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.

Role Models

The most agitating arguments that we surely encounter daily is what celebrities, books, etc. art meant to do. The worst, for me, is the argument that famous people are meant to act like positive, model citizens for the world's children. I also hate the argument that books are bad because they teach kids bad things or their subject matter is bad.

I'm going to break this down in an effort to write with more clarity. Let's start with celebrities like pop stars, super models, actors, actresses, etc. It is not their responsibility to babysit the world's children. As much as I cannot stand Miley Cyrus, and I don't understand why she wears those ridiculous 90's underpants that show more of your vagina than necessary, she is not a babysitter. She is an entertainer, and it's common sense at this point in pop culture that most young musicians go through a phase where they just don't wear pants very much. Madonna, Britney, Christina, etc. I don't think Lady Gaga has worn pants at all. These people are paid to entertain. If they don't entertain then they won't get paid.

Not only are they entertainers, but they are people too. Are you perfect all of the time? Do you go to church every Sunday, says your prayers daily, please and thank you, never curse, never drink, nice to everyone, solving world hunger, and you keep your shirt buttoned up all the time? We don't know everything about these people, and a decent chunk of them, like regular people, have issues. Plenty of the come from broken families, abusive families, have drug or alcohol problems, eating disorders, etc. No one is born immune to the tragedies life makes possible, even if they do become a teen idol.

If a celebrity wants to be considered a "good" role model, then fine. However, if the day ever comes when Taylor Swift wants to do a sexy editorial, or goes out and gets hammered with her friends, the backlash will be the reason for the teardrops on her guitar (the angel/devil binary needs to be shot). Once we declare these people "role models" we put them onto an impossible pedestal. Not to mention everyone has a different idea of what a role model is. Some people think Katy Perry is the embodiment of female objectification, anti-feminist (feminism warrants a completely different post), whatever. Fill in the blank. Others, like myself, think she's just a silly popstar, not trying to take herself so seriously, she has boobs, and dammit, she's going to embrace them! I enjoy her music because it's generally happy and upbeat. Seriously, a song like Roar gives me life when I'm running on the treadmill! However, she's not everyone's cup of tea and that's fine. Usually, when people consider something or somewhere immoral, it translates to them just flat out disliking it anyhow.

The concept of a role model is ridiculous to me. These people aren't gods, and they aren't your kids parents. Yes, unfortunately, there are a lot of young people out there without a parent or some sort of adult mentor to look to, so they turn to their favorite musicians or actresses. But is it a musician's fault, really, if someone interprets what they do in a negative way? Also, for those who are parents, parent your child! If you don't like the Marilyn Manson music, don't let your kid listen to it. My parents didn't let me watch MTV for quite awhile, and if there was something I wanted to see, I had to ask permission. Also, we underestimate kids. I remember being a diehard Britney Spears fan as a kid, and seeing the performance at the VMAS where she stripped to the flesh-toned getup, but guess what? I didn't want to go out and do the same thing!  I understood that she was a musician, and an entertainer. It's not real life. And as we all saw later in her career, she's a person with demons and imperfections.

Now, lets get to books. Have you ever looked at a list of banned books? Notice how many of those books are considered classics. Oscar Wilde has a great quote from The Picture of Dorian Gray in which he says "'The books that the world calls immoral are books that show the world its own shame."

So, maybe people feel uncomfortable with books like Twilight because the protagonist is self-conscious, angsty (teenage archetype), dependent on her boyfriend, and she's willing to forsake her life for her significant other...and she's only a teenage girl. Do we not engrain this type of mentality into women of all ages? That we must have boyfriends? Husbands? Seriously, we've had this idea for women for ages, and we all like to think we've progressed and that we're teaching women of all ages that they don't need a boyfriend or a husband to define themselves or to be happy, but are we really? Think about that next time you chastise your friend for still being a virgin, being single, owning a cat, etc.

Maybe people dislike Harry Potter because they feel uncomfortable with the idea of kids having to defend themselves from the stupidity of generations before them. Also, as a predominantly Christian society, the thought of people, especially kids, using something other than faith in God to solve their problems...that's just icky to think about.

Then there's The Hunger Games. I've heard people complain because of the violence in the series. *Sighs* Unfortunately, violence is inescapable in our culture. Yet again, we have a young person who has to grow up quickly, but she ALSO has to take care of her family. Then we send young kids to fight against one another in battles that they weren't responsible for instigating, while people can watch them on television like it's a game show. Why does this sound familiar? Maybe this book series bothers people because it's showing them that there's something a bit wrong with sending a kid to war (I don't care what people say, eighteen is still a baby)...and that there's something a little bit creepy about being able to watch them fighting (and doing so without a choice), and dying on television like a sordid game show.

