From the moment you know John Green's main characters have terminal cancer, you may think it's a defeatist work. Would you recommend reading it? Why (not)?
Knowing that the main characters of the work have terminal cancer doesn't mean it has to be a defeatist work. I mean, I don't say it's not difficult having to live with cancer, but I think nobody should be classifyng the book about the life of a person (being this one fictional or not) who has cancer as a defeatist work just like that, without giving it a try, as if healthy people couldn't have defeatist lives. Okey, I'm conscious that having characters who have cancer has higher possibilities of the work being pessimistic, as most of this kind of books are like that (just as Hazel said), but you can't base your decision of not reading it when you don't even know the characters. World War II is a topic frequently used in literature, but in spite of that, nobody says that they won't read it because the probabilities suggest that at least someone is going to die.
Any story who has characters with cancer, isn't a defeatist work. It is a realistic work, just like a WWII story. For me, don't reading a book because the characters have terminal cancer is the same as not wanting to hang out with someone or to meet someone because s/he has cancer.
Answering the question, I would definitely recommend the book, because I love the characters, the story and all the deep and interesting ideas developed inside of it, but on the other side, I wouldn't recommend it.
Now you may be thinking "C´mon, you wrote all this monologue of why we should't stop reading a story basing on our prejudices and why one with characters with cancer was as defeatist as a WWII story, just for saying you wouldn't recommend it just after saying you loved it and why you would definitely recommend. You must be kidding ". Well, my bipolarity has an explanation. It's a lovely book, from which you can learn about, but I have to main reasons for not recommending it:
a) Just as Hazel loved AIA, and didn't wanted to share it, and wanted to keep to herself, the same happens with me and TFIOS (Obviously, this a battle I can't won, since thankfully/unfortunately all the world knows about it).
And...
b) My desire of protecting it from the prejudice from the people that it is a defeatist work, even when it got to be know by almost everyone because it was a story worth reading.
Of course, this is just my opinion, and anyone is allowed to disagree.
What do you think about John Green's choice of the title for this work?
In William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Cassius* says: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”, meaning that we are the one and only responsibles of our decisions, and that fate, our stars, is not to blame.
John Green qualifies this affirmation as being "ridiculous" and saying “There is plenty of fault in our stars. The world is a profoundly unjust place in which suffering is unfairly distributed.”
I think it is a good title, that dismisses Shakespeare's idea, which helps to explain what's the aim of the story, apart as explaining the story iself. Having cancer isn't the fault of Hazel nor Gus, it is the fault of destiny. It is the fault of their stars.
*a conspirator in the plan for killing Caesar
Last entry
Published the 6th of July