SPOILER WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS. MANY MANY SPOILERS. I've warned you, so don't blame me if you still decide to read this and then find out something you didn't want to. BUT, as well as containing spoilers for Allegiant, this book ALSO CONTAINS SPOILERS about Ptolemy's Gate, the last book in Jonathan Stroud's Bartimaeus trilogy. So if you don't want to be spoiled about that either, THEN DO NOT READ THIS REVIEW. Honestly. It's over 2500 words long. That's a lot of damn spoilers.
Note: I really do apologise for the length of this review. I just had a lot to say...
I can't believe I'm saying this, but Allegiant was
so...boring. It was like the writing style changed completely at times.
Honestly, it was so dull at points that I almost gave up. The ending was
unfortunately spoiled for me (thanks a lot for that, internet), so I went in
expecting loads of crazy things to be happening that would lead up to that
moment. But it was so boring! I mean, things DID happen, but it just wasn't
exciting. The writing that pulled me in so much in Divergent was just gone. Instead
of being sucked into the story and losing myself in it, I was very aware that I
was reading a book. I kept thinking, "How many more pages until this
chapter ends?" I honestly don't know what happened. And while I admit I
did not like the ending AT ALL, that is definitely not the only reason I didn't
enjoy this book.
First of all, it took ages for anything to actually happen.
There were a few things - like the deaths of Edward and Tori (which were just
completely brushed over and forgotten) -
but they didn't reveal or explain anything. It did get slightly better later on
and become more engaging towards the end, but it was nothing compared to Divergent
or Allegiant. Second of all, the dual POV just failed. The voices were so
similar that even though different things were happening, I always forgot who I
was reading about. I would think, "Wait, why is Tris saying that, it makes
no sense..." (or vice versa) before remembering that I was actually
reading Four's chapter. Their chapters basically blurred together, making the
dual POV pretty pointless - we really only needed it so Four could talk after
Tris died. And Four's chapters were a bit eh. I used to love his character, but
he seemed to have suffered some kind of personality alteration in this book.
Gone was the Four of the past, the confident, intelligent leader - in
Allegiant, he basically became a gullible idiot who couldn't deal with problems
and needed Tris to tell him what to do. I hated seeing that and I didn't like
that Tris was portrayed as virtually flawless. When Uriah died (I LOVED Uriah,
he was one of my favourites in books one and two), Four barely reacted because
he was so upset about Tris. While I get that, I would have liked Uriah's death to
have been more of a serious matter to him, and to the readers in general. Can't
help but feel it was a little glossed over.
Another stupid thing was the whole "genetics"
explanation. It was so half-assed! I mean, really. There was potential, but it
was so poorly explained that I almost laughed. And it also made me realise how
ridiculous that NO-ONE, in any faction, had decided to find out what was
outside the fence way before this, and tell everyone. So basically, the whole
thing was an experiment and the factions were built so that "genetically
damaged" (there's a whole reason for WHY they became "genetically
damaged" but I can't be bothered to explain and it makes little sense
anyway) would flourish in the environment and produce more Divergents, who were
"genetically healed". What a bunch of pseudoscience bullshit.
Seriously, I would have liked at least some explanation about what
"genetically damaged" meant apart from the people who were
"genetically damaged" were missing key traits like compassion,
motivation blah blah blah. First of all, how EXACTLY did the experiments cause
genetic damage? WHAT genes were damaged? HOW did they affect people and WHY
were different people damaged in different ways? Why did this damage make them
unable to live in ordinary society - why so much prejudice? Why couldn't it be immediately
fixed by more genetic alteration - why did it take generations for healed genes
to manifest?! That made no sense and we were offered no explanation! It they
could be ALTERED in one generation, why would healed genes have to MANIFEST in
next generations? Couldn't they just alter them again to reverse what they did?
