With the release of the first The Fault in our Stars trailer this last week, a large increase in attention drawn towards New York Times bestselling author, John Green has exploded the web. My facebook newsfeed listed twenty-six friends sharing the video with many comments proclaiming him to be the best author ever and taking the opportunity to bash other authors who they feel are below him including J.K. Rowling and William Shakespeare. (which is a bit ironic freshman girl with selfie addiction who boldly stated that “Fault in Our Stars makes Romeo and Juliet look like a shallow teen lust story”. Seeing as Fault in our Stars very own title comes from a line of Cassius’ in Shakespeare’s Julius Ceasar...and you know, Fault in our Stars is kind of a love story about teenagers too...the difference is Romeo and Juliet get married before sharing a bed.) These manifestations will presumably inspire others to pick up a John Green book. If you are in the position of trying John Green, or have already tried him and either want to read an alternative point of view or just want someone to get viciously angry at and write long comments of argumentation because it feels good, I invite you to please read the five reasons I have developed as to why I find John Green to not be really as great as he has been sculpted out to be. Please note, I’m not calling him devil spawn or an incompetent village idiot. As a human being he probably is very kind. His vlog videos provide ample evidence of him being a brilliant history buff and a nerd with good fandom taste. I simply have felt very strongly that, in comparison to other authors, he falls short of being the best, or relatively near the best ever as many claim him to be due to several factors that I cannot overlook. So, without any further tiptoeing about;
1. He writes the same story over and over again.
 * |
By the third chapter of every John Green Novel
|
Which brings me to...
Saying John Green is the best writer ever is a bit like saying Modern English is the best band ever. “Melt with You” is in my opinion, one of the greatest new wave songs of the 80s, but that doesn't make Modern English the greatest band ever formed, let alone the greatest new wave group. Exploring more of their music, I have found the majority of it quite forgettable. They’re what one could call a “one hit wonder.” A brilliant one hit wonder, but a one hit wonder nonetheless. The same goes for John Green, except he takes his one hit and changes the lyrics every time he performs, while still keeping the tune. To explain it plainly; same story, different words.
To support my point let’s look at the story plot of his debut Looking for Alaska. (obviously this contains spoilers) An awkward boy goes to school where he lusts after a mysterious, beautiful and dangerous girl with a heap of deep emotional problems who leads him into an awful existence of marijuana smoking, underage drinking, vandalism, and disrespect strangely laced with philosophical insights on life, the universe and everything. After some explicit trespassing on each others body parts, the smoking hot bad girl disappears. It is found out that she had committed suicide.
Compare this to the story plot of Paper Towns: An awkward boy goes to school where he lusts after a mysterious, beautiful and dangerous girl with a heap of deep emotional problems who leads him on a night of vandalism and disrespect strangely laced with philosophical insights on life, the universe and everything. The smoking hot bad girl then disappears. It is believed that she may have committed suicide. This time she isn’t actually dead, but is hanging out in a tumbledown shack in New York. With the exception of the smoking hot bad girl’s mortal outcome, even the staunchest Green devotee must admit that the skeletons of the stories are identical when the specifics are eliminated.
Finally, in his most recent, The Fault in our Stars we find really the same frame, though reasonably more refined. This time, Green spices it up however by having the gender roles flip and cancer hangs over the story like...well..cancer. This time an awkward girl lusts after a mysterious, handsome and dangerous boy. They both have a heap of emotional baggage and discuss yet again philosophical insights on life, the universe and everything.They spend some time in a bed together without clothes on and *spoiler….though if you're catching the trend you should assume the outcome* the boy dies and even the coldest heart weeps, including mine, which did not care much for the book but couldn't resist a tear. Notice a pattern here? It’s like Michael Cera playing George Michael from Arrested Development falls in love with Zooey Deschanel portraying Summer from 500 Days of Summer in a never ending loop. Given these are the only three John Green books I’ve read, this is probably not the plot for all of them, but either I have had jolly bad luck running across the same story rewritten three times, or they are all the same. They may not all be so undifferentiated, but three in a row that follow the exact chain of events is not what a reader should want from any author. (with the exception of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who could repeat the same Sherlock Holmes case with different criminal names and stereotypes and we all would love it.)
