The Fault In Our Stars

[Delightful]

So I'm currently obsessed with this at the moment, which you may or may not have picked up on. Anyway, I know it's not particularly geeky and it's definitely not fantasy, but since the movie just came out I really want to know - has anyone else read or watched The Fault In Our Stars? What did you think?

 

For those who haven't heard of it: TFIOS is a modern day (ie non-fantasy, non-dystopian etc.) teen romance about two people who both happen to have cancer. It's definitely not a "cancer story" even though illness is an element. And it's absolutely brilliant. (It seems to have an either-love-it-or-hate-it type reaction, but I've seen a ton more of the love than the hate).

 

Also I'd love to see what would happen to the story if it was set on a Silence Divine-type world.

 

And if no one has any interest in this besides me, that's okay too. I'm just curious

[Two McMillion he/him]

I enjoyed the book and movie but thought it ultimately undermined its own philosophical ethos. However, it's extremely well-written and probably must reading for anyone looking to write deep first-person narrators.

[Swimmingly he/him]

I think you'd more or less become a walking death star laser level artillery turret with cancer on Ashyn. The novel would have to be renamed to "The Fault in Our Star, and How We Put It There"

[shortycake she/her]

I wanted to hate TFiOS and turn up my snobby nose at it but I thought it was a very worthwhile, meaningful book after I read it. And shh, don't tell anyone, I think the quotes everyone mocks are actually rather profound. I'll be interested especially to see how Ansel Elgort handles Augustus in the movie.

 

I heard the movie was good, though! Anyone drown in a puddle of their own tears?   

[Queen Elsa Steelheart she/her]

I wanted to hate TFiOS and turn up my snobby nose at it but I thought it was a very worthwhile, meaningful book after I read it. And shh, don't tell anyone, I think the quotes everyone mocks are actually rather profound. I'll be interested especially to see how Ansel Elgort handles Augustus in the movie.

I heard the movie was good, though! Anyone drown in a puddle of their own tears?

The movie was amazing! I went to the premiare and I was drowning in a sea of tears at the end. If you are going to watch it, make sure you bring lots of tissues!

You will laugh, cry and then come back for more

Beautiful movie

[Delightful]

I enjoyed the book and movie but thought it ultimately undermined its own philosophical ethos. However, it's extremely well-written and probably must reading for anyone looking to write deep first-person narrators.

What do you mean by that?

It's definitely really strong first person. Some of my favourite lines are completely what Hazel is thinking, eg. "They were running around like lung capacity was a renewable resource" or "He sighed so long that to my crap lungs it felt like bragging."

I walked across the carpet that was older than Gus would ever be.

 

I wanted to hate TFiOS and turn up my snobby nose at it but I thought it was a very worthwhile, meaningful book after I read it. And shh, don't tell anyone, I think the quotes everyone mocks are actually rather profound. I'll be interested especially to see how Ansel Elgort handles Augustus in the movie.

 

I heard the movie was good, though! Anyone drown in a puddle of their own tears?   

Some of them are profound, although the way they talk in speeches,( excluding Gus's picnic speech) it is a little hard to believe they would actually talk like that. In another book, it would really annoy me, but honestly in relation to the rest of TFIOS, I'm perfectly happy to forgive that fault.

 

I thought Ansel did a great job of being Gus, a couple lines weren't quite how I imagined them, but overall it was fantastic. 

I didn't drown in a puddle but I definitely sat there going "no no no no no this isn't allowed to happen no nnooooo!!!!" If that answers your question .

The movie is amazing though. It's probably the best adaptation I've seen - it takes what it needs from the book without dragging things on, and when it leaves things out it still communicates exactly what it needs to.

(semi-movie spoilers)

The gas station scene, for example, wasn't as long as in the book, and the whole poetry thing didn't make it into the movie at all, not that I noticed till hours later. But you get exactly the emotion and the characterisation as the book.

.

In general. I only noticed what had been left out hours later, except for like 2 lines I really wanted to see that didn't make it in.

Also the ending is a lot neater, I actually prefer it to the book. (In a minor detail way, not a spoilery way. sorry)

 

I think you'd more or less become a walking death star laser level artillery turret with cancer on Ashyn. The novel would have to be renamed to "The Fault in Our Star, and How We Put It There"

. They'd probably still die though. Which puts me in the mind of Bladerunner "The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. And you and your star have burned  so very very brightly, Gus and Hazel."

[Two McMillion he/him]

What do you mean by that?

It's definitely really strong first person. Some of my favourite lines are completely what Hazel is thinking, eg. "They were running around like lung capacity was a renewable resource" or "He sighed so long that to my crap lungs it felt like bragging."

I walked across the carpet that was older than Gus would ever be.

 

 

The book and movie are both pretty strongly nihilistic- and by that I mean nihilism as originally conceived by Nietzsche, which TVtropes now calls Anti-Nihilism- that is, the choice to live boldly despite the suffering that's omnipresent in the world. One of the main themes of the book is the problem evil, and how we deal with apparently pointless suffering, and the book levels criticisms at a lot of traditional ways of dealing with it (ie, religion)- for instance, see Hazel's thoughts during the funeral. The main criticism the book seems to level here is that people who choose these ways are simply choosing to ignore truths about how the world is and deal in platitudes, which is probably a legitimate criticism in a lot of ways.

 

But then that entire point is completely undermined at the very end when Hazel chooses to do exactly the same thing. She becomes exactly the person who's just making a choice to embrace a platitude, and somehow this is presented as being superior to the choices the other people have made on how they deal with suffering. It's not- ultimately, Hazel's attitude at the end of the novel is no different that Patrick's or Gus' parents. The only difference is that she's choosing to find her strength is something different from them, but somehow that makes her choice the better one. But that's simply silly. Her choice is presented as transcending the problems she's facing, but it's obvious that it doesn't do so in any particular way.

