"Move over, Katniss. Tris is volgende in line."
I don't remember who zei this, but it was a Divergent critic that was quoted at the beginning of the book. I don't particularly appreciate the commentaar because it's encouraging rivalry of competition between the two series. Possibly commentaren like this one could have been one of the reasons why some Hunger Games fans "don't like Divergent," because they still like the Hunger Games. They don't want another book to take its place. But why do the two series have to be rivals? Does Katniss really need to "move over" for Tris to have her chance? Can't they be vrienden instead?
They probably would be vrienden if they met, but them meeting would be impossible. The characters- and their worlds- cannot possibly coexist. This could be another reason why there is some rivalry between the series- because the world of each series undermines the possible existence of the other. However, the rivalry seems to mostly have to do with similarities rather than differences- they're both set in a dystopian future America, they both have strong female leads, they both involve fighting and wars, and others. What really annoys me is that they take these vague similarities and say that because of them, the two series are exactly the same, and even worse... that "Divergent is a rip off the Hunger Games." Probably the one that annoys me most is saying they're the same because they have strong female leads. Katniss and Tris are both strong and both female (not to mention both 16)... but they are still very different from each other and are both amazing. Saying that just because they're strong female characters means they're the same is something I find extremely sexist.
The reason I felt motivated to have my say on this issue was because of a conversation we had at the book club I'm part of at my school. The school librarian who runs the book club asked us what we thought was the best dystopian book. My immediate reply was Divergent (although I also love the Hunger Games, I haven't finished the series). No one supported me. The librarian, who had previously mentioned that she thought Divergent had a good storyline but was "poorly written," zei that "compared to the writing style in the Hunger Games, Divergent shouldn't even be on the list." Another member of the book club called Divergent "just a mix between the Hunger Games and Harry Potter." Then they started talking about how the Divergent series wasn't as good as it could have been because it got populair too quickly and they made a movie of the first book before the other boeken are written, so "she had to write boeken so they could make the movies."
What I thought of what they said: I agree that the Hunger Games are well written, but I don't agree with the other part. Divergent wouldn't have kept me up all night because I couldn't put it down if it was "poorly written." I've never heard it being compared to Harry Potter before (possibly because they're different genres) but I still don't agree with Divergent being unoriginal. I liked the similarity between the factions and the Hogwarts houses, but in many ways they're completely different. The Hogwarts houses are just based off school houses. Unlike the factions, u don't choose which one u go into, u don't stay in them forever, and they don't completely define u even when you're in Hogwarts, let alone for the rest of your life like the factions do. They're also not as central a part of the Harry Potter series as the factions are in Divergent. Lastly, Divergent would not have so quickly become populair enough for it to be made into a movie if it wasn't good. I didn't like Allegiant, but it didn't spoil my love of the series. People all over the world fell in love with the story, its world and its characters. It made them laugh and cry. They lived and breathed it.
If I wasn't reading The Hunger Games, Divergent would be the only dystopian book I've ever read, which I admit isn't a very good reason for arguing it to be the best. But I'm not saying straight out that "Divergent is better than the Hunger Games." I just get really hurt when people say bad things about Divergent, because the Divergent series means a lot to me. As the first dystopian book I ever read, it introduced me to something new, but that wasn't all. Divergent affected me immensely, startling me out of my babyish world of fairy stories with happy endings (the kind of book I mostly read back then) and into reality. It completely changed my perception in many ways. Before it I never saw the deeper meanings in books, and didn't even want to- all I wanted was a good story, and it put me off if it mean something else. But what I loved about Divergent was its relevance and insight into today's society, and ever since then, that's what I've looked for in books.
I almost didn't read the Hunger Games because I didn't want reading it to make me like Divergent less than I did. But fortunately, that didn't happen. I love both series, and I don't think one is better of less original than the other. They're just completely different.
I don't remember who zei this, but it was a Divergent critic that was quoted at the beginning of the book. I don't particularly appreciate the commentaar because it's encouraging rivalry of competition between the two series. Possibly commentaren like this one could have been one of the reasons why some Hunger Games fans "don't like Divergent," because they still like the Hunger Games. They don't want another book to take its place. But why do the two series have to be rivals? Does Katniss really need to "move over" for Tris to have her chance? Can't they be vrienden instead?
They probably would be vrienden if they met, but them meeting would be impossible. The characters- and their worlds- cannot possibly coexist. This could be another reason why there is some rivalry between the series- because the world of each series undermines the possible existence of the other. However, the rivalry seems to mostly have to do with similarities rather than differences- they're both set in a dystopian future America, they both have strong female leads, they both involve fighting and wars, and others. What really annoys me is that they take these vague similarities and say that because of them, the two series are exactly the same, and even worse... that "Divergent is a rip off the Hunger Games." Probably the one that annoys me most is saying they're the same because they have strong female leads. Katniss and Tris are both strong and both female (not to mention both 16)... but they are still very different from each other and are both amazing. Saying that just because they're strong female characters means they're the same is something I find extremely sexist.
The reason I felt motivated to have my say on this issue was because of a conversation we had at the book club I'm part of at my school. The school librarian who runs the book club asked us what we thought was the best dystopian book. My immediate reply was Divergent (although I also love the Hunger Games, I haven't finished the series). No one supported me. The librarian, who had previously mentioned that she thought Divergent had a good storyline but was "poorly written," zei that "compared to the writing style in the Hunger Games, Divergent shouldn't even be on the list." Another member of the book club called Divergent "just a mix between the Hunger Games and Harry Potter." Then they started talking about how the Divergent series wasn't as good as it could have been because it got populair too quickly and they made a movie of the first book before the other boeken are written, so "she had to write boeken so they could make the movies."
What I thought of what they said: I agree that the Hunger Games are well written, but I don't agree with the other part. Divergent wouldn't have kept me up all night because I couldn't put it down if it was "poorly written." I've never heard it being compared to Harry Potter before (possibly because they're different genres) but I still don't agree with Divergent being unoriginal. I liked the similarity between the factions and the Hogwarts houses, but in many ways they're completely different. The Hogwarts houses are just based off school houses. Unlike the factions, u don't choose which one u go into, u don't stay in them forever, and they don't completely define u even when you're in Hogwarts, let alone for the rest of your life like the factions do. They're also not as central a part of the Harry Potter series as the factions are in Divergent. Lastly, Divergent would not have so quickly become populair enough for it to be made into a movie if it wasn't good. I didn't like Allegiant, but it didn't spoil my love of the series. People all over the world fell in love with the story, its world and its characters. It made them laugh and cry. They lived and breathed it.
If I wasn't reading The Hunger Games, Divergent would be the only dystopian book I've ever read, which I admit isn't a very good reason for arguing it to be the best. But I'm not saying straight out that "Divergent is better than the Hunger Games." I just get really hurt when people say bad things about Divergent, because the Divergent series means a lot to me. As the first dystopian book I ever read, it introduced me to something new, but that wasn't all. Divergent affected me immensely, startling me out of my babyish world of fairy stories with happy endings (the kind of book I mostly read back then) and into reality. It completely changed my perception in many ways. Before it I never saw the deeper meanings in books, and didn't even want to- all I wanted was a good story, and it put me off if it mean something else. But what I loved about Divergent was its relevance and insight into today's society, and ever since then, that's what I've looked for in books.
I almost didn't read the Hunger Games because I didn't want reading it to make me like Divergent less than I did. But fortunately, that didn't happen. I love both series, and I don't think one is better of less original than the other. They're just completely different.