2. He insistently includes explicit content, mature themes and vulgar language in books targeted at kids.
Blatantly; John Green writes smut. Granted he does a good job decorating his smut with wise saws and modern instances but still it is smut. The first time I read a John Green novel I had never heard of him prior, and therefore had no predesigned ceroplast of who he was. I simply asked my middle school English teacher five years ago, relatively around this day, if she had any books to recommend. She picked up a paperback, apparently placed upon a sepulcher of holiness, which was Looking for Alaska and ceremoniously passed it to me with a tear in her eye, praising it’s beauty as if it was Shakespeare resurrected. Mrs. Church wasn't traditionally one to compliment anything, student, essay or book, so I walked away excited for my new literary endeavor. The first few pages were manageable, with a stock protagonist of no real color. Then the vulgar language rolled in, and so did the vulgar subject matter. Pretty soon, my mind was developing shadowy images of underaged drunk kids wasting their lives away with deep one sentence statements intended to be underlined and then photographed to explode the internet, through puffs of marijuana. I felt the pang of disgust. My stomach told me I shouldn't be reading it. Flipping ahead a few pages to scan in hopes that the immorality would cease, I happened to land on the one page in the entire book which included words I only ever wish to read in the textbook in health class, and never in the context I read them. Feeling sick, I tossed the book aside and forgot about John Green best I could. I knew things like underage drinking and sexual activity were inevitable actions billions of peers participated in, but I had no desire to read about them.
You could argue, and many have, that we need to have knowledge of such things; that it is a literary duty to inform the world of the lifestyle of all mankind. I say it is one thing to inform and another to describe in depth. Charles Dickens informed us his characters were immoral human beings, but he didn't plague us with in depth study of exactly what they did. He simply didn't need to. Furthermore, J.K. Rowling informed us in The Harry Potter Series that some characters used foul language, but she never once included the words in the text. It wasn't the place to. Then why, I asked, did John Green, targeting these books at tweens and teens, feel the need to include both explicit immorality and filthy four letter words? If he was writing the book for adults I’d simply say “well if that is your type a book, I won’t interject.” But, targeting to youth is an entirely different matter. Literature should follow the guidelines of film ratings. If a book is intended to be read by sixth grade children, don’t give it rated R content. J.K. Rowling peppers her adult novels, Casual Vacancy and Cuckoos Calling, with strong language and theme but understands when it comes to addressing the youth that adult content is for adults and thus should not be in anything below adult level. A teenager can decide to read Fifty Shades of Gray having full knowledge that they are getting into mature waters if they wanted to. However, a teenager shouldn't have to pick up a book assumably targeted at youth and fear it’s content being profane. John Green insistently writes in every book he has ever written content that just blatantly does not belong in young adult fiction. as in never. Ever. You may write that filth anywhere you like, but not in the hands of eleven year olds. All the “young adult” writers that are worth noting understand this simple and basic concept, but Mr. Green is in the library with the befouling revolver.
