Sign in with Facebook
Meghan's Reviews > Fallen
Fallen (Fallen, #1)
by
by
*This review has some spoilers for plot!*
Just as vampires are becoming old hat in YA literature, angels have swooped in to take their place in the pantheon of paranormal romance heroes--who knew? I was rather dubious of the whole trend (and still am), but boy, do I love me some Old Testament crazy, so I thought, "Let's see what they do with this." Even with my low expectations, I found this disappointing!
We begin with Daniel Grigori (whose last name gives the whole thing away if you know your stuff), a fallen angel cursed to fall in love with the same girl every seventeen years for eternity. The girl in question is Lucinda a.k.a. "Luce" Price, who has just entered Sword & Cross, a reform school for troubled teens, after the mysterious death of a classmate that she perhaps caused, but doesn't remember. As soon as she sees Daniel, she's drawn to him, and soon feels increasingly certain they have met before, and she'll do anything to try and discover his secrets.
Unfortunately, Luce is a pretty dumb heroine. She spends the entire book mooning over a guy that is mean to her every chance he gets and then mopes around feeling sorry for herself. That's kind of it. At one point she talks about how she knows Latin and French and had a 4.0 GPA at a top prep school, etc. but she sure doesn't read that way! She's not a strong character--she's not feisty, she's not witty, and, worst of all, she's passive. She doesn't do anything so much as things happen to her.
Daniel and Luce fall for each other time after time, but the author doesn't try very hard to make either Luce or Daniel interesting. Did the author think it wasn't necessary to show why they would fall in love with each other? Both were no more than cardboard cutouts. I don't think they even had a real conversation at all before they decided they were each others' ~true love~. I don't care if they've technically known each other for centuries, make them interesting in this incarnation!
I actually agreed with one of the "villains" when she said, "In this lifetime you're nothing more than you appear to be: a stupid, selfish, ignorant, spoiled little girl who thinks the world lives or dies on whether she gets to go out with some good-looking boy at school...I'd still relish this moment...killing you." I don't think that's supposed to happen.
Some other things:
*The climactic battle--which had no real build-up--takes place off-screen!
*The "villain" wasn't threatening and came off more as a simpering monologuer rather than clever or creepy. And he wore gold eye shadow.
*People did not smile in pictures in 1854, among other things!
*How are some fallen angels on the "good side" and others aren't? Fallen angels already chose Satan over God, no?
There are just so many interesting things an author could do with this subject, but it's so flat. There's just not enough of the mythology here to make it worth my while.
Oh, but I do like the cover. And I'll still recommend this to girls who liked Twilight...because it still manages to be better than Twilight.
Just as vampires are becoming old hat in YA literature, angels have swooped in to take their place in the pantheon of paranormal romance heroes--who knew? I was rather dubious of the whole trend (and still am), but boy, do I love me some Old Testament crazy, so I thought, "Let's see what they do with this." Even with my low expectations, I found this disappointing!
We begin with Daniel Grigori (whose last name gives the whole thing away if you know your stuff), a fallen angel cursed to fall in love with the same girl every seventeen years for eternity. The girl in question is Lucinda a.k.a. "Luce" Price, who has just entered Sword & Cross, a reform school for troubled teens, after the mysterious death of a classmate that she perhaps caused, but doesn't remember. As soon as she sees Daniel, she's drawn to him, and soon feels increasingly certain they have met before, and she'll do anything to try and discover his secrets.
Unfortunately, Luce is a pretty dumb heroine. She spends the entire book mooning over a guy that is mean to her every chance he gets and then mopes around feeling sorry for herself. That's kind of it. At one point she talks about how she knows Latin and French and had a 4.0 GPA at a top prep school, etc. but she sure doesn't read that way! She's not a strong character--she's not feisty, she's not witty, and, worst of all, she's passive. She doesn't do anything so much as things happen to her.
Daniel and Luce fall for each other time after time, but the author doesn't try very hard to make either Luce or Daniel interesting. Did the author think it wasn't necessary to show why they would fall in love with each other? Both were no more than cardboard cutouts. I don't think they even had a real conversation at all before they decided they were each others' ~true love~. I don't care if they've technically known each other for centuries, make them interesting in this incarnation!
