Today I picked up a copy of The Fault In Our Stars. Something that really left an impression on me is Van Houten, a character that struck me as interesting enough to stay up til one in the morning to write about. (Im tired and Im only on page 205, so I apologize if any information is incorrect.) The Fault In Our Stars was a rather ordinary book. An unsophisticated writing style combined with a stereotypical relationship between the shy girl and the hot guy. Nothing special, really. That is, I felt that way until the character of Van Houten was introduced. His brilliant exchanges with Augustus and Hazel were what convinced me to continue plowing through the story at breakneck pace, and also brought back my faith in Green as a writer. For me, he was the books saving grace, and reminded me that, yes, Greens overuse of capital letters and fairly plain sentence structure is indeed a conscious choice, and that he is far more capable than he lets on in the narrative. I tore through the novel once the trip to Amsterdam was planned; I simply couldnt wait until we finally saw Van Houten in person. Deep down, I knew that Hazel wouldnt get an answer to her questions - a simple yes or no, confirmation or declination, would be too arbitrary and anticlimactic for a readers liking. Instead, I believed that Van Houten would kindly refuse an answer in an attempt to teach her a lesson about the abruptness of oblivion or whatever. I believed that she would walk away enlightened and no longer seeking the answer that she wouldnt get. Instead, what did we get? I felt utterly disappointed with the real Van Houten, a drunkard spewing philosophical nonsense. I suppose that disappointment was what Green was aiming for, and he was indeed successful. But why? Why would Green choose to characterize Van Houten in such a way? I havent thought much about it, but I suppose he was attempting to show Hazel (and thusly, the reader) that a definitive answer isnt always satisfying or necessary. Lets speculate, for a moment, that Van Houten told Hazel that, yes, the Dutch Tulip Man was sincere and he and Annas mother married and lived happily ever after. Then what? Presumably, Hazel and Augustus would leave, feeling triumphant, and then it would be forgotten, just another small detail from the end of a book. What lesson was learned from that? Nothing. And isnt the point of a book to teach a lesson? Besides, isnt the abrupt ending of AIA what intrigued Hazel so much in the first place? Giving an answer would cause her to lose interest in the novel. In conclusion, I cant say I agree with the way Green characterized Van Houten, but I understand why he chose to do it this way, and I suppose he was successful in getting his point across. Kudos, my friend. Now, its a quarter to one in the morning and Im going to get some sleep, but not before a quick comparison. Other thirteen-year-olds: omg dis buk is so gud lol omg agustos is hot lol omg lol lol i only red dis buk 4 da romanse lol also i dont no wat it means 2 reed critically and i only like dis buk bcuz everybody else likes it lol lol lol Me: But whats the meaning of this metaphor though? *writes really long, critical essay at one in the morning detailing the choice of the author to portray a minor character a certain way, proofreads said essay about ten times, posts to Facebook* Goodnight, Facebook. Ill be here all week.
Posted on: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 05:00:41 +0000