So, what if you still, even in the genre of young adult, justify that the presence of immorality and crudeness is a mighty helping hand in the telling of the story? May I suggest you read Oscar Wilde’s, The Picture of Dorian Gray. The sins Dorian Gray commits are beyond the Colonel from Looking for Alaska’s dreams, yet never once does the reader ever read in detail the action of the sins. The lack of graphic details gives Dorian Gray a far more chilling and darker strength than if you were spoon fed his opium consumption and women abuse on the page. Essentially, it is the difference between the mindless bloody horror film and a classic Hitchcock thriller. The emotion comes much stronger to the viewer through lack of information than the full image plopped before you. To say John Green’s angsty teen fics require the mature content contradicts the fact that literature has been doing more than fine for centuries, producing libraries full of beautiful literature, some of which involves mature matters, but none of which has the indecency to describe it. In addition the avoidance of direct illustration of sin helps clarify right from wrong. For an analogy, imagine if your parents say “don’t watch pornography” so they shove pornography in your face to show you what to avoid….Though what John Green endorses and discourages isn't quite as black and white. Two in love sixteen year-olds share a hotel bed in Fault in our Stars and the tone of John Green, it would seem, glorified the event. It would appear almost as if John Green used the raunchy material to cheaply draw in the masses. I’m aware that is my own conjecture, but until someone supplies another supportable reason to John Green’s inclusion of adult material in young adult fiction, I’ll assume the man is either A) a “sensational” writer who relies purely on the readers’ temporal reactions to draw them in or B) a fervent believer that all stories require either drugs, sex, alcohol or all three.
If you have no concern for foul language, drug use, mature content and smut in novels aimed at middleschoolers, you’re entitled to your opinion of morals. but lets let us continue with my personal history of John Green to transition to my next point:
High school swooped in for me and gradually the name John Green popped up more and more often and by sophomore year he was a legend among readers. Pressured by insistent assurance that the man was a literary godlike figure, I tried another novel of his, Papertowns. I was drawn in by the prologue of two innocent children happening on a corpse. Certainly not original, but it offered potential. Then, suddenly the next page they were eighteen years old and Looking for Alaska was on repeat. Characters, story arch, language, everything. I chucked the book in the library return bin by lunchtime. Again in my junior year, the pressure to give him a third chance arose. That Friday I checked Fault in our Stars out from my school library. I had to address it with an open mind to formulate my opinion on the works of John Green. This time I finished, but no beam of brilliant light seemed to emit from the pages as I was promised they would. It was better, and at times likable but still the plot was yet again a rerun, the motions superficial, and the writing obviously designed for sentimental affect in an almost unnatural light. I’m pretty sure Oprah had a hand in some of the dialogue.
3. He knows how to write good quotes (some of the time) but not how to make a good story (most of the time.)
I admit it; when the plot involves something more than teenage angst the writing is addicting, well crafted and of course quotable. It is obvious he has been thoroughly trained on how to write with charm. You are sucked in with his contemporary Confucian proverbs. “We need never be hopeless, because we never can be irreparably broken.” is so ingeniously stated that its as if someone taught Yoda grammar. But to me, that really is all a John Green book is; a nice compilation of good quotes. The dilemma is that instead of paving a story with quotes he paves quotes with stories, which never equals a strong story. I recommend poetry for him; where he can say all the wisdom he wishes and not have to worry about the fact that his story may be just a bit predictable, unoriginal, unmemorable, and/or sappy. A dangerous number of my generation has an inability to recognize the lack of strong story in a piece of literature because we are only taught how to analyze novels, not critique them. Critiquing isn't simply for pessimists and grumpy warped old men as popular belief declares. Critiquing is a necessity for proper reading enjoyment. Having the ability to formulate an opinion on a book is crucial for literary progress. It brings forth better novels and improves our own reading experience. In several of the English classes I've been in (with the exception of Mrs. Schiebel’s) the teacher does not provide the tools to critique, for the philosophy is “regardless of if the kid loves or hates it they have to read it anyway.” This builds up an army of new readers handicapped with an ineptitude to judge books for themselves and thus love any book shoved under their nose so long as it isn't boring, thick or historical. We can analyze the ink out of the pages, but we cannot form an original opinion on the writing. So when I say “The plots are all the same and unintriguing” or “I don’t agree with that quote.” I’m regarded as a snob. I don’t feel like I’m being a snob. I read a book and formulate an opinion. Is that strikingly arrogant or puritanical of me? Better than giving five stars to every teen romance novel on the Barnes & Noble shelf and thus disabling my ability to discover higher caliber works of writing.
