Chasing Katniss: Divergent Author Veronica Roth Builds Her Dystopian Empire

On March 31, 2010, 21-year-old Veronica Roth wrote a blog post titled “You + $$$ = ?” Roth was a creative-writing major at Northwestern who planned to support herself as a proofreader after graduation. The exercise on her frequently updated blog was about imagining success: What would she do if she suddenly had the resources of Stephenie Meyer or J. K. Rowling? Roth’s answers were unapologetically practical—buy a house in Wisconsin, invest, donate to charity—and her wildest dream involved jumping into a pool of mini-marshmallows. Mostly, the aspiring young-adult author just wanted to work. “Day jobs? Pshh. Who needs them? If I could set up a nice little room in which I could write all day and supply myself with infinite tea, I’d be pretty much good.” Two weeks later, Roth sold her first book, a dystopian YA novel about a society segregated by moral virtues and a girl who doesn’t fit in. Divergent was published in May 2011 and spent eleven consecutive weeks on the New York Times’ children’s best-seller list; the sequel, Insurgent, debuted at No. 1 a year later. The series has remained there ever since, thanks to a wildly enthusiastic, bordering on maniacal, audience that includes not just teenage girls but their brothers, their mothers, and a growing number of childless adults (Divergent coincided with the rise of The Hunger Games, the industry-wide scramble to succeed Twilight, and the resultant YA dominance in the pop-cultural landscape). Since no popular YA series is without a movie franchise, Summit Entertainment—the studio behind Twilight—will release Divergent early next year, and its cast (Kate Winslet, Next Big Thing Shailene Woodley) suggests similar expectations for the film version. Meanwhile, the contents of the trilogy’s upcoming final book, Allegiant (coming out October 22), are being guarded like Katniss Everdeen in the first half of Mockingjay. So if Roth isn’t quite at Twilight or Hunger Games levels, then she would seem to be on her way—or far enough along, at least, to tackle a few things on the list she wrote three years ago. Find a house, maybe. Figure out what else grown-ups do with large sums of money.

She went for the mini-marshmallows instead. At the mention of her otherwise unfinished list, Roth shrugs politely. “Dreams change,” she tells me, which is a fair point coming from a 25-year-old. I keep forgetting this fact, since in person Roth is almost six feet tall and intimidatingly serious; at first, it is hard to picture her bathing in a tub of candy or spazzing over a book meant for teenagers. She could reasonably be hired as my babysitter. Then she suggests we get some ice cream, frets over the flavors, and is soon covered in “cookie monster.” Roth and I have come to Coney Island on a bright September day to stare at a Ferris wheel like the one that Tris, the heroine of Divergent, climbs without thinking. We’re staring at it because the amusement park is closed and also because Roth wouldn’t want to ride it, especially with a stranger. The action-book author is afraid of heights.

She’s afraid of a lot of things, actually, and fear, or how to overcome it, is what first inspired Divergent. “I was in Psych learning about exposure therapy,” she recalls. “I wondered what would happen if there was a group of people who tried to create fearlessness using the technique.” She started writing about those people instead of doing her college homework, and within 40 days she had a completed draft. The fear-chasers from class became the Dauntless, one of five factions in the crumbling future Chicago where Tris lives. Each faction has a different moral credo that governs its members’ lives; they are like Harry Potter houses, minus the magic. So you have Tris’s adopted Dauntless, who value bravery; the selfless Abnegation, in which she was raised; Amity (peace); Erudite (intelligence); and Candor (honesty). The division, established long ago by a mysterious group, is supposed to teach humans how to be good again, one value at a time—but Roth’s point is that none of these values is effective all by itself, and the order is disintegrating. Tris, unable to conform and in danger because of it, rebels against society in order to save herself. Divergent sold quickly—after four days, to the first editor who finished reading it—thanks to a familiar premise: stubborn teenage girl, divided society, kids fighting kids, civil war. “The Hunger Games was just becoming a thing when I was finishing writing it,” Roth says, and Divergent led the next wave of YA dystopian fiction. The timing worked in her favor, and so did the current distaste for fragile YA heroines like Twilight’s Bella Swan; Tris is strong and uncompromising (and a pain in the ass, really, but that’s popular too, as surly, “regular” teenagers are more relatable). Despite its trendiness, Roth sees Divergent less as a traditional “point a finger at society” novel and more of a personal critique. “Those virtues are the ones I believe in. And to kind of dismantle my own understanding of those virtues, or what it would be like to live this way, was a little bit like delving into my own psyche.”

