Comments on: You may have noticed that John Green wrote a book this year

By: Gigi

Gigi — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:33:34 +0000

I was one of those people who really loved the Fault in Our Stars. While I’m not hear to defend the book (that would be futile as all these critiques are obviously well thought out and valid) I would like to say that I disagree with those who liked Me, Earl, and the Dying Girl more. Was it less of a “cancer book” than the Fault in Our Stars? Yes. But in my opinion, the overall quality of the books don’t really compare. I characterize Me, Earl etc. as an extremely strong debut, but the Fault in Our Stars as an extremely strong book. I don’t know if anyone else understand what I’m mean when I say that though…Anyway, I also agree with the person above who said that self awareness kept me from being totally immersed in the book. I’ll also agree that the Van Houten ending, while I don’t think it’s an aspect that defines the novel as a “cancer book” was not necessarily needed. But for me, these faults are too small for me to not consider this one of my favorite books. In addition, this book is something, that, even though the last time I read it was over the summer, is a book that I cannot get out of my head. Out of all the books, I’ve read this year, it’s probably the one I’ve thought the most about.
For this reason I’m currently rooting for the Fault in Our Stars to win the Printz. That being said, I don’t think I’ll be able to decide if it completely deserves it until I read Code Name Variety.

By: CancerSurvivor

CancerSurvivor — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 22:34:55 +0000

Oops, sorry, one more thing. I miss-read the Van Houten part. Him coming back at the end surprised me, but didn’t upset me. I started to question whether or not he would change so easily when he started getting super sad, or looked like he wasn’t going to drink. But the fact that he did pick the bottle up again seemed more logical, you know? It just made more sense for someone as stubborn as he was in the beginning to falter. I liked that there was character development with him though. It had a type of character closure, instead of just making you think that he was going to be a mess forever and be a drunk. And I didn’t mean sound childish- cuz my age isn’t necessarily childish. I meant they didn’t sound younger than they actually were. Sorry for coming up with another things to say

By: CancerSurvivor

CancerSurvivor — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 22:29:43 +0000

When I found this book, I was extremely excited there was one like it, considering that I’m a cancer survivor. You guys are all criticizing the writing from a cancer survivors point of view saying it was ‘too sophisticated’ or ‘knowing’ or ‘mature’ blahblahblah. But guys, I had cancer when I was 4. Leukemia actually. And I’m only- well, I’ll give you a range. 11,12, or 13. And the characters were 16 and 17. The put words to the thoughts I’ve been having for quite some time. And that’s not saying that the writing made them sound childish, cuz it didn’t: the author added on more mature and older ways of looking at things, philosophy. But the things they said, the way they thought, was so real, so true, that I read up every bit of it. I LOVED it. I even liked the Van Houten part. I thought there was a little difference in writing, but I was just happy that they didn’t make the experience go smoothly and perfectly- that was the thing I was worried about. I appreciated that there was a book like this out there, and surprised that a non-cancer survivor could write one so well. So guys, if you don’t know, you don’t know. It was fantastic.

By: Hope Baugh

Hope Baugh — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:07:32 +0000

I need to read TFIOS another time before commenting on it as a Printz contenda, but I thought some readers here might be interested in the story that the Indianapolis Star did on John Green as an Indy resident this past weekend. Is it okay to post a link? Let’s see…

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012209300321

By: TeenReader

TeenReader — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:56:48 +0000

I don’t know how to explain my main complaint in this (pretty fantastic) contender. I think Hannahlily may have it with Augutus being too perfect. I loved Hazel, but I never felt much for the romance. It seemed very ordinary and flirted with cliches way too many times. But, I still really like it; it’s funny and smart and will probably be one of the most remembered books published this year. Also, is the committee allowed to take the difficulty of writing it into consideration? This book’s balance between humor and tragedy and trying to avoid cancer book cliches would be insanely difficult, and Green pulled it off in almost all elements. Could the committee be more forgiving because of that? (Also, I don’t think it will win. The committee would probably rather award lesser-known novels.)