If you ask me, what books are meant to do is reveal the human condition, and that life isn't perfect. Sometimes people suck, bad people get ahead, good people have terrible circumstances, not all romantic relationships will be healthy, not all parents are nice to their kids, and what does it even mean to be "good" or "bad" anyway? They should encourage questioning, and analysis not only of the text, but of the social conditions presented. If we want kids to read things about good morals and good people, then it's goodbye Shakespeare, and no more reading The Great Gatsby. Of course, people, like Mr. Dorian Gray, will take meanings from books and turn them into something dangerous, but the book is not to blame.

Buy Books Second Hand

I swear to you, buying books in a thrift shop is the greatest thing I've begun to do. Not only is the selection surprisingly well-rounded, but also really cheap. I'm that person who is always buying books in large quantities (hey, I majored in the English) and I don't get to them immediately. As I've likely mentioned, I haven't been a book lover my entire life, and I do feel like I'm doing some catch up. During my Fall break my last semester, my mother and I took a trip to a thrift store, and she bought me three books for five bucks! Seriously. Today, I found seven books and spent less than $25.00. I remember spending roughly that when Anne Rice's The Wolf Gift was released in hardback. Even going to a retailer that sells books new, you can buy three paperbacks for more than that!

I have yet to have quality issues (only concern I had was if they'd have all of the pages or any flaws).  However, I reckon they inspect books before selling them. Everyone from Shakespeare to Austen to John Green to Nicholas Sparks is covered in second hand bookstores. Of course, like any thrift shop, it's a hit or miss, but this day was certainly a hit!  My titles include:

Emma by Jane Austen
Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen
The Pickwick Papers by Charles Dickens
Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy
Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes (this one was $8.95, and the most expensive)
Moby Dick by Herman Melville (I've oddly never read it, and it was ONE DOLLAR/great condition)
Pamela by Samuel Richardson

The bonus about buying classics is there's usually a variety of editions (and you can pick the one you want be it for the cheapest price or whatever). Also, they're in pretty good shape because I reckon most of these were probably books someone had to read for school, and they are ready to get rid of as soon as the class is over! So, if you're a bibliophile, and pinching pennies, I strongly suggest checking out places that sell used copies because you'll save a fortune. Sometimes you do need the new copy, or a specific edition because teachers/professors require them, and sadly some titles are obscure and hard to find. Lesson of the day, second hand books are the bees knees. And you really cannot lose. I found Jack Kerouac's On the Road (a book I've heard you love or hate)in a thrift store and it was like $1.50. If I hate it, I don't lose $14.00, but if I love it, then ooooh vintage.

True Life: I'm Afraid of a Book

I'm not talking about horror or gothic books here.  Have you ever bought a book and been intimidated by it? Be it because of size, content, author, etc.?  Yet, you want to read it because it seems interesting and maybe you'll feel smarter for knocking it out...Ladies and Gentleman, I give you Tristram Shandy by Laurence Sterne.

 

 I found this edition at the thrift shop for a dollar. I had heard of it before through the motions of British Literature study in university, so I figured I'd buy it and give it a whirl.  Don't ask me to explain what it's about. I don't know. Well, I can't explain it.  It seems intriguing, but complicated and intimidating. I know if I read it I will feel smart and proud, but it still freaks me out.

Read This

I majored in English, therefore I have read some books. I didn't used to love reading, but as I've gotten older, like oh my god, books are pretty nifty.  I don't consider myself well read, there are people who read circles around me who didn't major in English. However, I think the term is subjective. What does it really mean to be well read? Does it mean reading all the classics? It's good to know your classics, certainly. Do you love Victorian Literature so you read a lot of Victorians? Or if you enjoy vampires, do you read a lot about their folklore, and books about them?  It's a complicated phrase. Personally, I don't like the idea of being well read because books are always being written and there's always something you haven't read no matter where your interests lie.

Anywho, here's a book. Those who know me know I love Oscar Wilde, and I did a study on him my last semester in undergrad.  I think you simply MUST read The Picture of Dorian Gray.  It's complicated, dark, and it makes you ask questions about everything.  The fun and frustration with Wilde is that he often speaks in paradox, his paradoxes are paradox, and he'll say something and leave it to you to decide if he's serious (and what you think about it says more about you/society than him). He's brilliant. 

I think my strong understanding of the novel came from reading Wilde's theory. I know, you're thinking, "literary theory is so tedious." It isn't always. His are actually entertaining and his ideas are tangible. If you want to read something that will help you understand and think more, try The Critic As Artist at least. Also, The Decay of Lying will give you some nifty insights about Wilde's ideas about Art which will come in handy while trying to understand Dorian Gray.

My best advice about reading Wilde is to take your time and think about it. He's a tough nut to crack.  If it's easy to read his work, or write about it, you're doing it wrong.

Dashing, isn't he?