Even when the thin story is flung aside and we have only what he is really famous for, his quotes, are they really that incredible? I strongly disagree with the concept of moral absolutism; the concept that every human is absolutely good or absolutely bad with no exception. Stalin had probably done some act of kindness at some point in his life, just like Ghandi probably did some act of rudeness in his. Likewise, I believe that not every John Green quote is good and not every John Green quote is bad. Yes, he does offer good ones, but we can’t treat his name like a stamp that confirms every word he has said to be golden. For instance, Augustus Waters, a 16 year old boy in Fault in our Stars said "I'm in love with you, and I know that love is just a shout into the void, and that oblivion is inevitable, and that we're all doomed and that there will come a day when all our labor has been returned to dust, and I know the sun will swallow the only earth we'll ever have, and I am in love with you.” First off; someone give this kid a scholarship to Harvard. He must’ve been crafting and memorizing that speech for hours. No one just says that out of the air. Not even you, John Green. Certainly not a 16 year old boy whose favorite book is a paperback adaption of a video game. Secondly, how does throwing out facts of the apparent unimportance of human actions show the scale of his love? “I love you even though it really doesn’t matter if I do or not because we’re worthless in a grand scheme of things” is basically was Augustus was floridly saying. Yet countless girls have this quote as their Facebook wall photo and hashtag it #wishaboytoldmethis. Do you genuinely want a boy to tell you “We’re just going to die and never will make make a difference so I love you”? I suppose when the boy uses grandiose words and biblical allusions of dust it must make you feel pretty special being told you’re meaningless. How about "You can love someone so much...But you can never love people as much as you can miss them." from Abundance of Katherines. Honestly, dyed red headed girl writing this on your forearm in sharpie back in Geometry class, please tell me what this means to you? Because to me I’m pretty sure I love people more than I miss them….and you don’t really miss them a great deal unless you love them to begin with. Missing is an action of love and therefore cannot overpower love. Its cleverly written gibberish. Speaking of gibberish, can anyone educate me on what “Some infinities are bigger than other infinities.” means from Fault is in our Stars? I don’t think I've seen any other quote by any other person more on my Facebook than that one. When I first read it in the book I reread it thrice and it seemed just that sort of sappy statement that is so unrealistic that it defies reality. John Green, you’re a smart man and have a science genius for a brother. You must have been educated in the fact that infinity is well….infinity, and thus is everything ever; past, present and future. Nothing is bigger than infinity. Also, infinity isn't plural. There will only ever be one infinity and it has no big brother infinity larger than itself. Infinites between each number, as you call them earlier in the passage, are really just one big infinity. I get you’re trying to have this girl say this to convey her philosophical complexity and naturally gifted deep poetic voice that can draw sentences men spend hours trying to craft in their studies just in her common conversation but “Some infinities are bigger than other infinities” makes absolutely no logical or metaphysical sense to my truly incompetent mind. It just sounds really smart and deep and can make a nice tumblr post, not to mention sappy. Can I get a tortilla with all this cheese? I’d like to make uno queso quesadilla to go with this surplus of corn. Lastly, just because it popped up on my news feed: (apologies for John Green’s crude humor) “What a s*** time is, She s***** everybody.” to which I can imagine Queen Victoria saying “We are not amused.”