I actually agreed with one of the "villains" when she said, "In this lifetime you're nothing more than you appear to be: a stupid, selfish, ignorant, spoiled little girl who thinks the world lives or dies on whether she gets to go out with some good-looking boy at school...I'd still relish this moment...killing you." I don't think that's supposed to happen.
Some other things:
*The climactic battle--which had no real build-up--takes place off-screen!
*The "villain" wasn't threatening and came off more as a simpering monologuer rather than clever or creepy. And he wore gold eye shadow.
*People did not smile in pictures in 1854, among other things!
*How are some fallen angels on the "good side" and others aren't? Fallen angels already chose Satan over God, no?
There are just so many interesting things an author could do with this subject, but it's so flat. There's just not enough of the mythology here to make it worth my while.
Oh, but I do like the cover. And I'll still recommend this to girls who liked Twilight...because it still manages to be better than Twilight.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
Fallen.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
November 8, 2009
– Shelved
Started Reading
November 17, 2009
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-38 of 38 (38 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jonathan
(new)
Dec 21, 2009 01:04AM
Man, your review reads like a checklist for all that was wrong with Twilight. XD I'm sure as hell not reading this now, even though I adore the cover art so very very much. WHY do all the best books get the ugliest covers, and the worst books the prettiest covers?
reply
|
flag
*People did not smile in pictures in 1854, among other things!Ha! My thoughts exactly when I read that. Great review, you nailed my impressions of it down much better than I did :)
ok, so i read your review and thought that it sucks! BIG TIME!! you went into this story looking for the bad! ok so there are somethings that are incorrect about this book i.e. that fact that people did not smile in pictures in 1854, but it is a LITTLE thing!
Everyone has the right to their opinion. Just because it doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean it "sucks big time."
ok, so i read your comment and thought that its grammar sucks! BIG TIME!! you went into this review looking for bad! ok so there are some things that dont agree with your opinion i.e. the fact that she doesnt like it but it is a LITTLE THING!Before you expect anyone to take your opinion about a piece of writing seriously, I'd recommend learning how to write in a grammatically correct fashion. xD
Jonathan wrote: "ok, so i read your comment and thought that its grammar sucks! BIG TIME!! you went into this review looking for bad! ok so there are some things that dont agree with your opinion i.e. the fact that..." Man, thanks for the grammar tips I'll be sure to put it into the suggestion box. Too bad you are missing a great book based on somebody's opinion. Read the book and form your own, man
If a review says a book sucks or that it rules without giving actual reasons for WHY (like, for example, your comment on this review) then I'll certainly ignore it and form my own opinion. But when many critical reviews explain, in detail, specific things about the book that are immensely problematic, and I *KNOW* that these things would bother me were I to read the book myself, then I don't *have* to read it myself to know that I would probably hate it. This is especially the case when the *positive* reviews fail to convince me that the book is worth reading despite many glaring flaws.And frankly, I'd rather not waste my time with a book I know I'd hate. xD My to-read list is long enough without that.
Elisabeth wrote: "ok, so i read your review and thought that it sucks! BIG TIME!! you went into this story looking for the bad! ok so there are somethings that are incorrect about this book i.e. that fact that peopl..."Yes, it's a little thing, but it still bothered me so I stuck it in at the end.
I wouldn't have bothered reading the book if I was only "looking for the bad"--it's a waste of my time. I had heard mixed things about it and wanted to decide for myself, and I didn't like it. I don't care if you disagree with me, but you could have responded politely with reasons why you liked the book instead of getting angry at me because I didn't.
I have two things to say and one is that in the book it says they were gazing into eachothers eyes in the picture, so obviously if you were looking into your true loves eyes you would would not even realize your smiling when you are. Second, the fallen angels are choosing there side on how to protect Luce, I think. Nevertheless, I personally loved the book. Also, just because you didnt like the first book does not mean you wont like the other 3 coming. They will probably explain a whole lot more.
Your checklist was spot-on in my opinion! I wondered the same things and I agree with Ashley when she said you verbalized what I thought of the book much better than I did! I hated how Lauren Kate had created such mystery and build up to the revelation of those mysteries just to fall so flat. It didn't seem to be much of a climax in my opinion and I was rather disappointed. However, I feel like there's so much promise with this story that I will read the sequel to see where Kate takes it from here...and crossing my fingers that she surprises me and steps it up.
