Book 3 Review

               
            Divergent's popularity sprung up out of nowhere. Veronica Roth was close to an absolute nobody-author, until this book spread like a forest fire. The Divergent trilogy and a few books spiraling off of it are her only books written. How could one book, from an unknown author become so popular in a short amount of time? Well, what's inside the book might have a good amount to do with it. Divergent, the first book of the trilogy, consists of a society ran by factions. There are five factions, who you are born into one but once the age of sixteen hits, you have the ability to transfer to another one. Tris Prior, a sixteen year old girl, takes a test to figure out which faction best suits her. Her conclusions? Divergent. The most feared term to say allowed. She fits into more than one faction, by the works of her divergence and ability to manipulate the test. Taking this opportunity to make the decision by herself, she transfers to a faction called Dauntless, also referred to as "hellions" according to Tris' father. They are the most fierce and violent of them all. And that is where the story dives into action. She's faced with many challenges, enemies, and fears. Throughout it all, she meets her lover, Four. That's when the drama smacks you in the face like the teenage girl it loves to be.

           Veronica Roth has an extremely relaxed writing style. Her choice of vocabulary is average, her action words are predictable, and her characters all share the same expressions. The description of "she scowled" and she "purse her lips" is repeated a good million times it feels like. Not necessarily saying that's a bad thing. When desiring a quick read, Divergent is nearly perfect. After finding out that Roth was still in college while writing these books, it makes a lot more sense, considering her writing reflects her age. Divergent feels like a watered down The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins, except with a lot more touchy romance. You have the independent, strong female character who knows way more about surviving than any other human being (Tris vs. Katniss), and the stand-off male character who conceals his feelings well (Four vs. Gale). If the two books were placed in front of me, The Hunger Games would be my choice within a split second. Why? The writing

style. Collins exhibits much more technique and variety. Her writing style is the male peacock while Roth's is the female. One is by far more outstanding than the other. But after putting the basic writing style out of your mind, there are no further complaints about Divergent. The plot is complex; there are twists and events you wouldn't expect, causing you to pull an all-nighter in order to keep reading. The scene that got me hooked was "Edward lies on the floor next to his bed, clutching at his face. Surrounding his head is a halo of blood, and jutting between his clawing fingers is a silver knife handle".  Who could predict someone getting their eye stabbed with a butter knife? I know I couldn't. Moments like that are what draw you in and temporarily make the book addictive.

           Putting Roth's age and inexperience into consideration, Divergent is an impressive novel. I would love to be able to say that was my first book published. In other words, Roth has something to be proud of. It deserves a 4.2 star rating out of 5. What caused the loss of the 1.8 stars? Undeniably, the lack of creative and enticing writing. Yes, it may seem as if that point is being beat like a dead horse, but it's a huge factor. It's a book, so therefore the writing talent is actually quite important. But overall, the Divergent trilogy is completely worth the read and your time.

Reading Wishlist

The Fault in Our Stars (John Green) Salem's Lot (Stephen King) Miss Peregrine's Home for Particular Children (Riggs Ransom) Safe Haven (Nicholas Sparks) The Woman in Black (Susan Hill) Freefall (Mindi Scott) Shiver (Maggie Stiefvater) The Shining (Stephen King)

Book Talk Presentation

Post #7

Post #9

The narrator, Tris Prior, in my book, Divergent, is likeable 50% of the time and annoying the other 50%.  The only time I'm not annoyed by her is when she's running off of adrenaline and in action. But when her thoughts are running wild and she's processing things, she's honestly insanely annoying. The decisions that she makes are irritating and irrational. In the book, she has a deep relationship with another character, Tobias. He's basically perfect, and his actions are always well thought out and he doesn't keep secrets from Tris, due to the fact that trust is important to him. Then you have Tris on the other hand, who keeps all of her secrets from him, such as killing one of her friends. When going through her thoughts not to tell Tobias this secret that's destroying her, as a reader it makes you want to jump into the book, wring her neck, shake her, and throw her out a window. But then again, she is human, so obviously her thought process will not be perfect. That allows a little bit of forgiveness. Tris definitely falls into Claire Messud's argument. I would never be friends with Tris. But that doesn't matter, what matters is that she appears alive and like an actual person. Not everyone can be likeable, so why should every narrator have to be a good match for a best friend? They don't. That's the answer. I also don't necessarily think that a book's genre has to connect with the type of narrator it has. The plot, setting, and other factors are what determine the genre. It doesn't have to connect to the personalities of the characters as well.

Post #8

In order for a book to be considered non-fiction, I feel like it has to be at least 95% true. I agree with Frey and how 5% of embellished truth really isn't that harmful. It's a book, and it's meant to have creative and interesting aspects. So what if the creative aspect comes from altering the truth a little bit? If you enjoyed the book, I feel as if the author should feel proud even if 5% of it isn't true. Everyone interprets things differently, so that 5% is a forgiving area and the "allowing different interpretation" zone. When it comes to it being half true though, I don't believe that's right. Label it a different genre and smack on the "based on a true story" label. Then it's okay. But to call it a memoir and it only be half true just doesn't seem right. I don't agree with David Shields at all when it comes to whatever the heck he did with his book. I consider it just complete plagiarism and a guy who wants to say he has a book out, but lacks the writing skills to make one. And being able to label a book one genre or another really helps the reader out. When these gray areas come around, it's hard for the reader to decide to give the book a chance or not. But if you enjoy memoirs and pick up a book in the memoir section, you're going to read it. As opposed to if you enjoy memoirs and pick up a book labeled as "memoir but only half of it is true" you're going to be like "...what" and probably not read it. The gray areas confuse readers and take out the simplicity of reading. I believe sticking to this genre or that is the best solution.