Hey John, what is your reaction to the news that the Riverside district has chosen to ban TFIOS from middle school libraries on the grounds that it deals with mortality and sex? I remember your reactions to similar situations concerning your books have been pretty animated and wondered what you thought?



I guess I am both happy and sad.

I am happy because apparently young people in Riverside, California will never witness or experience mortality since they won’t be reading my book, which is great for them.

But I am also sad because I was really hoping I would be able to introduce the idea that human beings die to the children of Riverside, California and thereby crush their dreams of immortality.

Imagine a world where people only die if they know about death. 

(How quickly) would everyone become immortal? What do you think will happen? Will there come a point wherein everyone hides the the concept of death from a generation and the concept will die out? Can you even do that? You can’t teach any form of history, or even family trees, because every previous generation has died (what about pets and other animals? is it only human mortality that counts?). Infant mortality would drop to zero though. 

If people only can die if they know death exist, would anything change at all? 

29,072 notes   •   October 18 2014, 10:09 AM   •   VIA   •   SOURCE
Eddplant returned to Twitter back in February, and John Green kind of sent him a welcome back tweet (something like "good to see you" via @sportswithjohn). Do you think that's sending a mixed message? The official line is "We won't tolerate that kind of behaviour or allow offenders in certain spaces" but being on friendly terms with those same offenders strikes me as hypocritical. And now Ed is back to making videos, so obviously he feels encouraged in some ways.


This is true, and pretty disgusting.

Can we talk about how the three best-selling YA series in the past few decades—Harry Potter, Twilight, The Hunger Games—were all written by women, but John Green is the one that ‘saved the genre?’

23,071 notes   •   May 31 2014, 03:51 PM   •   VIA   •   SOURCE
#YA   #John Green   #sexism   #misogyny   #publishing   #authors   

On 'The John Green Effect,' Contemporary Realism, and Form as a Political Act 




Right now, children’s literature is seeing an intense flare-up in the ongoing conversation about the diversity crisis in children’s books. While this conversation has been going on for decades, now social media has given the people having it megaphones, and they are using them to brilliant ends….

So much smartness in this essay.

"And there’s something really troubling about it all—in a field where the books supposedly appeal primarily to teenage girls, where the stars are innovative and brilliant authors who are predominantly female, we’re telling these readers that maybe they can aspire to growing up to be influenced by a guy, too."

2,824 notes   •   May 22 2014, 07:25 PM   •   VIA   •   SOURCE

The thing is, we can’t pretend John Green’s whiteness, his maleness, and his heterosexuality aren’t central to his brand. They’re essential to his brand. The adorkable, young, slim, non-threatening, able-bodied, bookish, handsome guy who took YouTube by storm (with his adorkable, young, slim, non-threatening, able-bodied, bookish, handsome brother) would not have had the same response if he was a white woman (she’s a fake geek girl), or a black man (he’s angry/scary), or a fat woman (she’s unhealthy/a poor role model/gross), or a genderqueer person (think of the children), or a Muslim woman (let’s debate her hijab or lack of hijab), or a man with cerebral palsy (aw he’s so inspirational!), because he would not have been the fantasy. John Green is the fantasy boyfriend of nerdy girls everywhere, and he combines that with his not insignificant writing talent to be a BIG CULTURAL DEAL. I am not blaming John Green for these things. His success is not undeserved simply by virtue of his privilege. But we can’t divorce him and his success from these things, either.

John Green is aware of his privilege, and I think that’s rad. But, you know, unless he acts on it, that’s kind of like BookCon telling us all that they’re “committed to diversity.” It seems empty when all we’re hearing is silence.

Which is why what I have been desperate to hear over the last few days is John Green saying, “It is not okay that BookCon is so lacking in diversity. I am pulling my name from the event until this is remedied.”