Sue wrote: "I feel like there's so much promise with this story that I will read the sequel to see where Kate takes it from here...and crossing my fingers that she surprises me and steps it up." I agree that the sequel could turn out to be much better--she has a great mythology to work with! It all depends on what she does with it and how much she improves as an author as the series continues.
Thanks for your comment!
Thank you very, very much! I just finished reading this book, and I was contemplating writing a review, but you nailed just about every issue I had. The main characters did read like cardboard cutouts, and it felt like a whole book of meandering through vague hints and non-answers before squeezing in everything that could have been mildly interesting at the end (and off-screen).I agree, Sophia was spot-on in her assessment of Luce, whose name bugged me throughout the story. (I couldn't help thinking "Loose?") The side characters held a lot of promise, and I almost wish the author had focused on them instead, but then we'd probably be stuck with another pointless love triangle where no one needs to explain or show why people are actually in love in the first place.
Oops. I better head this off before I really start ranting. n.n
Excellent, accurate review, and keep up the good work! I'm always thrilled to find reviewers I know will point out the good and bad without holding back.
I agree with your review. By the time Luce allows herself to be tied up by Miss Sophia without even a single thought of struggling or trying to escape I was ready for Sophia to get it done with already.I also found it inconsistent that Gabbe told Daniel at one point "I'm the only one you've got," and then at the end we find out that Arianne is also an angel and that Miss Sophia is supposedly on the good side, so really, Gabbe wasn't the only one Daniel had.
I did find the list of all the places in history Daniel and Luce had met up to be a bit over the top: Corcovado in Rio, The River Jordan in Jerusalem, Italy in WW1, the purge of St. Petersburg, the turret of a castle in Scotland, the Kings coronation in Versailles, the opening of the Globe Theater, a shipwreck in Tahiti!! And then reform school.
And how does Luce keep coming back in the same body if she has different parents every time, or does she?
And the cover, while lovely, only vaguely reflects what happens in the book. She is at one point wearing a black sleeveless dress, but it's short and so is her hair. Cause it burned off in a fire for crying out loud.
whew! That felt good. thanks :)
you've saved me reading a book i wasn't likely to pick up, but, what's the thing about the last name grigori? gregory maybe? was there a "bad" pope named gregory?luce, i assume is lucifer.
Jim wrote: "you've saved me reading a book i wasn't likely to pick up, but, what's the thing about the last name grigori? gregory maybe? was there a "bad" pope named gregory?luce, i assume is lucifer."
The Grigori are a group of fallen angels, also called the "Watchers", who descended to earth and mated with mortal women to produce the Nephilim, a race of men described either as giants who terrorized humankind or heroic/mighty.
Afton wrote: "I agree with your review. By the time Luce allows herself to be tied up by Miss Sophia without even a single thought of struggling or trying to escape I was ready for Sophia to get it done with al..."The list of her past lives is a bit ridiculous! So Luce just happened to be present for some of the most amazing events in history?! I don't remember now if she was ever some random peasant, but really. If past lives existed, I'm sure the majority would be incredibly mundane (but we have to remember this is a ~grand romance~ so we should expect nothing less than a castle in Scotland! Jeez.)
I cant imagine why you even thought that Fallen is much better book than the Twilight or why you actually wrote it!Fallen is exactly like Hush Hush and Twilight.The 2/3 of the book is either the girl's attempts to find out about the boy she is interesting in or how life sucks and what in hell happend to her ex boyfriend and he ended up dead or why he keeps secrets from her even if they just met.Yes the Twilight Saga are my favourite books but I'm sick of reading all over internet that twilight books arent good books.Or that are worse than others.Have you seen any vampire sparkling before Stephanie Meyer writes it down?Correct me if I'm wrong but wasnt Dracula (serious author Bram Stoker'serious vampire book)that fall in love with Mina?Both books are love stories.The Twilight Saga books are excellent books whether u like it or not.More light from other books like Hush Hush but still excellent.But no way Fallen is a better book.
Bella wrote: "I cant imagine why you even thought that Fallen is much better book than the Twilight or why you actually wrote it!Fallen is exactly like Hush Hush and Twilight.The 2/3 of the book is either the gi..."A book review has always been, and will always be, an opinion. If you don't like the way someone reviews a book, fine, but you have no right to attack the reviewer.
