The Fault in Our Stars

SPOLIERS YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

The Fault in Our Stars is the first novel by John Green that I read, and I loved it. I thought the characters were funny, and I enjoyed the way they deconstructed the way everyone tried to fluff cancer for them. The main character has an oxygen tank she totes around and tubes in her nose to help her breathe, and she's constantly aware of the fact that she will die. Of course the love story was a touch saccharine at times, but sometimes you've got to just allow yourself to be absorbed by the world the author presents and let it happen without your cynical judgment. Plus, considering the hell these teenagers endure--they can have a little saccharine in their lives, and on their own terms. Was I surprised Augustus dies? Not really. It couldn't be Hazel because she's the narrator, unless Green had her die mid-sentence a la Hazel's favorite book (which would've been a bit morbid, I think).

So, the film came out recently, and I loved it. I cried when Augustus started to get sick again, when he dies. GAH. I didn't cry when I read the book, but it certainly stays with you. The way I react to films is always different than a book. With books, they are in your head, in this safe little world within your imagination in which you decide how they look, what they wear, and how their neighborhood looks. Then you see them on screen, and for me, they then became real, concrete people. And not to mention THEY WERE SO ADORABLE!

It's only natural for any author or novel with copious success to receive negative reviews and people questioning their work. After reading this one, I went onto Looking For Alaska and Paper Towns and I honestly didn't love them. There were moments of cheesiness, some parts were quite funny. However, I did feel that there was some similarity in the plots. I will say I do appreciate the fact that both of these books, particularly Paper Towns, really address the idea we have of person vs. who they really are. Usually people are not who we think they are, and we can idealize them as much as we want, but there's often much more complexity that we aren't getting. Having said that, I don't know that I'll go on to read anymore of his books.

Naturally, with The Fault in Our Stars becoming such a sensation (did anyone else catch it show up on Orange is the New Black?) people are going to respond to it. I don't sit around looking for these types of things because honestly I don't care much if other people love or hate the books I care about. However, this one popped up on my youtube account, and since I've seen her other posts before, I thought I'd give it a go.

First of all, I appreciate anybody putting their opinions out there in an articulate manner especially when their subject is going to acquire a lot of backlash (the comments on her video are heinously negative at times). Welcome to my life not giving a rat's ass about Harry Potter books--you wouldn't believe how many times I've heard "oh my god WHY?" or "what's wrong with you?" Nothing. I just don't care. My bedroom is taken over by several stacks of books I'm much more interested in reading than the boy wizard saga. However, I do have some issues with a few of her statements:

1. Of course the way the characters speak is debatably "teenager." All teenagers speak quite differently, and having adults writing from the teenage mentality is always a tricky thing.  There's nothing "Shakespearean" about their speech. One point she makes is that the teenagers don't sound teenager-ish and that teens don't speak that way. If it's because of the words they use being a tad fancy for the average teen--that's not Shakespearean. Shakespeare was considered low-brow entertainment, and a nice chunk of his audience wasn't people sitting on cushions. Had he been too pretentious for the common man's intelligence then he wouldn't have been successful. Plus a decent portion of his language is compromised of slang.

2. This novel does not in any way, shape, or form "romanticize" cancer. I think the claim that it does is ludicrous. Yes, there's a love story but it is hardly a romanticizing of cancer. People with cancer do fall in love--they're allowed. Had cancer been romanticized in Green's novel then the cancer wouldn't have been such a prominent subject of the novel, and we wouldn't get the gruesome details about cancer.

Hazel can't breathe by herself, and she's too sick to even attend school. She regularly has health scares, and she's quite aware of the fact that she's going to die a young person. Something as simple as walking stairs, or taking a trip to Amsterdam, is a huge deal for her.

Augustus has lost a limb to cancer. His cancer comes back and it kills him. The moment when Hazel goes to get him is hardly a romanticization. Not to mention Issac's entire storyline.

Maybe if these were characters who had cancer and it never came back, and then they walked off into the sunset happily ever after, then yes, that is romanticizing illness. If there was mention of Hazel being unable to breathe with assistance, yet she had no oxygen tank pumping air into her nose, then sure, maybe. However, the way that these characters are so aware of death is hardly romantic. And they aren't romanticizing their deaths either. Yes the line Hazel proclaims about being a "grenade" is dramatic, it's her awareness that she could die at any moment, and the people who will be in pain when she passes.

3. The metaphor of Augustus' cigarette as a bad influence for youngsters, come on. It's not John Green's responsibility to write a moral character. Even if he tried, everyone has completely different ideals about what makes someone good or not, and there would still be controversy. Plus, Augustus is of legal age to buy cigarettes. Author's are not meant to be the moral code for their readers. Their job is to write the characters that are in their minds--to make us think, to entertain, etc. It's not an author's responsibility to write positive influences for their fans.

Also--I seriously doubt that there were many teenagers vying for the chance to buy cigarettes and not smoke them in the name of Augustus Waters. Seriously, a carton of cigarettes is expensive!

4. The kiss in the Anne Frank house is an awkward moment, but I think it made sense after Hazel climbs the stairs to the top. I think that scene in both the book and film made my stomach crawl with nerves.

5. Van Houten doesn't force anyone to do anything. The terms for her knowing more require her to go to him. And why is it so surprising that Hazel would go to Amsterdam? Yes, she's ill and it's risky, but as a person who is so aware of her limited time of Earth, is it that shocking that she'd try to go? Especially because it's her favorite author. And to me it makes sense that he wouldn't correspond via e-mail with her about his story because she could easily sell it or leak it online. That stuff happens to authors quite a bit in the digital age.

Was it crazy--yes. But it's a fictional piece meant to entertain--as well as to make you think. And of course her mother would endorse this happening--she wants her daughter to be happy, and not miss the opportunities she wishes for just because of her cancer. I think it's a pretty great mom to organize the trip for her so thoroughly.

Plus, I bet that mama instinct could sense something with Augustus beginning to grow. What teenager would want their mother around for that? Plus, the trip was organized through Make A Wish for them, not mama.

Okay, five points is enough. I think some of the negativity is a little over thought, and I personally did experience the same disillusionment with Green's other books. I give her kudos for putting her opinion out there, but I don't know--the point of posting an entire video about why you dislike something? It's brave, it's a kick me sign, and I don't know if I'd personally do it because I don't know that I'd want to dedicate a video to things I don't like.

Then you have your Goodreads pedants, who have discussions dedicated to disliking the book. Okay, look, I think wanting to have a discussion is completely valid, but seriously, there's a thread entitled, "People Who HATED This Book." I don't get it. If you can have a constructive reasoning for why you dislike something, then okay, but hatred? While this video I posted is one full of arguments I find flawed and that I don't agree with--she's constructive. She's not just saying "Ew, it's stupid," "I hate this book." I don't know if posting the Goodreads link helps her case, but to each their own.

I'm not saying this book is the most beautiful piece of literature--and anytime something has hype there will be criticism and people feeling the hype was unprecedented. However, I did like it. It is always believable, no, but that's the trick when non-teens write about teens, and also the manner in which all teenagers interact. I guarantee every group of friends speaks differently--that's always an argument about books written from any perspective--is it believable? I thought it did provide an insight to the hardly glamorous effects of cancer, and the way people feel within their community who are enduring it.