Blogarithm

I haven't read the book myself, but my sister (who was excited to read it initially) had the exact same criticism with the regard to the dialogue. Specifically she said: "Teenagers don't talk like this." It's not just this one, either, as his novel Paper Towns has the same issue. His characters in that are also obnoxious and unrealistic.

 

I don't remember Looking For Alaska having these issues, though it's been a while since I read it. Despite how incredibly different the characters were from myself, I felt that Green's writing really showed their personalities, faults, and troubles in a way that I could understand. I can't promise you'll like it (maybe I wouldn't if I reread it) but it couldn't hurt to give it a chance if you want to try his writing again.

 

(Just skip Paper Towns.)

I haven't read the book myself, but my sister (who was excited to read it initially) had the exact same criticism with the regard to the dialogue. Specifically she said: "Teenagers don't talk like this." It's not just this one, either, as his novel Paper Towns has the same issue. His characters in that are also obnoxious and unrealistic.

 

Teenagers, do, however, generally really wish that they talked like that (or at least I know precocious little self-aggrandizing I used to).

 

I once skimmed TFiOS and I tried to read Will Grayson Will Grayson (which qualifications I'm sure you'll find make me a bona fide John Green expert), and I've got to say that Green at least knows his audience very well.

 

As others have said, Green is rather crass and manipulative (I think "crass and manipulative" is a quote from the Guardian's review of the TFiOS film) in much of his oeuvre, in that he knows exactly what teens want to read and how to give them the "feels."  (Cf. also that stuff about teens wanting to talk like Hazel and whoever.)  Then again, I'm a real lit snob, so I find most accessible and popular books to be some synonym for "crass."

 

I also recall something about the Anne Frank House in TFiOS, and I recall that drawing some more moralistic outrage.  How do you lean on that issue?

I haven't read the book, either, so I can't say I can relate to noticing those issues.

 

I did see the movie, and I was thinking to myself "These characters seem a bit mature for their age" mostly from dialogue and how they acted, but I still enjoyed the story.  It didn't bring me to tears, but it did have a pretty big impact.  While the characters themselves may not have quite fit, I did like the way the story went.  It didn't end the way I thought it would end and it didn't treat its characters the way I thought the story would treat its characters.  (but then again I just watched the movie, so my expectations were based on the movie.  I've actually heard it's really accurate to the book, though).

 

So, I dunno.  My opinion is probably invalid, regardless.

I haven't read the book myself, but my sister (who was excited to read it initially) had the exact same criticism with the regard to the dialogue. Specifically she said: "Teenagers don't talk like this." It's not just this one, either, as his novel Paper Towns has the same issue. His characters in that are also obnoxious and unrealistic.

 

I don't remember Looking For Alaska having these issues, though it's been a while since I read it. Despite how incredibly different the characters were from myself, I felt that Green's writing really showed their personalities, faults, and troubles in a way that I could understand. I can't promise you'll like it (maybe I wouldn't if I reread it) but it couldn't hurt to give it a chance if you want to try his writing again.

 

I'm actually about halfway through An Abundance of Katherines now, and - surprise! - it doesn't have any of the same issues as TFiOS. Not the best thing I've ever read, but at least the dialogue is more realistic.

 

As others have said, Green is rather crass and manipulative (I think "crass and manipulative" is a quote from the Guardian's review of the TFiOS film) in much of his oeuvre, in that he knows exactly what teens want to read and how to give them the "feels."  (Cf. also that stuff about teens wanting to talk like Hazel and whoever.)  Then again, I'm a real lit snob, so I find most accessible and popular books to be some synonym for "crass."

 

I also recall something about the Anne Frank House in TFiOS, and I recall that drawing some more moralistic outrage.  How do you lean on that issue?

 

The thing I like about John Green is that he admits that he's not a good writer and that there are things he can improve on, even going as far as recommending books from writers he considers better than himself. When opportunities come up for readers to vote on books and one of his books is an option, he always says that people shouldn't just blindly vote for him if they liked another book better.

 

I've never understood the outrage with the Anne Frank House scene. Green was - or was at least trying to - write complex characters. While intelligent, that doesn't exactly mean that they always do what they should do.

 

Like I mentioned in the entry, most people get fed up over the Anne Frank House scene because they somehow think the actions of Green's characters somehow equates to his personal views, which is blatantly ridiculous. No one says that Anthony Burgess was promoting ultraviolence in A Clockwork Orange any more than they claim Eoin Colfer really believes in technologically advanced subterranean fairies. There's no logical basis to it.

 

I'm certainly not against people objecting to the scene itself - though I don't, because it's a fictional story - but to say that it somehow reflects on the morality of its author is astoundingly stupid.

I've never understood the outrage with the Anne Frank House scene. Green was - or was at least trying to - write complex characters. While intelligent, that doesn't exactly mean that they always do what they should do.

Like I mentioned in the entry, most people get fed up over the Anne Frank House scene because they somehow think the actions of Green's characters somehow equates to his personal views, which is blatantly ridiculous. No one says that Anthony Burgess was promoting ultraviolence in A Clockwork Orange any more than they claim Eoin Colfer really believes in technologically advanced subterranean fairies. There's no logical basis to it.

 

I'm certainly not against people objecting to the scene itself - though I don't, because it's a fictional story - but to say that it somehow reflects on the morality of its author is astoundingly stupid.

 

I think most people have the problem with the other characters applauding the kiss.  Depiction isn't endorsement, but uncritical depiction (i.e., characters do the wrong thing, everyone celebrates it by clapping and whooping) is at the very least severely flawed.  (The classic endorsement-versus-depiction example is Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov, which despite being narrated by Humbert is more overtly critical of Humbert than Green is of the Anne Frank House kiss.)

 

Others object to the way Green draws parallels between death in genocide and death from cancer.  This parallelism seems mostly just clumsy to me, like Green didn't quite think through the difference between racism and illness.

 

- BioGio

From what I'm given to understand, the scene was well-recieved by the folks at the Anne Frank House, and that they let the movie film there when other photographic/cinematic depictions of the house are banned.

Secondly, death is death, and while there is a big difference between death from genocide and death from cancer, they both have an underlying reason: bad luck. I didn't mind this too much because, whether or not this was intended, it went along with the titular concept.