She didn’t recognize it at the time, but Tris also became a test case for Roth’s own life. Not long after selling Divergent, Roth broke up with one boyfriend, started dating another, got married within a year, and moved (temporarily) to Romania (for her new husband’s work). “This is just a theory, but Divergent was sort of good for me, because it was a safe place to explore taking bold action,” she offers. “The things that Tris does”—jump off trains, fly down zip lines, leave her family—“are insane, and she comes from a sort of repressed environment. And I think my internal environment at the time I was writing it felt sort of repressed.” It is Roth’s particular gift that she could experience this as a peer and then write it as an adult. “It was a way to explore the possibility of making those kinds of big steps. And then when it was finished, I started making them.”

As we wander around the boardwalk, I notice that Roth is dressed in head-to-toe black, like a member of the Dauntless, and that I’m wearing Abnegation gray. This seems like a good excuse to go full fan-fic on Roth, so I begin quizzing her about Four, the curt, mysterious older boy who becomes Tris’s mandatory love interest. Roth drops a bomb: She wouldn’t date Four. “Too many secrets, not enough jokes,” she says, laughing at my immediate outrage. On behalf of message-board readers everywhere, I keep at her, pointing out how dreamy Four is, how he’s so sweet to Tris and such a jackass to everyone else. “He appeals to her,” Roth explains patiently, as if she’s done this a thousand times—as if she is used to grown women confusing her fictional world for a real-life dating pool.

She is certainly used to obsessive questions about the third book in the Divergent series, and she deflects most of mine with ease. The closest I come to a spoiler is on the topic of sex, which Tris and Four haven’t had, because Tris is deeply afraid of intimacy. The barrage starts again: Are YA characters allowed to have sex? (Yes.) Have Tris and Four had sex off the page? (No.) Is this an abstinence series? (No. Roth’s Christianity has nothing to do with it; the characters just aren’t ready.) So there’s a chance they could have sex sometime soon? It’s not out of the question? Roth breaks into a grin. This is the only time she’ll yell at me, but it’s loud, and she’s clearly not nervous anymore. “Maybe you have to wait!”

I went through and read all of the threads you listed and I don't actually see the argument you characterized with the statement of "these kinds of books and movies is a dangerous contortion of reality and leads to the degradation of our culture and our Judeo-Christian ethics". What is did see was the objection to the portrayal of 100lb woman beating up 250lb athletic men as if it were realistic. That is why we have weight categories in professional fighting. That is a far cry from degrading our culture and ethics, it just isn't realistic and it makes it more difficult to suspend one's disbelief.

Even then you have separate super hero's from normal humans. Katniss uses a bow against people she knows would kick her butt in a straight up fight. Buffy on the other hand is a magically created hybrid designed for the specific purpose of killing vampires and the best way to do that is to appear like an harmless attractive young woman. If one can accept the premise of superheroes as a fictional construct then it doesn't matter if they are male or female as they are superhuman.

I honestly liked the Hungergames series more because of the irony. The ultralib author portrayed her heroic figures as conservatives and her villains as liberals and didn't even realize it until after it was published and then was all pissy about it. I do disagree with you about the character of Katniss but it isn't very important.

She's supposed to be the Ultimate Mom, Ultimate Badass, and Ultimate Liberal Anti-corporate figure. I mean, come on. She outfights colonial marines who've been trained to sweep planets of dangerous life forms.

