to the narrative (as in A Corner of White, Unspoken, Mothership), I expect a certain kind of, well, reality. I expect more fear than philosophy. I expect anger, regret, what have you. And, again, I'm working off very limited knowledge, but from the things I've read JG seemed a little more concerned with being smart (but off-handedly so) than in what two real, live teenagers would be going through. And that seems abusive to me, and just a tad manipulative. Sickness = sad. Long, purply dialogues = different/smart/unique.
After everything I've said to people about my feelings for this book, I think I'm going to read it. I'm almost positive I'm going to feel about it just how I think, because I know that I cannot suspend my belief in this particular case. I have too many feelings regarding illness as an emotional plot device - and a lack of realistic emotional impact. But I do think it's only fair to read it.
I am, however, glad to see it is not impossible to enjoy. And that even people who liked it can recognize some of the reservations I have about it. I really enjoy your perspective.
Courtney wrote: "@Jas, I completely agree.Children have a way of with escapism. For me, (again I say this with all the foundation of the quotes I have seen and little else) I feel like John Green might have had a..."
I do tend to be a bit biased towards cancer narratives as well, because it can feel like a cop-out of sorts. Want your reader to be sympathetic to and invested in your main character? Give 'em cancer!
That being said, cancer is a reality in many teen's and children's lives. I think books should be written about it (and I second Courtney on Second Chance Summer. Best cancer narrative I've ever read).
But the thing that irks me in John Green's writing is that it's the kind of writing so enamored with itself, so delighted at how clever and how smart it is, that it never really seems human to me. The living, pulsing hearts of characters that I love to read and connect to just don't exist in his novels, not to me, anyway. I understand the appeal - the wit, the humor, the grandiose speechifying. But I just think it's a case of potential gone awry.
Also, I dislike the trope of "someone dies and it teaches someone else a lesson" that exists in a lot of Green's work. Looking for Alaska was all about someone's death teaching the MC something. And that's just, again, cheap narrative, in my opinion.
Courtney wrote: "@Jas, I completely agree.Children have a way of with escapism. For me, (again I say this with all the foundation of the quotes I have seen and little else) I feel like John Green might have had a..."
yah i think you got something there. this idea that it was for YA sorta went against the idea that i think John had. he wanted it smart, and he wanted the resilience level to be high. he wanted it to be funny, but he wanted deeper undertones that just dont work for kids. I have heard kids say some amazing things when sick and dying, but they are more amazing because of their ability to accept, rather than articulate it in some verbose fashion.
B. Rose wrote: "Courtney wrote: "@Jas, I completely agree.Children have a way of with escapism. For me, (again I say this with all the foundation of the quotes I have seen and little else) I feel like John Green..."
it may sound a bit nasty, but cancer is a bit redundant. it seems overly simplistic. we all know what it is and what it odes (the basics). the author doesnt need to teach us anything, so by virtue of this he or she can basically skip the inner struggle and just shoot forward to the result or outcome (kids who understand their fate). HIV would have been fairly interesting. id also like to see a very angry character for once. you can show resilience in a whole different shout out loud, angry, reactionary sort of way. it seems that the acceptance character, resolved to fight things but then submitting to fate is all to common. its missing that raw piece . but then again this is YA







