Some of what makes John Green's manic pixie thing okay for me is learning about his life via his hankgames videos. The story he tells about one of his old girlfriends was really telling to me wrt his understanding of or experience with women.
I read Katherines first, because it had just come out when I started watching the vlog brothers videos and while I liked so many aspects of it, I was so disappointed at the end when, instead of Colin learning his own lesson and not defining himself by his relationships, he continues on the same path and doesn't grow at all. But that's a critique I have of romance as a genre, and not specific to John's writing.
I feel like the "manic pixie" issue is only that it's a reversal of genders. People are used to the manic pixie being a male character (see the Edward Cullen example above <3) and so we're all thrown when the most special snowflake is a girl. But again, given the way John talks about the women in his life, I think that has been his experience.
I am really interested to read TFiOS (other than the part where it will make me cry forever) because I feel like the specialness of the characters is more evenly distributed. Both Hazel and Augustus have a lot of charm and because Hazel is the POV character, we get more impressions of her flaws than we would if the narrator had been Augustus which I think will diffuse the impression that she's the most special ever.
I feel like my point has gotten away from me. But I do agree that it's hard when people take their experience with one book and generalize it over an author's entire library. And, from that review particularly, only using wgwg as a sample is totally disingenuous. That would be like deciding you don't like Neal Gaiman's work based on disliking Good Omens. The work he does singly is completely different. Not that I think anyone is obligated to like John's work, but disliking it based on a book he didn't write by himself just doesn't sit well with me.
I hate to point this out but it's "dam a river" not "damn a river".
no subject
I read Katherines first, because it had just come out when I started watching the vlog brothers videos and while I liked so many aspects of it, I was so disappointed at the end when, instead of Colin learning his own lesson and not defining himself by his relationships, he continues on the same path and doesn't grow at all. But that's a critique I have of romance as a genre, and not specific to John's writing.
I feel like the "manic pixie" issue is only that it's a reversal of genders. People are used to the manic pixie being a male character (see the Edward Cullen example above <3) and so we're all thrown when the most special snowflake is a girl. But again, given the way John talks about the women in his life, I think that has been his experience.
I am really interested to read TFiOS (other than the part where it will make me cry forever) because I feel like the specialness of the characters is more evenly distributed. Both Hazel and Augustus have a lot of charm and because Hazel is the POV character, we get more impressions of her flaws than we would if the narrator had been Augustus which I think will diffuse the impression that she's the most special ever.
I feel like my point has gotten away from me. But I do agree that it's hard when people take their experience with one book and generalize it over an author's entire library. And, from that review particularly, only using wgwg as a sample is totally disingenuous. That would be like deciding you don't like Neal Gaiman's work based on disliking Good Omens. The work he does singly is completely different. Not that I think anyone is obligated to like John's work, but disliking it based on a book he didn't write by himself just doesn't sit well with me.
I hate to point this out but it's "dam a river" not "damn a river".