I don't think we saw the same movie. Ripley is obviously uncomfortable in a maternal role and it's this awkwardness that is endearing. She isn't interested in being "anti-corporate" she just wants to survive, which she know she can't do if the progressive (sacrificing others for their own selfish self interest) yes man continues his course. She sucks at fighting and has to be taught on the fly. She doesn't outfight the marines, she runs as they fight, even then almost every character in the entire fricking movie has to sacrifice themselves for Ripley in order for her to make it. Then and only then can she barely fight the wildy over powered "boss" creature through the use of a powered exoskelton that she had hundreds of hours of practice in. Even then; let's face it while she "wins" we know from future movies that she had already lost war before she won that battle. Honestly I see your characterization as being so wildly skewed I'm not sure we could find enough common ground to discuss the movie rationally.

Buffy -- to be honest I really have watched everything by Joss Whedon and I don't know why because he's awful

Joss Wheadon is awful? I suspect at this point if you did in fact like any writer or director (which I doubt) I would strenuously disagree with you.

This is a total pet peeve of mine also—little women kicking big men’s asses, then they wonder what’s going on in our society: men from little boys being bred on violent video games where women and men are “equal” fighting partners. Yeah right.

The reason WHY "men should never hit women" had been part of our culture was because it was a given that women were weaker and unable to defend themselves effectively against the average man.

Make boys think that women are physically equal, and they will treat women the same way they treat fellow guys. And often, guys treat guys rather roughly.

Ripley is obviously uncomfortable in a maternal role

Obviously.

Then and only then can she barely fight

Uh ... right ...

Progressive yes man? Please be serious. Paul Reiser plays a typical James Cameron money-uber-alles-corporate-rethuglican. Do you even know what Cameron's politics are? They're on parade in every one of his films and TV shows from Terminator to Dances With Smurfs.

You're right. You didn't see the movie.

The pictures that you think support your point don't. It doesn't matter that she takes on the maternal role, I never said she didn't, what I said was that she uncomfortable with it. It was new to her. I brought up feelings and emotions she had to come to grips with. It was the entire point of having the child there in the first place after all, not to show Ripley as super mom, but to have her develop maternal feelings as an excuse for her to stop running and start fighting.

Your next picture is of her holding a rifle as if that proves your point. Any idiot can hold a rifle and pull a trigger. Plot wise she had never used that rifle before and had to be shown how to use it, and she never displayed any particular skills with it. Most of the time she almost had her eyes shut and pulled the trigger in the vague direction of the enemy. As such she wasn't portrayed as being a super soldier that could outfights the space marines. She was portrayed as someone that was going to fight back regardless of experience and skills.

Yes Paul Riser was a progressive yes man. Willing to sacrifice others for themselves? Progressive. Willing to wipe out and entire colony for their ambitions? Progressive. Willing to risk millions of lives to bring back a species with dubious profit potential? Progressive. I know what Cameron's politics are but Ultra libs typically project their worst flaws onto their villains thinking that it makes the villains republican but it doesn't. The oft maligned "robber barons"? (Dances with Smurfs) Historically they were progressives, some even helped fund Marx. Terminator? That was the individualistic preppers vs. Google wasn't it? Or Dances with wolves where the union army (party of Lincoln right?) lieutenant befriends a local group of natives and then a bunch of KKK like (formed by democrats weren't they?) nuts decide to randomly kill everything? (which isn't historically accurate but whatever) Ya I saw the movies. I both know what liberals try to portray and what they actually do portray.

You need to actually watch the movie, instead of investing it with your own fantasies.

Here is what the actress who played the role thought of the script: Weaver nicknamed her role in the Alien sequel "Rambolina", referring to John Rambo of the Rambo series, and stated that she approached the role as akin to the titular role in Henry V or women warriors in Chinese classical literature.

You may have the last word, which I'm sure you'll insist on. I'm content to let anyone following our thread decide for themselves. Res ipsa loquitur. [And it doesn't say what you think.]

You said she was a "super mom" and a "super soldier". Neither of which she actually is in the movie. I'm not injecting personal feelings or perceptions about this I'm describing the actual events in the movie. A super mom would have insisted her child get off the planet ASAP. (could have been done) She is new to her maternal feelings and her "symbolic" daughter is really just a plot device so her being a crappy mother is understood.

