d_sebek's review against another edition
2.0
The story spent a lot of time not going anywhere. At almost 500 pages it is a long read that could have been told in less than 300. The climatic scenes were lacking emotion and I found myself wondering "who cares?" Much better dystopian books out there - Divergent almost crosses the threshold into the world of Twilight (bad first person narrative told by teenage girls).
keagsbosch's review against another edition
4.0
Reread: I forgot how much better Tobias is as a character in the book compared to the movie
jcpdiesel21's review against another edition
4.0
A thrilling ride! I was completely engrossed by the detailed, futuristic world that Roth has created here. The factions in particular are incredibly fascinating; I loved learning every little thing about them. Tris is a strong, interesting heroine and I enjoyed following her journey of self-discovery and how she isn't portrayed as the perfect teenager or mind-blowingly beautiful. I like how the book has high stakes for the protagonist as well as the entire society and how Roth isn't afraid to kill off major characters to illustrate a larger point. This book nicely sets up the primary conflict and villains for the entire series, and I look forward to finding out what happens next.
3crowsinatophat's review against another edition
dark
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
1.0
I hate this book. The main charactors only qualities are that she's short and that she hates herself and I find that so annoying to read.
The age gap between her and Four felt over emphasized, unnecessary and unrealistic and I thought the romance wasnt needed and did fit into whatever semblance if a plot there was in the first place.
I hated how she talked so much of love and acceptance between her peers but most of them seemed to hate her, simply weren't fleshed out enough and extremely forgettable.
The writing was ok and there was some tense moments that I found interesting, but the plot felt too much like a rip off of the hunger games.
The age gap between her and Four felt over emphasized, unnecessary and unrealistic and I thought the romance wasnt needed and did fit into whatever semblance if a plot there was in the first place.
I hated how she talked so much of love and acceptance between her peers but most of them seemed to hate her, simply weren't fleshed out enough and extremely forgettable.
The writing was ok and there was some tense moments that I found interesting, but the plot felt too much like a rip off of the hunger games.
kstring's review against another edition
5.0
This book is by far the best dystopian book i've ever read. The main character is not your normal heroine and the plot is unexpected, giving you surprises with every turn of the page. Character development is strong and secrets lie in wait with every chapter. This fantastic book goes against novel norms and sets the bar higher than ever. I wish future authors luck in topping this spectacular novel by Veronica Roth. Just plain stupendous.
schenkelberg's review against another edition
2.0
I'm in the process of ordering popular YA books for my classes' SSR times, supplementing the books that the library either doesn't have or only has a few copies of. This book is the first that I've read in that stack, although after reading Divergent I don't think I'll be so quick to read these unless I want to read something light.
Divergent is totally light and YA, as is evident that I could read its 700 odd pages in the course of a weekend, but it also has flashes of brilliance. The main criticism I have is that it seems really 'borrowed'. The factions are an amalgamation of the houses in Harry Potter and the districts in The Hunger Games. The Hunger Games are probably the biggest influence, although that is kind of unexpected considering the genre and dystopian setting - I don't know that you could write something with those two aspects right now that doesn't sound like the Hunger Games. Other parts that were less enjoyable was the teen romance, which seemed more influenced by rom coms than actual passion. It would have been so much better to really focus on their Abnegation origins, instead of throwing in that piece as a single line. Also, the villains kept easing up! They had all the means and motivations to do what they wanted, and they didn't, without even an a dumb explanation or a deus ex machina.
The good parts - the character development was strong, when it was going overboard (Eric bites his lip ring, again). I wanted more about the formation of the factions, more about how they worked in conjunction (why were the Amity doing the farming, and not Abnegation?), esp. the role of high technology. The plot wasn't that great, but did find good ways to be unexpected. Until the ending, which seemed pretty sloppy, there were some really good surprises.
Overall I think it would be a great read for my students, who will overlook the plot holes and get drawn into the strong characters and the drama. The fact that its linked with a film just increases the draw, and hopefully some students who read it will then be inspired to pick up another book next.
Divergent is totally light and YA, as is evident that I could read its 700 odd pages in the course of a weekend, but it also has flashes of brilliance. The main criticism I have is that it seems really 'borrowed'. The factions are an amalgamation of the houses in Harry Potter and the districts in The Hunger Games. The Hunger Games are probably the biggest influence, although that is kind of unexpected considering the genre and dystopian setting - I don't know that you could write something with those two aspects right now that doesn't sound like the Hunger Games. Other parts that were less enjoyable was the teen romance, which seemed more influenced by rom coms than actual passion. It would have been so much better to really focus on their Abnegation origins, instead of throwing in that piece as a single line. Also, the villains kept easing up! They had all the means and motivations to do what they wanted, and they didn't, without even an a dumb explanation or a deus ex machina.