If you love Twilight, good for you, but if another person hates Twilight, that's perfectly fine too.
Also, Dracula is NOT a love story. It is a Romance (as in, written in the Romance/Gothic style), but the character of Dracula is not in love with Mina in the book. He is also incredibly terrifying and evil; there is nothing sensual or beautiful about him. You are thinking of the film version of Dracula by Francis Ford Coppola.
I'm also unsure as to why you bring up sparkly vampires. Are you implying that Stephanie Meyer's some sort of literary genius for creating vampires that glitter? If the reviewer is not a fan of Twilight, I am certain that she does not view the author as a visionary.
Vampires, by definition, do not sparkle. Nor are they able to go out in the sunlight. They also tend to have fangs. The "vampires" in Twilight have nothing vampiric about them, sorry to say.
By the way, vampires have always represented plagues, demonic possession, deviant sexuality, and a host of other social issues.
The first romanticized/sensual/beautiful vampires were created by Anne Rice, but even her vamps are recognizable as vampires because of what they represent.
The Twilight vampires do not seem to represent any major political/social issue, excepting the idea that women should repress their sexuality and accept traditional gender roles. That is one of the reasons many people do not enjoy Twilight.
Elizabeth wrote: "A book review has always been, and will always be, an opinion. If you don't like the way someone reviews a book, fine, but you have no right to attack the reviewer. If you love Twilight, good for you, but if another person hates Twilight, that's perfectly fine too. "
Thank you, Elizabeth! Bella, that is your opinion of Twilight, etc., and everyone else is entitled to their opinion, whether or not it agrees with yours.
@bellaWhile I have read all of the twilight books and the movies (with great diappointment I may add), I will admit I enjoyed them purely because they are so cliche sappy, not well written books. Stephenie meyer is no great literary author - if u want some amazing written novels go for Jane Austin or Plato or Chaucer or James Joyce , to name a few.
Next, u mentioned that fallen is "exactly the same" as hush hush and twilight. Since i have read all three of those book (series) i can difinitively say Um no, not at all. Besides the obvious of hush hush and fallen being about ANGELS and twilight being about VAMPIRES, the plots are only similar with a girl falling for a boy, girl finds out boy's true ID and oh a happy ending (a must in all these YA level-reading books apparently).
And as for your being all impressed with vampires glittering, many MANY different fantasy/ paranormal authors put their own different twists on the vampire legends of old. So it's really not all that ground breaking and to be honest while it's an interesting idea, it really would fit better as a characteristic of some other mythical being other than vampires.
Also as mentioned by the above commenters in the original bram stoker Dracula story - Dracula did not fall in love with Mina. You are thinking of the film version with winona ryder and Gary oldman.
Ashley wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "A book review has always been, and will always be, an opinion. If you don't like the way someone reviews a book, fine, but you have no right to attack the reviewer. If you love ..."
You are most welcome, Ashley!
I do know that everyone entitles an opinion.I dont reject one that.And I surely didnt attack on anyone.I expressed MY opinion which by the way I'm entitle too. I have a book called Dracula by Bram Stoker and I'm pretty sure that( besides it's original) Dracula DOES fall for Mina.Sorry again.
Second I never ever said that Stephanie is the literary genius. But she IS a very very good author.And I'm pretty sure that no one has written before about vampires that
glitter/sparkle.But if someone doesnt like the books because the vapmires in it glitter and that is why they critisize it so hard what can I say?That is pathetic.Sorry again.
The only right think you said is that they dont have fangs.I cant argue on that.
"Vampires, by definition" you say.THAT phraze does not exist in where everyone gets to write and publish anything he wants. Maybe you should start having more open mind cause the sparkling thing you all critisize about...well it's getting old.Oh by the way does dracula represents any major political/social issue??Please you only made me laugh on this one."women should repress their sexuality and accept traditional gender roles."????I have no idea how or why you ever wrote that so i wont get into th process on comment it......
In conclusion: I know that we all have our different tastes on books but try not to look funny when you reject a book as a bad one because you think vampires do not and should not glitter or doesnt have fangs.Keep in mind that vampires dont even exist and that Stephanie is as popular(i wont say more) as Anne Rice.
