Why I didn't like the 'Fault in Our Stars'

Photo by Nick Scheerbart on Unsplash

The Fault in Our Stars by John Green is a 2012 novel about two cancer-stricken teenagers who fall in love. It ends about as cheerfully as you'd expect such a love story to end.

I wanted to like this book. The teenagers were often quite funny. I loved how they kept saying that life wasn't a wish granting factory, for example, and they said a lot of similarly cute things. I liked that Hazel, the narrator, could quote poetry from memory, including T.S. Eliot.

At some point in the novel they also make a trip to Amsterdam to talk to the author of Hazel's favorite book, Peter Van Houten. The descriptions of Amsterdam were vivid and true to life. They almost made me feel as if I were visiting Amsterdam although I've never been there. You could tell that John Green spent some time there as he mentions in the acknowledgments.

Now for what didn't work for me. (With spoilers.)

I found I didn't really believe in any the characters as people. They never seemed real to me. Hazel often seemed to think a bit more like a guy than a girl, but in any case, I found I didn't care about her or her boyfriend, Gus. I didn't care when Gus died. I just didn't find them compelling enough to care. They all seemed almost like caricatures to me.

The romance between the Hazel and Gus consequently also wasn't compelling to me. Their love for each other seemed to come out of nowhere and be based on nothing. Maybe that's realistic. I wouldn't know. But it didn't make for compelling reading to me.

At some point the characters lose their virginity to each other. This seemed to add nothing to the story. Hazel didn't even seem to think it was a big deal and it never really seemed to matter. Pretty much all that came out of it was a humorous note that Hazel wrote to Gus about it. I think it could have been cut both for the sake of realism (most teenagers wouldn't be nonplussed to lose their virginity, male or female) and for the sake of the story (as far as I could tell it added nothing.)

Overall, the outlook in the whole story was pretty bleak. Maybe if I weren't religious, I would have found it deep and meaningful, but as it was I just thought it was sad how limited Hazel's outlook on life was. She often thought about the meaning of life and suffering but she never came to any conclusions that were terribly insightful and any references to religious beliefs were about as caricatured as most of the characters.

For example, at  some point, Van Houten talks to Hazel about Antoinetta Meo, a saintly Catholic child who died of osteosarcoma. She is quoted as having said, "Pain is like fabric. The stronger it is, the more it is worth." This is a reference to redemptive suffering, but because Hazel is as limited in her outlook as the book's author, her only response is to call it B.S. and she never makes any real attempt to understand suffering from any perspective but her own limited one. I wouldn't expect her to agree. She is not a Catholic character after all. But it would have been more interesting if she had actually explored other viewpoints in depth before rejecting them.

All in all, I thought this novel could have been great. The characters could have been more likable and believable. The plot could have been less predictable. The meaning of life and suffering could have been (and has been in many other books) explored in a lot more depth. But for me the book just didn't hit the spot emotionally or philosophically. I'm not sure what others see in it or why anyone would cry reading it. For me it was hard to get into and a relief to finish.