Scan barcode
A review by imme_van_gorp
The Fault in Our Stars by John Green
3.5
Oh, what to say, what to say? What can I say to explain why I did not love this book, even though I did like it.
I think it mostly comes down to this: this book is a mixture of sadness, humour and philosophical musings, which resulted in a book that was never really any of those. They conflicted with each other too much to make each of them reach their full potential.
Especially the philosophical stuff made it harder to feel the sadness of it all, because it made the novel feel unreal. Whenever the characters spoke, they sounded not only like 70 year olds whereas they're supposed to be teenagers, but also like characters who can only exist on paper. No one would speak like this in real life. No one would have conversations like this, not if they couldn't think long and hard before speaking. And even then, I doubt anyone's talks would sound remotely as they did in this book. It's too.. distant.
That’s not to say I didn’t like the characters though, because I absolutely did. I admired Hazel’s strength and I adored the way Gus loved. They had well-developed and lovable personalities. Their romance was also just very sweet and I did feel connected with them.
But, for a book that is supposed to be heart-wrenching, it is a bit of a problem when the writing style makes it hard to feel any emotions.
However, the story itself was so incredibly heart-breaking, that I did end up feeling sad enough to cry like a little baby, but my point is, that it could have been way better. The incredible sadness of the story was right there, if only the writing would have been a little more suited to it.
Before reading this novel, I knew what was going to happen. As in, I knew how it was going to end, which would have otherwise probably been very shocking. This prior knowledge, of course, made my reading experience extremely different from someone without that knowledge, and I can't say how I would have felt during this book, had I not known. Therefore, my judgement isn't completely objective, and cannot be viewed as such.
I think it mostly comes down to this: this book is a mixture of sadness, humour and philosophical musings, which resulted in a book that was never really any of those. They conflicted with each other too much to make each of them reach their full potential.
Especially the philosophical stuff made it harder to feel the sadness of it all, because it made the novel feel unreal. Whenever the characters spoke, they sounded not only like 70 year olds whereas they're supposed to be teenagers, but also like characters who can only exist on paper. No one would speak like this in real life. No one would have conversations like this, not if they couldn't think long and hard before speaking. And even then, I doubt anyone's talks would sound remotely as they did in this book. It's too.. distant.
That’s not to say I didn’t like the characters though, because I absolutely did. I admired Hazel’s strength and I adored the way Gus loved. They had well-developed and lovable personalities. Their romance was also just very sweet and I did feel connected with them.
But, for a book that is supposed to be heart-wrenching, it is a bit of a problem when the writing style makes it hard to feel any emotions.
However, the story itself was so incredibly heart-breaking, that I did end up feeling sad enough to cry like a little baby, but my point is, that it could have been way better. The incredible sadness of the story was right there, if only the writing would have been a little more suited to it.
Before reading this novel, I knew what was going to happen. As in, I knew how it was going to end, which would have otherwise probably been very shocking. This prior knowledge, of course, made my reading experience extremely different from someone without that knowledge, and I can't say how I would have felt during this book, had I not known. Therefore, my judgement isn't completely objective, and cannot be viewed as such.