I'm totally twilighter fan but i dont castigate other books about vampires like you do with twilight do I?I have many books with vampires like vampire academy that i dont like cause they suck.Try to be more careful and authentic about your comments on twilight which by far is better than hush hush and fallen,cuase many people as you know are fans and will get insulted like i did.
I couldn't agree more with your review. Even though I read 2/3 of the book, I came to the same conclusion you did. A character who is so passive and is only concerned about her romantic interests is extremely annoying. I really hate that YA novels have turned into stories about girls who's life revolve around finding a boyfriend.
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOUR OPINION ON THIS BOOK BUT I THINK TWILIGHT IS WAY BETTER!
If Twilight is better than I'll never read Fallen. Twilight is the worst. Couldn't get through the first chapter. The movies are atrocious. They're just not for me. Don't understand why anybody would sit through them...but yes I will be watching the newest installment when it comes out. Werewolves are super friggin cool.
Bella wrote: "I do know that everyone entitles an opinion.I dont reject one that.And I surely didnt attack on anyone.I expressed MY opinion which by the way I'm entitle too. I have a book called Dracula by Bra..."
I couldnt agree more,
I just dont get it if people hate twilight so much then why do they have to compare every friggin book they read to it? And it is a bit pathetic to dislike twilight because vampires glitter in it. sorry. And weather you like it or not Twilight plyed a BIG part in making the vampire jenre.
They are amazing books and it's your choice weather you like them or not.
I just finished Fallen, and while I can't say I didn't enjoy it, I was a little disappointed. For me, the writing was educated and artistic, but the story itself lacked luster. It was so difficult to care about the characters-in turn making their stories less than appealing. But, I continued reading just the same. There were parts that teased my interest, and other parts that just turned me away all together. All in all, a good idea, but a shallow delivery.And just to add a little fuel to the ever-burning fire that is Twilight- I thought I'd make my own little comment since I am, in fact, a fan. What Stephenie Meyer was able to accomplish that I believe these other authors are trying-unsuccessfully-to chase is the emotional connectivity between the reader and the characters. If I hadn't cared about everyone (no matter how frustrated I may have gotten with Bella at times) at the entire (written) cast of the Twilight series, I couldn't have cared less about the story. And I wouldn't recommend this book for Twilight fans based on the notion that they will automatically enjoy it because of the similarities in plot. They, like myself, will come away discontented.
And that's my two cents.
"*How are some fallen angels on the "good side" and others aren't? Fallen angels already chose Satan over God, no? "Well, if you turn your back on God and later regret it, are you not different from a person who turns their back on God and never looks back? If angels are a symbol of Christianity (at least in most Western cultures), and Christianity is about forgiveness and redemption, why can't there be good fallen angels?
Ashley wrote: "Everyone has the right to their opinion. Just because it doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean it "sucks big time.""i agree, i really liked this book
Megan wrote: "I just finished Fallen, and while I can't say I didn't enjoy it, I was a little disappointed. For me, the writing was educated and artistic, but the story itself lacked luster. It was so difficul..."you know there is more than one book
Dark wrote: you know there is more than one bookYes, I do...unfortunately.
I really enjoyed fallen it was a good read and the second one torment is good so far a tad slow but good
I read stuff like this all the time in posts. Where people are saying they agree with what a villain says or does and that they don’t think that suppose to happen, but the truth is, it is. You’re your own unique person. You think your own things. I found myself liking Cam & Roland instead of Daniel and Arriane instead of Luce, but never once did I feel that was wrong. I know that’s not what Lauren wanted. She wants us to feel love for Luce and Daniel, but we are all different and will not all feel the same. We’re all unique and will be attracted to different things for different reasons.
but boy, do I love me some Old Testament crazy, so I thought, "Let's see what they do with this." Even with my low expectations, I found this disappointing!" I laughed out loud at this.
check this book out by Sarah Farmer on kindle, nook, lulu.com and xlibris. give it a try you might actually enjoy it.
Actually, Fallen Angels is a term for angels choosing to not live in heaven anymore. Some fallen angels could be good. The term you are searching for is demons which I assure you, is a totally different subject. This book was absolute bullshit BTW.