[Delightful]

The book and movie are both pretty strongly nihilistic- and by that I mean nihilism as originally conceived by Nietzsche, which TVtropes now calls Anti-Nihilism- that is, the choice to live boldly despite the suffering that's omnipresent in the world. One of the main themes of the book is the problem evil, and how we deal with apparently pointless suffering, and the book levels criticisms at a lot of traditional ways of dealing with it (ie, religion)- for instance, see Hazel's thoughts during the funeral. The main criticism the book seems to level here is that people who choose these ways are simply choosing to ignore truths about how the world is and deal in platitudes, which is probably a legitimate criticism in a lot of ways.

 

But then that entire point is completely undermined at the very end when Hazel chooses to do exactly the same thing. She becomes exactly the person who's just making a choice to embrace a platitude, and somehow this is presented as being superior to the choices the other people have made on how they deal with suffering. It's not- ultimately, Hazel's attitude at the end of the novel is no different that Patrick's or Gus' parents. The only difference is that she's choosing to find her strength is something different from them, but somehow that makes her choice the better one. But that's simply silly. Her choice is presented as transcending the problems she's facing, but it's obvious that it doesn't do so in any particular way.

As I saw it, Hazel's attitude at the funeral was not so much anti-religion as against people who see what they want to see, as you say ignoring truths about the world, but also in ignoring truths about people - the way they all just see Gus as 'the basketball player' while none of them really knew him at all. And she's definitely anti the platitudes and the sugar coating, but which platitude is it that you say she embraced in the end? What she says at the funeral is clearly not what she believes, but I get the impression that's not what you're talking about.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Delightful

[Two McMillion he/him]

As I saw it, Hazel's attitude at the funeral was not so much anti-religion as against people who see what they want to see, as you say ignoring truths about the world, but also in ignoring truths about people - the way they all just see Gus as 'the basketball player' while none of them really knew him at all. And she's definitely anti the platitudes and the sugar coating, but which platitude is it that you say she embraced in the end? What she says at the funeral is clearly not what she believes, but I get the impression that's not what you're talking about.

 

 

What the book seems to disparage is people making a choice to ignore the truth of suffering in the world. And that's certainly something worth talking about, but in the end Hazel does exactly that. Fundamentally, what is the difference between Hazel's choice to embrace the good she got from knowing Gus despite the sorrow she got from it, and the choice of Gus' parents to do so through the filter of their Encouragements? Both of them are making a choice about how they deal with the same terrible event, and both are, fundamentally, doing so the same way- and yet Hazel's choice is being held up as exemplary while Gus' parents' choice isn't. Hazel can say what she likes, but there's no difference in the underlying ideas behind "You can't avoid getting hurt in this world, but you can choose to hurt you," and "You can't have a rainbow without the rain." Those statements are exactly the same. But the book tries to pretend there's some difference there, and so the whole thing is eventually undermined.

 

That's not to say I didn't enjoy the book- I really did, and I think it's exceptionally touching and well-written. But it also seems to profess an answer of sorts to the problem of evil and a criticism to a lot of ways people deal with suffering. Well, I think the criticism is spot on, but the answer it offers instead is exactly the same as what's being criticized. Of course, the book is obviously filtered through Hazel's POV and all that; a clueless coming to agree with something you think you hate is really spot on in a lot of ways for the "deep thoughts" of a lot of people, but it's worth pointing out all the same, I think.

[Eskridge she/her]

I read the book about a month before the movie came out. I'm still hoping to see it. For me it was one of the most touching and heartbreaking stories I've ever read. Since then I've read another of John Green's books and developed a liking for him as a writer.

 

Eskridge

[Delightful]

What the book seems to disparage is people making a choice to ignore the truth of suffering in the world. And that's certainly something worth talking about, but in the end Hazel does exactly that. Fundamentally, what is the difference between Hazel's choice to embrace the good she got from knowing Gus despite the sorrow she got from it, and the choice of Gus' parents to do so through the filter of their Encouragements? Both of them are making a choice about how they deal with the same terrible event, and both are, fundamentally, doing so the same way- and yet Hazel's choice is being held up as exemplary while Gus' parents' choice isn't. Hazel can say what she likes, but there's no difference in the underlying ideas behind "You can't avoid getting hurt in this world, but you can choose to hurt you," and "You can't have a rainbow without the rain." Those statements are exactly the same. But the book tries to pretend there's some difference there, and so the whole thing is eventually undermined.

 

That's not to say I didn't enjoy the book- I really did, and I think it's exceptionally touching and well-written. But it also seems to profess an answer of sorts to the problem of evil and a criticism to a lot of ways people deal with suffering. Well, I think the criticism is spot on, but the answer it offers instead is exactly the same as what's being criticized. Of course, the book is obviously filtered through Hazel's POV and all that; a clueless coming to agree with something you think you hate is really spot on in a lot of ways for the "deep thoughts" of a lot of people, but it's worth pointing out all the same, I think.

I think the difference is that Hazel's perspective comes from the real experience of knowing Gus, while the Waters' Encouragements are more generic, almost soulless statements, if you know what I mean? I do take your point though, it's not something I had particularly thought about, so thank you.

 

 

I read the book about a month before the movie came out. I'm still hoping to see it. For me it was one of the most touching and heartbreaking stories I've ever read. Since then I've read another of John Green's books and developed a liking for him as a writer.

 

Eskridge

He's a great writer, though I personally think TFIOS is his best.    Have you seen any of his youtube videos?