By: SaraO@TheLibrarianReads

SaraO@TheLibrarianReads — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:11:36 +0000

First things first: didn’t cry. Not because I didn’t feel this book was emotional…but I think the WHOLE book was emotional. I think I need to be surprised by emotion to cry. I’m weird like that.

I don’t know that Van Houten coming back in the end bothered me. I don’t think this single act makes it a “cliche cancer book”. I think it would be impossible to write a book on cancer – well, write a book about characters you’re going to LIKE – having cancer – and not have some peripheral character affected by the loss. True, Van Houten’s is a Grand Gesture but what part of Van Houten seemed based in reality anyway? I had more trouble with the depiction of Van Houten as a character than I did with his final trip.

And in so far as this act now asks the reader to ‘learn a lesson’. I think throughout the text Green is asking the reader to look deeper, to find lessons. The fact that he warns the reader not to do this very thing in the preface to the book simply ingrained in my mind the need to read between the lines for good nuggets.

And maybe it’s a fault in the text. But ultimately it was a cancer book. No matter what. Had no one died it would have been unrealistic or unfinished (depending on how we leave everyone still breathing). Somebody had to die, and I think someone had to be affected by that. Again, these were likeable people. People connect with likeable people. Someone was going to use this death as a turning point. Might as well be the unrealistic character of the bunch – might as well be that the death brought Van Houten back to a trace of reality. Could we have left his character as is in Amsterdam? I think I’d have to reread to decide…

By: Mark Flowers

Mark Flowers — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:50:37 +0000

My comment above seems to now be missing the context of the comment which was originally above it. Some of the salient points with which I agreed (and now I bring up as my own):

1) The escapade in Amsterdam was strange and ill-conceived. Waiters, cabdrivers, and anyone Gus and Hazel met seemed to have poetry or something to quote about the city. The original commenter called it a Disneyland version of Amsterdam – again, I agree.

2) The whole conceit of An Imperial Affliction was weak. Personally, I think it would have been far superior if Green could have found a real book to tie into his book, but granted that he was creating it from whole-cloth, it just never struck me as very compelling. I saw (I guess) why Hazel cared about the book, but I never saw any reason *I* should care about the book. (Also – Gus seemed to be able to memorize whole chunks of it pretty quickly – dont’ know many people, let along teens who can do that).

3) The strange treasure hunt for Gus’s final words seemed like just a throwaway to add some extra tension at the end

There was more in that original post (and more eloquently said) but those are the main points I wanted to bring back up so others can discuss them.

By: Maureen E

Maureen E — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:41:34 +0000

I generally liked the book, but I did feel that the veneer of sophistication and self-awareness kept me from really being immersed in it. I’m comparing it specifically with Code Name Verity (which I know we haven’t talked about yet, sorry), where I lost all awareness of the characters as fictional. I was always aware that Hazel and Gus were fictional. I do think that Green does a number of neat things with setting and images. I also live in Indianapolis, so it was both nice and deeply weird to read about my city fictionalized. But again, I couldn’t help noticing that it was fictional, that Hazel’s Indy is not my Indy.

And it’s hard to separate any Green book from Green himself. I assume that this is one of the things the Printz committee shouldn’t take into account…but how easy is that?

By: Hannahlily

Hannahlily — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:24:54 +0000

Totally agree with your critique of the novel. I thought the whole Van Houten part of the plot was flawed. What really bugged me, though, was the characterization of Gus. He was just too perfect! Didn’t seem like a real person at all to me. Loved Hazel though and the book DID make me cry, I will fully admit. I liked The Fault in Our Stars very much, but it does not seem Printz worthy to me. I must chime in with Eric’s statement as well. I read The Fault In Our Stars and Me and Earl and the Dying Girl around the same time and thought Me and Earl was a better book all around.

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:39:59 +0000

But the committee will be able to compare this to ME AND EARL AND THE DYING GIRL which makes a teen dying of cancer a truly hilarious experience (and as the narrator often points out no one falls in love, learns anything, or changes!).