[Before I complete this post, I just wanted to address some things. I have noticed that some hardcore fans over the internet have taken badly to criticism of this book, on the basis that if you haven't had cancer you can't understand it. This is not true, I can not or enjoy a book without having lived my way through it. I do not wish to offend those with cancer, and I know that it was based on a girl called Esther Earl who died of cancer. This is a purely literary criticism.]
The Fault in Our Stars, by John Green, received mostly stellar reviews, the only exception being The Daily Mail, who's main criticism seemed to be that it was offended that the book tackled cancer. John Green himself called the article "condescending", as it argued that teenagers could not handle the subject matter, which was mostly relatively tame.
TFiOS was an enjoyable read, but it was, to me at least, far from the perfection that many teenagers have idealised it to be. I have spent several enjoyable afternoons reading and rereading the novel, and I eagerly anticipate the film (especially as the soundtrack looks wonderful, and music has the potential to make a movie).
John Green spent time in a hospital working with sick children, and TFiOS was meant to capture "their complete humanity", as he believed that "we have a habit of imagining the very sick or the dying as being kind of fundamentally other." Whilst I completely agree with this sentiment, I am not entirely convinced that TFiOS managed to capture this.
The protagonist, Hazel Grace Lancaster, really didn't have very much character at the beginning of the book at all. Perhaps this was the point - to illustrate the isolation that a disease such as cancer could give a person - but it also came across as very difficult to read, in the sense that she wasn't very relatable. A character with no passions - we are told that she enjoys watching crappy TV and reading poetry, but this is never really a part of her story or personality, potentially, is difficult for the demographic of teenagers to relate to on any basis at all. Shortly after meeting her love interest, Augustus, her entire world shifts to him.
Augustus is definitively more likeable - he has interests, friends, and the kind of poetic artistry - the scene with the cigarette is particularly memorable - that many dream of. However, his intellectual obsession with metaphor is again, slightly unrelatable. I do not imply that I do not think that teenagers could grasp the concept - they do, and they run with it - I instead imply that it comes across as slightly composed as a trait, as something only a fictional character could conceivably do.
Together, as a couple, they are far more relatable. In scenes with Isaac, I really get their relationship dynamic and their discussions about "cancer perk" truly hit home the way the world views cancer. Most of the time they are an amusing and sweet couple to witness reading, although their separate identities, especially Hazel's are questionable. There is a blatant realism, that comes across in their only sex scene, which is very refreshing after reading so many young adult novels that condescend the readers with kissing scenes with "fireworks behind her eyes" et cetera.However, I did not think that the subplot about "An Imperial Affliction" was particularly interesting or realistic. I understand why, as a character Hazel would care about that book, although most probably only because she was a cancer patient, which draws back to the idea of viewing her as her illness and not as herself. The obsession with Amsterdam read as a massively long tangent, and frankly the idea that the secretary lied seemed a little mishmashed and unrealistic - as though John Green was trying to use any means to get the pair to Amsterdam, and damn realism with it. The part in which they traveled around the Anne Frank house read like a tour guide.
The ending sequence of the book, in which we watch Augustus decline in health was sad, I will admit. I cried, but then I cry sometimes at classical songs or over old Muppets films. This section of the book struck me with a blatant realism, but whilst I felt pained for Augustus, and his loss of dignity, his loss of health, I felt far less for Hazel, who still didn't come across as particularly emotional. Whilst John Green explained to us how she felt, she never really acted in a way that showed her emotions, which made the entire sequence less realistic.
One of my favourite parts of the book was the ending, in which he managed to end in both comedy (the wedding symbolism of "I do") and the more obvious tragedy. However, this did feel a little too artistic and contrived. I didn't like the presence of the author of "An Imperial Affliction" at the end of the book, as I felt like again, it was a case of tying up loose ends that should never have existed in the first place.
Overall, I read the book as enjoyable, but far more shallow than the majority of people seem to read it as. Augustus was likeable enough, Hazel was wet and bland and dull and their storyline was, if not predictable in its storyline, then predictable in the inevitable tragedy of the outcome. Perhaps the inevitability of death was meant to play a part symbolically - "I'm a grenade", but in terms of a novel, it just comes across as potentially dull.
It would have been interesting to see Hazel reacting with someone who was not either Augustus; she did react to another friend and occasionally her mother, and she had little personality with either.
Overall, I think that the book was let down by a lack of development with Hazel's character, but was otherwise an enjoyable, if not momentously life-changing read.
No comments:
Post a Comment