I genuinely think, as someone who reads dictionaries and red-strings all of my favourite media, that a lot of people dislike (or grew out of) Divergent 's story just because the writing is, to some people, mediocre or otherwise juvenile/unpolished.
And I really think that a lot of these people are criticizing it from valid, but perhaps unintended perspectives.
Divergent has always—to my very neurodivergent , queer, heavily outcasted brain—been a story of its name: the divergents are just that.
They are neuroDIVERGENT. They are different, and what makes them different is their ability to be more than black and white like neurotypical people. It's why they can fit into each faction so easily: they have adaptability and the natural affinity for balancing complex emotions, situations, and manners of thought/behaviour.
They're the rebels, the rule breakers, the pattern seers, the ones who are different, strange, and uncommon.
But that's exactly it—Divergent is a story of an arguably poor/Southern/heavily-conservative-coded young woman coming of age in her society where she has always struggled to be anything but different.
She finds out over the course of the story that her mother is divergent, just like she herself is. This entire story is her journey with unmasking, self-discovery, self-confidence, and navigation of a society built upon discriminatory, segregated practices and surveillance, big-brother-is-watching ideologies.
It is about being neurotypical, poor, discriminated, different, atypical per society's set expectations, queer, marginalized, stuck in/born to a violent system, etc.
It is written simply, sure; it's completely fair if that's your argument. But I am not of the belief that it is altogether fair to describe Divergent and its accompanying novels as "shallow" or lacking meaning.