And what did "genetically healed" even mean? HOW did they heal? Did
they just need time? Variety in reproduction? What CAUSED genetic healing, and
why? Why were only some people Divergent and others still damaged? You can't
just come up with terms and then expect readers to blindly go along with them -
explanation is vital. I don't exactly have a wealth of knowledge when it comes
to science, but I expect something at least believable. And I also found it
hard to believe that in such a developed society, people would turn on each
other for having different genetics - you think the whole "hating people
because they're different" thing wouldn't be so prevalent that far in the
future.
And then we come to the ending. Just what. I will admit it -
I hated it. And not just because it wasn't a happy ending - because it was
actually the opposite of the "realistic" ending it was so desperately
trying to be. Tris dying was just...unnecessary. Are you telling me all the
sacrificing she did in books one and two STILL weren't enough, that she had to
die in this book for such a stupid reason? Her death didn't really even save
anyone. I mean, it prevented people's memories being erased, but they could
have prevented it by other means! They could have inoculated everyone against
memory serum - dump it in the water supply or something. Or they could have
quietly evacuated. There were loads of alternatives, so Tris's death was
ultimately just meaningless, especially since she had already helped to start
resolving the other problems going on. It didn't do anything except make me
want to throw the book across the room. Don't even get me STARTED on the
epilogue.
I completely understand not going down the "happily ever
after". That's perfectly fine. I like bittersweet and sad endings most of
the time. And had Tris's death actually been worth something - had it actually
mattered - then okay. But it didn't. It really didn't. It felt like it was done
just for shock value so that it could seem like it was such a great and
original ending - and it wasn't done well at all. And for everyone saying
"at least she wasn't afraid to do something different" - you really
think killing off main characters is "different"? Do you seriously
read books? Or watch films? Or TV? Or generally engage in the world? I'm not
just angry that Tris died, I'm angry because she really didn't need to. And
because it was so stupid that she managed to survive the death serum and then
got killed by a bullet. I mean, really? WHY? The cruel irony was that Tris
finally figured out that she wanted to live, that she didn't want to die - and
then ended up dying, trying to protect CALEB, of all people, who was willing to
sacrifice himself - and should have done so, because it would have been his
ONLY redeeming action. Even Four dying would have made more sense - he was not
as selfless or brave as Tris and in this book it was clear he felt a little bit
worthless and insecure - a sacrifice from him could have been his final
character development. And I am saying this as a person who LOVED Four in books
one and two. I almost would have preferred if both of them died! But this was just so ugh. You know what was a book with a
brilliant ending where a main character died? Ptolemy's Gate. I cried and cried
for days after that. I never wanted to look at the book again. But deep down
from the moment I read that last page, I accepted that's how the ending had to
be. It was actually the best way for it. And all was not lost, because we still
had Bartimaeus and he would never forget Nathaniel, just as we never would. It
wasn't dressed up as some greatly meaningful or symbolic pretentious crap - it
was what it was. Someone died to save others. They weren't even that nice of a
person - which made their sacrifice all the more special. Tris, however, was
already willing to sacrifice herself. She had shown it time and time again. And
you know what? When someone who is so willing to give up their life to save
people actually dies, it's boring. It's not "meaningful" or
"symbolic". I HATE it when authors try to make things seem so deep as
if great philosophers of the world could spend hours pondering over it. It's
not meaningful. This book was not meaningful, it was just sad and stupid and
pitiful and I just felt sorry for the characters and myself for investing so
much time and money and energy into the series. Having a main character die
just for the sake of it is not the "ultimate sacrifice"(pretty sure
VR mentioned this in an interview somewhere saying Harry should have died
because it would have been the ultimate sacrifice - though I can't FIND the interview, so don't take my word for it. My thoughts on the topic are the same though). It is not a "meaningful" ending or
way to honour a character. There are things far worse than death - dying for a
cause is something people have done over and over again - how could it ever be
the "ultimate" anything? There is no glory in death and people
shouldn't pretend there is. And if anything, having your character die, a
character who is a clear leader, who is NEEDED to help the world be a better
place after all the chaos is over, after just having solved a kind of minor problem
isn't really brave at all - sticking around for the aftermath and trying to
navigate a new world - now that's brave.