"Weaver nicknamed her role in the Alien sequel "Rambolina", referring to John Rambo"

Rambo was a special forces soldier, a decorated war veteran, and a former POW. He didn't have some soldier give him a 2 minutes lesson on how to shoot a rifle and then take on a police department by himself. How many soldiers directly and indirectly sacrificed themselves so that Ripley could survive? ALL OF THEM. A super soldier would have kicked all of the aliens butts and saved every one except for one or two which would have provided the super soldier motivation for the killing spree.

What we saw was a career pilot trying to find her place in this new (to her) universe. She gets talked into a job where she struggles to find her place on the team. She struggles with the maternal role (not a super mom by any stretch) but the maternal feeling do give her the will to fight instead of escape. She does fight back and through no particular skill, and the sacrifice of the entire team, she sorta-kinda makes it.

"the thing speaks for itself" indeed, that is what actually happens in the movie.

I am 8 months late to this discussion, but I just finished Divergent this afternoon and I had to find a thread on it.

I wanted to say that when I read Hunger Games, I was really drawn in. I couldn't put it down, not because Katniss was a particularly well-defined character, but because I simply wanted to see what would happen next.

Now that I've read it a few times (because I teach it) I have come to a few conclusions:

1) Katniss does have some identifying characteristics: she loves her sister, she is suspicious of nearly everyone else, and she is quite pragmatic. I do think the conversation she has with Peeta on the rooftop offers a good glimpse of her character: he is ruminating on how the Games might make a savage of him and turn him into something he is not; she is hoping there'll be trees she can climb. But she is self-aware enough to think "Wow, he's having all those deep thought and all I'm thinking about is staying alive."

2) At no point does Katniss overpower any men. She has one skill: archery. It is the only way she can kill anyone directly. Any other kills came from setting off a series of events (bees, bombs) and even the bees weren't her idea. Most of what she has is luck. (In the first book, anyway. If I remember correctly, this is the case in all three. She has luck, good aim, and a terrific capacity to withstand pain. Those are believably feminine attributes, all things considered.)

So now I have read Divergent (because some of the kids at my school are reading it.) I have to say, it makes Hunger Games look deep in terms of plot. Every single "plot twist" is identifiable from 50 yards back. I mean, literally, you read it thinking "Oh, the blue eyes, that means this" and "Gee, why wouldn't the government like people with this particular skill? Maybe they are planning to... (durr)"

But one refreshing element is that the parents are actually allowed to be parents (I don't want to spoil it if you do read it.) The other believable element is that most of this girl's strength is psychological. But for the most part, it should be called Derivative.

Katniss does have some identifying characteristics: she loves her sister, she is suspicious of nearly everyone else, and she is quite pragmatic.

I think the Katniss developed in the first book is believable, but is ruined in the second book, and becomes nearly unbelievable by the third. For example: she doesn't really display any leadership qualities in The Hunger Games but we are expected to believe by the time Mockingjay rolls around that she is able to lead right up until the conclusion, at which point she resumes her withdrawn, introverted life. The reasons for both the emergence and re-submergence are not credible.

I think this is true of the series in general. The books get much weaker as you progress through them. The third book is not even worth reading.

At no point does Katniss overpower any men. She has one skill: archery. It is the only way she can kill anyone directly.

Actually, I think you will find that she doesn't ever overpower anyone, and this is an enormous credulity hole which plagues the series. People in her circumstances are inevitably forced into kill-or-be-killed situations. The author takes pains of the most unrealistic sort to guarantee that these gut-wrenching choices never really fall on Katniss.

Much of the post-event trauma experienced by combat infantrymen is a particularly violent manifestation of Survivor Syndrome; not only are you the one who lived -- whose friends and brothers died -- but you killed people to do that. You accept that intellectually, but no one gets over it emotionally. Ever. We have nicknames for the enemy to dehumanize and depersonalize him: Kraut, Jap, Gook, but every normal person recognizes what that game is about.

Katniss fears those situations, but she doesn't -- as far as I can recall -- really have to confront them, because she doesn't make a conscious decision to kill anyone. Again: this makes the books unrealistic, considering her central role in a violent world and its cataclysmic unraveling.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.