The good parts - the character development was strong, when it was going overboard (Eric bites his lip ring, again). I wanted more about the formation of the factions, more about how they worked in conjunction (why were the Amity doing the farming, and not Abnegation?), esp. the role of high technology. The plot wasn't that great, but did find good ways to be unexpected. Until the ending, which seemed pretty sloppy, there were some really good surprises.
Overall I think it would be a great read for my students, who will overlook the plot holes and get drawn into the strong characters and the drama. The fact that its linked with a film just increases the draw, and hopefully some students who read it will then be inspired to pick up another book next.
eeelizaabethhh's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
hopeful
mysterious
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
nanu_nanu_narnett's review against another edition
1.0
Who here has seen Donnie Darko?
For those who haven't: here's a quote.
"There are other things that need to be taken into account here, like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else"
~ "Donnie Darko", Richard Kelly (2001)
Ever since I read this book, I have had that quote stuck in my head every time I think about it.
The book was short enough that I could finish it, and Tris was tolerable as a narrator's voice, but I left this one feeling confused as fuck.
Seriously, somebody help me out here.
So, each group is separated depending on their traits, but they can only show one trait or it is dangerous? And people can chose which group they want to be part of anyway? Doesn't switching groups mean you show two kinds of traits (granted, one might be stronger than the other, but still) or do you have to show three or more to be 'dangerous?'
What happens if you're in the selfless one and somebody is such a back-brained asshole that it causes you physical pain to help them? (I work in retail, it DOES happen). Does that also mean you can't be selfless to other people if you're in another group because that's showing TWO TRAITS (and therefore everyone who isn't in the selfless one are assholes?)
What if your in the Peace one, and you have one of those days where you just want to run or scream or let loose and have fun - not change your life choices but just do this one thing because otherwise you go nuts from suppressing your emotions?
And how is Truthful a trait? What if the truth as you know it is perception and not actually true. What if the whole thing is a matter of perception; who decides what is true?
Seriously, somebody explain it.
I'm not going to believe that this book was published because of the Hunger Games. dystopian's have always been popular - before Hunger Games we had things like Uglies, Minority Report, Battle Royale, V for Vendetta, Running Man. Sure, Hunger Games brought dystopia into mainstream popularity, but they have always been fun to write and read, not to mention an engaging way of looking into social or political issues.
This novel just doesn't do that. The writing feels rushed and I spent so much time trying to understand it that I didn't even pay attention to the thin attempt at a plot line.
Oh, and tattoo's fucking hurt. Also, jumping on and off a moving train is the stupidest idea any one could ever have.
Roth.... THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING RECKLESS AND DARING AND BEING STUPID AND SUICIDAL.
THERE.
IS.
A.
DIFFERENCE.
The key to any good story is what lies in the little details. This one was lacking in such things, and therefore just became a huge and convoluted mess.
For those who haven't: here's a quote.
"There are other things that need to be taken into account here, like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else"
~ "Donnie Darko", Richard Kelly (2001)
Ever since I read this book, I have had that quote stuck in my head every time I think about it.
The book was short enough that I could finish it, and Tris was tolerable as a narrator's voice, but I left this one feeling confused as fuck.
Seriously, somebody help me out here.
So, each group is separated depending on their traits, but they can only show one trait or it is dangerous? And people can chose which group they want to be part of anyway? Doesn't switching groups mean you show two kinds of traits (granted, one might be stronger than the other, but still) or do you have to show three or more to be 'dangerous?'
What happens if you're in the selfless one and somebody is such a back-brained asshole that it causes you physical pain to help them? (I work in retail, it DOES happen). Does that also mean you can't be selfless to other people if you're in another group because that's showing TWO TRAITS (and therefore everyone who isn't in the selfless one are assholes?)
What if your in the Peace one, and you have one of those days where you just want to run or scream or let loose and have fun - not change your life choices but just do this one thing because otherwise you go nuts from suppressing your emotions?
And how is Truthful a trait? What if the truth as you know it is perception and not actually true. What if the whole thing is a matter of perception; who decides what is true?
Seriously, somebody explain it.
I'm not going to believe that this book was published because of the Hunger Games. dystopian's have always been popular - before Hunger Games we had things like Uglies, Minority Report, Battle Royale, V for Vendetta, Running Man. Sure, Hunger Games brought dystopia into mainstream popularity, but they have always been fun to write and read, not to mention an engaging way of looking into social or political issues.
This novel just doesn't do that. The writing feels rushed and I spent so much time trying to understand it that I didn't even pay attention to the thin attempt at a plot line.
Oh, and tattoo's fucking hurt. Also, jumping on and off a moving train is the stupidest idea any one could ever have.
Roth.... THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING RECKLESS AND DARING AND BEING STUPID AND SUICIDAL.
THERE.
IS.
A.
DIFFERENCE.
The key to any good story is what lies in the little details. This one was lacking in such things, and therefore just became a huge and convoluted mess.
flamingpie12's review against another edition
adventurous
inspiring
reflective
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
sawyer_obrien's review against another edition
adventurous
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0