The worst thing, though, was the epilogue. It was trying so
hard to make it seem like Tris's death actually meant something. It was a failed
attempt at looking back on memories and also looking towards the future in a
(yet again) "meaningful" way to give closure. All that epilogue did
was make me mad. Because yes, you know what? Some memories do fade. But after
just reading about a tragic death which was poorly and needlessly executed,
that's not exactly something I want to hear about. How much emotion do you want
to pile on me? Should there not be balance? Am I supposed to feel miserable for
seven years after finishing this book? I WANTED Four to miss Tris, because I
missed her. For me, it was not two years later. I didn't have that time to
grieve and learn to move on. They had supposedly won, but this didn't feel like
a victory. It was bleak and depressing and nothing else. I get that bad things
have to happen - but in the end, isn't it to create a better, happier world? In
Allegiant, bad things happened, and then more bad things happened, then more,
then more. I cried A LOT after finishing Ptolemy's Gate, but Allegiant just
made me angry and frustrated and I just want to start a fire so I can burn it
to a crisp and never think of it again.
Don't get me wrong. Ptolemy's Gate was not a perfect book
and I will most likely never read it again. But at least it wasn't pretending
to be something it wasn't. The way the characters were written made it seem
like it could end in any way. I felt like, even though we spent a lot of time
getting to know Nathaniel, it was worth it, despite the fact he died. Allegiant
didn't feel that way at all. I just felt it was utterly pointless for us to get
to know Tris, to invoke hope in us, build up such a developed relationship with
Four, all to have it end that way. What was the point in all that time and
effort spent? In this series, we actually saw and felt everything from Tris's
POV (whereas PG was not from Nathaniel's POV all the time and when it was, it
was third person -so maybe one reason I preferred it) - why bother with such
detail and intricacy and development when she ultimately dies? What was the
point of it? Why make it first person? A lot of people were able to guess the
ending by the addition of Four's POV and seeing the interview with VR. But that was the whole
thing - even people who believed she may die (and didn't want her to) would
pick up the book just for the ending, with the last shred of hope that maybe
she wouldn't. Marketing that gets people to buy books they know they probably
won't enjoy. I bought this book after having been spoiled because I just had
the NEED to read it and review it.
Some other problems: the convenient "memory serum"
- ooh let's fix these problems without really having to do anything. Peter got
to have a nice new beginning, without actually having to do any work. All those
guilty people in the Bureau? Yeah, just sort them out with memory serum. That
way no-one has to go through anymore nasty punishments that involve a lot of
hard work and effort, yay! -_- Did no-one who actually deserved good things to
happen actually have good things happen to them?
Overall, I actually kind of hated this book, it has pretty
much ruined the entire series for me and I will always feel a bit guilty for inflicting
such pain on other people I've recommended this series to. I feel like now that
this has happened, I can't even quote this series anymore or remember the parts
I liked. If to "be brave" means to preach endlessly and kill off a
character unnecessarily to ram the point home, then I won't be saying it
anymore. As I said on Twitter, the ending felt like a stupid choice based on
poor judgement and the desperate desire to make things "meaningful",
and the rest of the book was just nowhere near as entertaining as the previous
ones. Sometimes, trying so hard not to be like other books doesn't make your
book good, it just make it really obvious that it's trying so hard. An overdone
ending is still better than a terribly thought out "shocking" ending - though somewhere in the middle would be
best. Buuut what does it matter, the money is made, movie is the works and that's
that, so. I've never believed in pandering to your audience, but to completely
disregard how a lot of them would feel after investing so much in this series
just so you can feel superior for doing things "differently" is just
as bad.
And if anyone wants to give me my money back and pay for
years of therapy, that would be great.
(NB: no offence to Veronica Roth. I'm sure you are a nice
lady. I just really, really disagree with you.)
.png)
