As a fan of Veronica Roth's DIVERGENT I must admit that I was initially quite taken aback by this review, one reason being that it tells you little more about the book, that it is essentially a rehash of its its synopsis:
"In Beatrice Prior's dystopian Chicago world, society is divided into five factions, each dedicated to the cultivation of a particular virtue--Candor (the honest), Abnegation (the selfless), Dauntless (the brave), Amity (the peaceful), and Erudite (the intelligent). On an appointed day of every year, all sixteen-year-olds must select the faction to which they will devote the rest of their lives. For Beatrice, the decision is between staying with her family and being who she really is--she can't have both. So she makes a choice that surprises everyone, including herself.
During the highly competitive initiation that follows, Beatrice renames herself Tris and struggles alongside her fellow initiates to live out the choice they have made. Together they must undergo extreme physical tests of endurance and intense psychological simulations, some with devastating consequences. As initiation transforms them all, Tris must determine who her friends really are--and where, exactly, a romance with a sometimes fascinating, sometimes exasperating boy fits into the life she's chosen. But Tris also has a secret, one she's kept hidden from everyone because she's been warned it can mean death. And as she discovers unrest and growing conflict that threaten to unravel her seemingly perfect society, she also learns that her secret might help her save those she loves . . . or it might destroy her"). (Source)
During the highly competitive initiation that follows, Beatrice renames herself Tris and struggles alongside her fellow initiates to live out the choice they have made. Together they must undergo extreme physical tests of endurance and intense psychological simulations, some with devastating consequences. As initiation transforms them all, Tris must determine who her friends really are--and where, exactly, a romance with a sometimes fascinating, sometimes exasperating boy fits into the life she's chosen. But Tris also has a secret, one she's kept hidden from everyone because she's been warned it can mean death. And as she discovers unrest and growing conflict that threaten to unravel her seemingly perfect society, she also learns that her secret might help her save those she loves . . . or it might destroy her"). (Source)
Additionally, I was taken aback as the reviewer gives the novel a B+, what could perhaps be considered an "average" rating, yet they only give two reasons as to why- that it's "... flimsier and less nuanced..." than THE HUNGER GAMES. As both a reader and a book reviewer myself I want more substance in a review. I find "flimsier" and "nuanced" to be both hollow words- how is it more flimsy than THE HUNGER GAMES? In the characters? In the world-building? In the overall writing? How is it more nuanced? Is Tris a mirror image of Katniss (she isn't, by the way, Katniss has always been bad-ass where Tris slowly develops into a physically and emotionally strong character)? Or in the world-building (I would personally consider THE HUNGER GAMES to be more so a post-apocalyptic novel, while DIVERGENT to be more so a dystopian .Therefore it makes it difficult to compare the two, THE HUNGER GAMES takes place in a ravaged Panem, while DIVGERGENT takes place in a futuristic Chicago).
Also, over the last year or so I have come to dislike the comparison of any book to THE HUNGER GAMES (or TWILIGHT) as I have found that, time and time again, books which have no relevance or similarity to the two are compared to them, making the comparisons meaningless (for instance, Kiera Cass's recent debut, THE SELECTION, was marketed as "THE HUNGER GAMES meets the Bachelor"- yet the only similarity between the two books was that THE SELECTION was also a post-apocalyptic novel). Neither THE HUNGER GAMES, nor TWILIGHT, were unique and therefore I do not believe that they are books that we consider to be "exemplary YA".
I would have loved to have seen this book reviewed as how CANADIAN REVIEW OF MATERIALS suggests, with an eye to such detail as: "Is the book part of a series? Is the mood sustained? Does the narrative flow easily? Will it have a wide or limited appeal?) (1996)- not unlike that by Wendy Darling or Tatiana.
That being said, I do appreciate how Entertainment Weekly generally followed VOYA'S Review Guidelines (albeit in a different order): "Author’s Last Name, First Name. Title. Publisher, publication date." However, I do think that it would have been useful had they also included information such as the book's price, page number, and ISBN.
Overall, I give Entertainment Weekly's review of DIVERGENT a C-.
Sources
Brissey, Breia. 2011. Divergent. Retrieved from http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20609141_20484977,00.html.
Canadian Review of Materials. 1996. Considerations for Your Review. Retrieved from http://www.umanitoba.ca/cm/reviewers/considerations.html.
VOYA. 2012. Review Guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.voya.com/reviewers/review-guidelines/.
Sources
Brissey, Breia. 2011. Divergent. Retrieved from http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20609141_20484977,00.html.
Canadian Review of Materials. 1996. Considerations for Your Review. Retrieved from http://www.umanitoba.ca/cm/reviewers/considerations.html.
VOYA. 2012. Review Guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.voya.com/reviewers/review-guidelines/.
I enjoyed reading this, Avery! Personally I do not care for Divergent for a variety of reasons, very little of which have to do with the Hunger Games comparisons. I think that the world building is rather sloppy - why on earth would you separate an entire society based on five different personality types? - and that impeded my enjoyment of the entire series. I think Phoebe North's review highlights some of the issues I took with the novel. I totally agree with you in that the whole comparison thing needs to stop asap.
ReplyDelete