Title: Divergent
Author: Veronica Roth
Series: (Divergent #1)
Pages: 487

*sigh* I hope I’m not the only one who feel about this book. Hate to be the person who burst everyone’s happy bubble. And really hate to be standing on the other side of the spectrum…but the thing is I didn’t like it. A lot of things in this book didn’t work for me. There are books that no matter how much other people like it will fall short to your standards. I didn’t rate it to be mean. The enjoyment factor wasn’t there.

I’ve been reading a lot of dystopian books. They’re popping like wild mushroom after a thunderstorm. Some are nice and some are obvious The Hunger Games reminisce, and to be perfectly honest, Divergent is one of them. Dystopian? check. Violent? check. Crooked government? check. Strong willed heroine? check, check, check. But sad to say I see a lot of plot holes and wrong conceptualization that are for me were hard to digest. I see why Katniss and the people of Panem want to start an uprising. I know why Cassia didn’t like how the society dictates their decision. It’s so obvious, there’s something wrong with their government. I don’t get it here, other factions want power? Because the Abnegation is corrupting their power? Or just simply because sorting them by trait didn’t work. As much as I wanted to understand the form of government here, it’s just too weak and too obscure for me to grasp. Sorry. But as a reader I’m really frustrated with this book. So excuse my negative review.

I don’t see the point why it has to be bloody (literally) violent (I’m not totally against it, if it’s necessary why not. But some of them are, I think, not even crucial to the story). Maybe it’s just me, maybe I have very different, pacifist outlook on bravery, which is very different what the book portrays. What’s with the tattoos (yeah, like that’s only sign of toughness), killing each other just to get the edge on the ranking? What’s up with too much brutality? If they didn’t pass will they kill them? They’re just gonna be factionless, and if I read it correctly these are those who have blue collar jobs. And what’s wrong with that? So they’re saying that, what, 100 years from now, being bus driver or street sweeper is not a decent job? I don’t see the reason why they need to kill each other to belong to some group. I know the sense of belongingness, I know it. I learned it. I’m not saying that they didn’t need to work hard, of course if you want to achieve something you need to work hard for it. What I’m saying is that they are staking their lives over something that doesn’t really need to bet their lives on. I feel like they entered a gang, or a criminal organization and the likes, rather than a formal, government based group, because the senseless violence is really misleading. This book is really giving me the wrong message. Like I said, I have weird concept of bravery—a less aggressive one.

As for the characters, all of them felt short. I don’t get Tris, I don’t like her. At all. Four/Tobias is just too typical for me. Didn’t leave any impression, good or bad. He is too bland. The supposed romance between them felt a bit rushed, thinly founded.

What really bothers me is the concept of grouping people by virtues; I don’t think that will ever work, fictional or reality speaking. I’m totally not convinced, it’s just way too impossible. I know, I know, it’s fiction, blah, blah, but the book said itself, you can’t sort people by qualities, because we are made of varying personalities (maybe that’s the little shrink in me talking *sigh*). Yeah, that concept wouldn’t sink in.

And before I get too worked up I’m going to wrap it now. I’m not saying it is a completely terrible book, because it isn’t. It has moment though very few. I rate it this way because I didn’t enjoy it and that’s important to me when reading a book.