The design and UX isn't done, Rob and Abbie, okkurrrr! 😌
steveatwaywords's review
adventurous
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0
Though a major-hitter in the YA dystopia genre, Roth's Divergent Trilogy is frustratingly flawed on many levels.
Now to be clear, I am not trying to compare this to an Orwell or Phillip K Dick. The ambitions of these writers (and their audiences) are obviously different. Here, my rating has much to do with the writing, plotting, and character work within the genre on its own.
What begins as an implausible but curious social structure at its start devolves soon into derivative versions of conflict-betrayal patterns which seem to cycle endlessly. Certainly the entire social premise (from Books 1 through 3) is overly-simplistic and fraught with unexamined arguments. There is little to justify the atrocities the "evil" characters commit with seeming abandon, and their own examination of the consequences for their behaviors seems unreasonably self-deluded. In other words, nobody--our heroes or antagonists--is thinking very hard about anything. They simply align themselves inhumanely in limited-concept philosophies, whether inside the city or out of it.
The result is a plot of polarizations, all-or-nothing stakes, and--to no one's surprise except the characters themselves--a lot of death.
Roth has had a lot of support in the writing of this series and plenty of time to parse together anything more nuanced, more complex. She did not. Instead, we get essentially the same plot over and over, sometimes two or three times in each book, and here it is: One group will plot to destroy another, but there is a secret involved. To expose the secret and save everyone, a covert operation must begin, but this will have a failed moment, usually due to betrayal. Fortunately, our heroes--after suffering some casualties--will succeed. They will grieve for a bit and then begin again.
Because the society and plot are polarized, so too are the motivations of the characters themselves. Each seems singularly devoted to one allegiance, one goal. Our two heroes are only minorly exceptions to this, but since they can't seem to break the dull drama of their own poor communication issues, we stop caring overmuch.
In short, Roth limits her trilogy only to plot-level storytelling (where other YA novelists like Han, Cormier, Chbosky, Zusak, and Yoon offer complexity and theme--even Hunger Games wakes itself up enough to offer satire and social commentary at points), and this storytelling is enormously reductive to formula.Â
I give Roth praise for spending some realistic amount of time with grief and doubt, two difficult topics to wrestle with. And her main character, Tris, strikes readers as largely believable and relatable in her responses to it all. But others do this and more far more effectively, and I am glad to put this read behind me.Â
Now to be clear, I am not trying to compare this to an Orwell or Phillip K Dick. The ambitions of these writers (and their audiences) are obviously different. Here, my rating has much to do with the writing, plotting, and character work within the genre on its own.
What begins as an implausible but curious social structure at its start devolves soon into derivative versions of conflict-betrayal patterns which seem to cycle endlessly. Certainly the entire social premise (from Books 1 through 3) is overly-simplistic and fraught with unexamined arguments. There is little to justify the atrocities the "evil" characters commit with seeming abandon, and their own examination of the consequences for their behaviors seems unreasonably self-deluded. In other words, nobody--our heroes or antagonists--is thinking very hard about anything. They simply align themselves inhumanely in limited-concept philosophies, whether inside the city or out of it.
The result is a plot of polarizations, all-or-nothing stakes, and--to no one's surprise except the characters themselves--a lot of death.
Roth has had a lot of support in the writing of this series and plenty of time to parse together anything more nuanced, more complex. She did not. Instead, we get essentially the same plot over and over, sometimes two or three times in each book, and here it is: One group will plot to destroy another, but there is a secret involved. To expose the secret and save everyone, a covert operation must begin, but this will have a failed moment, usually due to betrayal. Fortunately, our heroes--after suffering some casualties--will succeed. They will grieve for a bit and then begin again.
Because the society and plot are polarized, so too are the motivations of the characters themselves. Each seems singularly devoted to one allegiance, one goal. Our two heroes are only minorly exceptions to this, but since they can't seem to break the dull drama of their own poor communication issues, we stop caring overmuch.
In short, Roth limits her trilogy only to plot-level storytelling (where other YA novelists like Han, Cormier, Chbosky, Zusak, and Yoon offer complexity and theme--even Hunger Games wakes itself up enough to offer satire and social commentary at points), and this storytelling is enormously reductive to formula.Â
I give Roth praise for spending some realistic amount of time with grief and doubt, two difficult topics to wrestle with. And her main character, Tris, strikes readers as largely believable and relatable in her responses to it all. But others do this and more far more effectively, and I am glad to put this read behind me.Â
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Death of parent, Gun violence, and Violence
Moderate: Sexual assault
More...