4. The Unlikability/Unrealisticness/Unoriginality of the Characters.
John Green uses an admittedly brilliant tool against criticism; guilt. If I say Looking for Alaska is drab and the characters were not likable, non genuine and painful to read I’d instantly be called out for hating kids from tough backgrounds. No, I don’t hate kids from tough backgrounds, I just don’t enjoy reading about Alaska’s horrible choices where no moral resolve is made clear. Anyone who does is looking at life as a philosophical observatory to inspect troubled humans, not as an open world to help troubled humans. Want to read about troubled humans? Read Les Miserables. (I promise I will get to it myself this year) Jean Valjean is a very troubled human indeed, worse off than Alaska. He then gets healed from his bitterness and pain by a charitable priest, teaching us, the readers, how to help the troubled. Looking of Alaska just paints an intricate picture of how Alaska has emotional instability and poor decision making skills but then kills her off without educating the reader how they can help their own Alaska’s in their life. I found it hollow, beneath the eye candy of the well formulated sentences screaming for a spot on your tumblr. Likewise, if I say Fault is in Our Stars is clumsily thrown together with more unrealistic and obviously rehearsed words coming out of teen mouths than an elementary school play, I would be screamed at by a chorus of hysterics that I am an awful human being who clearly has no love or sympathy towards cancer patients. The point isn't the cancer. Beneath the cancer they’re still humans and John Green planted the cancer in the characters to mask the fact that every protagonist in his books sounds exactly like….well…..John Green. I’m all for analyzing the mysteries of the universe but there is a barrier between telling a story and emitting your words out of your characters’ mouths. John Green responds to such a statement at a press conference with “I shouldn't be held accountable for your failure to like, grapple with the interesting questions of the human species.” Well okay, maybe you're not accountable for my ignorance and lowliness my good sir but you are accountable for the fact that every character you ever write is some misunderstood genius teenager who spends the entirety of their story contemplating mortality and humanism. It’s a bit like Alexandre Dumas writing every protagonist as a valiant swashbuckling Musketeer and saying “Its like not my fault you don’t fence.”
Every protagonist can’t just happen to share the same philosophy, voice and in some cases body type as you. We see the tragedy of that in Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight, where Bella is obviously Meyer. It isn't the problems of the characters I don’t care for, it’s just the characters themselves, regardless of the cancer, childhood trauma, or sexual orientation.
5. He just isn't as amazing as others.
Even if you disagreed with me on every point thus far you must admit that he isn't comparable to the classic legends of literature. When Alexandre Dumas’ newest chapter would appear in the weekly paper many French citizens would walk twenty miles in the morning to buy the newspaper before the wagon came to their town. As Dicken’s works came out in his literary magazine journalists would report lines double looping around blocks at newspaper stands. When Sir Arthur Conan Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes in “The Final Problem” the public was so furious that Doyle couldn't show his face in public without being demanded to bring Holmes back. To save himself from endless confrontations and even threats he continued writing Sherlock Holmes for another twenty-one years. In recent history, the Harry Potter Series accounted for larger midnight bookstore parties than any other book ever. The public flooding for the works of these authors were sights only ever to occur once or twice in one’s lifetime. Jane Austen, The Brontes, J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis and all the other names we all know had something in their books that just instantly stood out as revolutionary, brilliant and a step closer to perfection. You can believe John Green to be a good author all you want and that is your opinion, but don’t manifest that he is the best author of all time without considering the centuries of genius that beg to differ. That is why I’m a skeptic of contemporary authors. It isn't that I believe all modern writers are garbage. Rowling, Suzanne Collins and Bill Bryson contradict that. I just believe that since the beginning of fiction, the ratio of great writers to forgettable writers has always and will always be in the favor of the forgettable. It was true in Shakespeare’s day, and George Orwell’s day, and into this day. It is hard to know just by the cover which books will be classics and which will be forgotten, so why not knock out the classics of the past you know will be good before dabbling in the maybes of today? There are so many shelves of wonderful old books that I could read till I die and not finish a quarter of the aisles available. Maybe I’m not the fastest reader, maybe I’m not the most consistent reader, but I am prioritized and don’t care to waste my time reading sensation when I could be reading what will dig a little deeper than easy excitement. Then again maybe John Green will somehow become a classic just like Ernest Hemingway and that one Lottery short story no one liked to read freshman year have become. I just hope my future children won’t have to read John Green in English class. I don’t believe in banning books but I still don’t think public school is the place for questionably inappropriate ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment