Dystopian nonsense

In the midst of slogging through Don Quixote, I felt the need for some mental relaxation. So, at Tasha's insistence, I picked up Divergent, by Veronica Roth.

It's a young adult novel set in a dystopian version of Chicago, where the citoyennes have split themselves into five factions. Each of the factions is devoted to the pursuit of the acquisition of one certain trait or virtue: the Dauntless pursue bravery, Abnegation (selflessness), Amity (peace), Candor (honesty), and Erudite (intelligence). Each of the factions has a certain role the have to perform in society: the honest rule on laws, the selfless govern, the brave protect. Citizens are free to choose one faction when they turn sixteen, but then they are stuck with that faction for life.

The story follows Tris, a girl who decides to leave her family behind in Abnegation and join Dauntless. She then has to deal with a rough-and-tumble initiation ceremony and an angst-ridden identity crisis where she discovers WHO SHE IS and WHO HER FRIENDS ARE.

Divergent had an incredibly interesting premise and LAME everything else. LAME characters, dialogue, love story. The pacing was awful-- Roth tried to cram way too many storylines into a short book. The main character was flat and I was unable to empathize with her. She completely wasted an awesome idea, which was exasperating.

Basically, Divergent was a poor man's Hunger Games-- just amplify the weaker parts and remove the sweet fight scenes and child deaths.

Don't read Divergent, everybody! It will just leave you frustrated and regretting the time you waste.

SCORE

Divergent by Veronica Roth: D-

The Road

I read this back at the end of April first of May. I wanted to have it with me when I posted but it wasn't that amazing. I was in the book store and I wanted to find a book that I'd never heard of, meaning no movie, not a well known author, totally abscure. I grabbed the road and admit I was foolishly swain by the Pulitzer Prize mumbo jumbo on the top of the book. Yet despite my best efforts after I finished the book I read in the back that the author wrote, All the Pretty Horses (Movie staring Matt Damon and Penolope Cruz), and No Country For Old Men (the Cohen Bros Best Picture winner staring Tommy Lee Jones). Then surprise, surprise, this book is a major motion picture staring Viggo Mortensen. So abstract. . . yeah no. Anywho this book was quite a downer, which wouldn't have bothered me if it hadn't been so predictable. Life on the road in dominated by a post apocaliptic world that has been burned to grey ash, no critters about to eat. At one point the man a boy wandering down the road are ready to starve to death, before I got concerned I looked at the book and said, "hmmm not yet half way, they'll find a mormon bomb/food storage shelter" bit later BOOM! Underground shelter loaded with food. Before this they stumbled upon an old house open up the underground pantry to discover it full of people waiting to be eaten (best to keep them alive, keeps them fresh you know). Then the real kicker, they spy three people walking by two men and a pregnant women. Instantly I said, "They'll eat that baby as soon as it pops out" And yes I was three for three. Wander around, blah blah man destroy their world blah. But the most irritating parts of the book were when it would launch into some strange poetic kick. I'm sure there was something significant buried in these ramblings but I didn't care enough to explore deeper. And that sums up how I felt about the whole thing. Not bad but it never made me care, and the predictability just further distanced me emotionally from the whole experience.

A Tale of Two Stories (Or why Suzanne Collins should stick to action and leave depth to the poets)

Again, my blog titles are awesome. I can't believe how proficient I am at winging out these loaded epitaphs.

Before I proceed to bag on the books and give my closing compliments I must admit that I knocked them out in two days, so I really have to admit that they made for quick and (for the most part) entertaining reading.

That said, let me continue my criticism from the last book. The reason I titled my post the way I did is that I felt that there was an incredible discord in Suzanne's writing from when she was describing the scenes of the Hunger Games to when she was pathetically attempting to construct a deeper narrative involving a sappy and overdone love triangle, an unbelievable political revolution, and the dynamics of teenagers and their ragin hormones.

The reason I loved the scenes with the Hunger Games is that they were written from a primal perspective, I'm following Katniss, the Hunter, the fierce and independent problem-solver who is just another animal in the midst of a scene of depravity and the fact that she cares about anything besides her personal survival is a triumph of humanity. Then I'm thrown into the mix with Katniss the teenager and finally Katniss the Mockingjay, and I have a really hard time not wanting to throw up at all the lame lines spewed by pretty much everyone.

I absolutely cannot stand to hear Katniss discuss how angry she is with District 13 for hanging back as they did rather than full-on engage the Capitol, and how angry she is with Haymitch for not saving Peeta, and how confused she is by all her feelings for everyone as revolutions transpire and people expire, it is too lame for my weak prose, but it sufficeth me to say that there were many moments where the excess made me give serious thought to reading the summary online and skipping all the terrible dialogue.

However, to counter my own criticism, I must admit that these books were written for teenagers and maybe that's the level that Suzanne wants everyone to engage on. I suppose it is a little ridiculous for me to huff and puff over a book that effervesces with teenage girl influence when the book was written for that very audience.

Still, it bothered me.

The other complaint I shall file is the absolute unbelievability of the revolution. It seemed more like the filming of an extended episode of 24 covering the war btwn two competing cable companies w/a mockumentary twist than a serious political movement. I suppose Suzanne is a novelist, not a social scientist, and while her literary betters could capture the essence of conflict in ways that make you wonder, I shouldn't hold it against her for failing to live up to the potential of her context. It just seems cartoonish, the whole affair, and not once did I take it seriously, kind of like watching an episode of Power Rangers.

However, those complaints listed, let me praise the action scenes and the heroine. I finished the two books within the space of 24 hours, and even though I was exasperated with the above-mentioned complaints almost to the point of abandonment, I kept reading and was amply rewarded with awesome drama in the conflicts portrayed. I loved how I could almost viscerally sense the smells of blood and roses, I could imagine the villains and mutts, the fog, the water, it was all so well described. And Suzanne's penchant for action sequences is undeniably.

With the major exceptions of the sappy love triangle, pathetic political posturing, and teenage bopping, Katniss was an awesome heroine. She was fierce, independent, and able to poke someone's eye with an arrow from 50 yards away with her magic talking bow. Very cool. I found myself continually rooting for her despite the circumstances and understanding her conflicted feelings in the midst of immoral demands on her character. It was very good.

Overall I'm glad I read the series, but I won't be rereading any but the Hunger Games in any foreseeable future. I appreciated Suzanne making the morals about the horror of conflict and war and the power of the will, but I think she strayed from a strong story line to one she couldn't manage as well. Ce la vie.

The books are scored as follows:

The Hunger Games 8.5 / 10

Catching Fire 6.5 / 10

Mockingjay 7 / 10

SO THERE!