I like lot of things in life. I like a lot of cream in my coffee, cinnamon and honey in my oatmeal and when the evil cat I live with doesn't attack my feet. I like these things. They are a part of my daily routine (the daily cat attacks included), but having or not having them does not make or break my day. That's kind of how I feel about Divergent. I 'liked' it. I just 'liked' it, but truly, I could take it or leave it. Veronica Roth is a good writer, and I read the entire book in one day (don't let the almost 500-page length scare you - the print is big and the margins wide - the pages fly). However, there's nothing standout to me about it, nothing that makes me want to shove this into someone's arms and say, "You HAVE to read this." The 'zing' you get when you meet that magic book didn't happen for me, and I am pretty sure I can boil it down to a single thing: 
 The premise. I didn't buy it, not one bit. 
 Now, let me back up here. I think the human race is capable of many things, both truly good and absolutely evil. I can buy the possibility of being assigned lifetime occupations (it's happened before), being matched to spouses (take e-harmony and regulate it - there you go), and the possibility of a xenophobic, post-apocalyptic future (ever watch Alfonso Cuaron's The Children of Men? It's the worst of possibilities, but I can buy that it could happen). I even can believe that a religious faction could take over by gaining a government majority. However, I cannot buy a society based on people circumscribing their lives to the devotion and pursuit of a singular, chosen virtue. It's too simple, too fractious, and I didn't see enough historical context in Divergent to give me a reasonable basis as to why a government would set up shop this way. I can believe that individuals might choose to live that way (nuns and priests of various religions prove this, but even then, it's usually devotion to a group of virtues), but a government doing this does not make sense, particularly one based in the possibly former state of Illinois, political home of the late Mr. Abraham 'A-House-Divided-Cannot-Stand' Lincoln. Especially with any group of people with a U.S. cultural footprint. We admire commitment but tend to sneer at fervent belief in abstract concepts. It's a fine line; I think the political term for it is 'moderation'. 
 Given the above, you might think that I didn't like Divergent. Not true. I did. I just didn't get emotionally involved in it. Granted, Tris belongs to the the 'Katniss'-class, a fantastic group of strong, unflightly and practical female characters. I hope they don't become cliched by being in every book, but I love that we are seeing more of them. Tris is well-written, relatable and brave. More than that, she's an honorable badass. She wants to do the 'right' thing, but she understands that absolutes have no place in 'the' moment. If it comes down between you and her walking away, she's going to do her absolute best to make sure it's her. Her romance with Four is a believable first-love attraction with all its uncertainty and awkwardness. Four might be my favorite male lead of 2011 with his aloof tenderness and adherence to personal values. I also like Roth's name choices (for those of you who pay attention to that, the name 'Beatrice Prior' must have given clues - that was fun). I also love that she didn't flinch at depicting the brutal violence that Tris endures in no uncertain terms. Her use of sparse language also made the story flow and really made Tris' physical and emotional experiences pop, but occasionally, it felt like the sparseness was carrying on with the style of writing rather than adding substance to the storyline. Additionally, the story simply lacked for me a 'hook'; I've actually given better reviews to books with plots that weren't as well-executed or as well-edited, simply because the emotional element was stronger or the premise more original or believable. 
 I guess in the end, I just didn't feel that Divergent added much to dystopian YA. It's a solid story with good writing and a steady plot, and I basically read it one sitting. It's enjoyable but not a standout. I think I might be a little picky because 1) SO much dystoian is out now. Books that aren't technically dystopian are being marketed as such - it's overkill; 2) Roth actually IS a good writer. This is a GOOD story. I just don't think she's hit her full potential here. Which is fine. How many authors do we know of who had stunning debuts, but lack-luster sophomore efforts? I'd like to think that the best of Roth's writing is yet to come. I may or may not pick up #2, but I will be on the lookout for her fist non-Divergent novel, definitely.