Because really, what does he have to lose?


from “Blindingly White: BookCon, John Green, and Knowing When It’s Time to Speak Up" by Brenna Clarke Gray (via isanah)

this is also the line up that had more cats than poc

(via xtremecaffeine)

3,851 notes   •   May 09 2014, 12:07 AM   •   VIA   •   SOURCE






who the FUCK told society that depression and awkwardness is cute and adorable

bad screenwriters

John Green




i honestly don’t know where all the john-green hate comes from




Seeing this week’s New York Times YA Bestsellers list required a discussion. 

We need to keep talking about power, money, and privilege in the YA world, especially when it comes to things like gender.

Can we continue this conversation? Because it’s really important. 

Maybe people just trust John Green’s recommendations.  Like I won’t buy a book based on Stephen King’s say-so because, back in the 80’s, I spent money on stinky books because King recommended them, until it occurred to me that A) King was trying to be a nice guy, B) King’s literary taste is in his mouth, or C) both, and I vowed never to buy a Stephen-King recommended book again.  Maybe the people who see John Green’s recommendation feel he only recommends books they’ll like, and it isn’t A Plot.

Yeah, John Green has a really large and dedicated fanbase, and thus a lot of influence. Maybe we should be looking at why books by female authors (as well as authors of other minorities) aren’t being recommended more.

4,306 notes   •   February 07 2014, 04:50 PM   •   VIA   •   SOURCE
#Twitter   #John Green   #YA   #books   



226,290 notes   •   January 05 2013, 01:03 AM   •   VIA   •   SOURCE
51,511 notes   •   January 03 2013, 08:21 PM   •   VIA   •   SOURCE

As Otto Speaks by me on deviantArt


As Otto Speaks by me on deviantArt


6,141 notes   •   January 02 2013, 08:07 AM   •   VIA   •   SOURCE
#image   #fan art   #the fault in our stars   #TFioS   #John Green   #art   #couple   #cute   
130,334 notes   •   December 31 2012, 04:07 PM   •   VIA   •   SOURCE
#image   #gif   #John Green   #Batman   #science   #punny   

(submitted by oswinasswold)


(submitted by oswinasswold)

1,210 notes   •   December 27 2012, 10:42 PM   •   VIA   •   SOURCE
#image   #words   #quote   #John Green   #message   #important   #submission   


I wanted to put them in a photoset so

1,149 notes   •   December 25 2012, 11:11 PM   •   VIA   •   SOURCE
#image   #quote   #words   #John Green   #Hank Green   #vlogbrothers   

A little cartoon of John Green and Shakespeare fighting that I drew, inspired by those occasions when John de-bunks the Bard :P. Enjoy :)
(submitted by imrorykelly)


A little cartoon of John Green and Shakespeare fighting that I drew, inspired by those occasions when John de-bunks the Bard :P. Enjoy :)

(submitted by imrorykelly)

1,085 notes   •   December 23 2012, 06:42 AM   •   VIA   •   SOURCE

On Self-Publishing and Amazon


From Amy: “Seeing your facebook posts in relation to self-publishing today, i’m very curious as to why you seem to be so upset when continuously you encourage self publishing of other media. Just look at Vlogbrothers itself. In fact, you addressed this in Hitler and Sex. What about all of the amazing musicians that DFTBA Records picked up. The internet enabled these people to get out there and start something big. Why are books not okay?”

I haven’t sorted my feelings out, and I may be inconsistent/wrong. But to be clear: I did not intend to attack or criticize self-publishing itself. Many great books are being self-published, and that has been the case for centuries.

I wanted to criticize Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, because I felt that in his introduction of the new kindles, Bezos repeatedly peddled the lie that a book is created by one person, and that therefore a book’s author should be the sole entity to profit from the sale of the book. (Aside, of course, from Amazon itself.)

Bezos and Amazon are consistent in their promotion of this lie, because it encourages the idea that the publishing landscape today is bloated and inefficient and that there is a better, cheaper way to do it—a way where all books can cost $1.99 with most of that $1.99 going to the author. Readers and writers both win then, right?

Well, no. Because the truth is, most good books are NOT created solely by one person: Editors and publishers play a tremendously important role not just in the distribution of books, but in the creation of them. Without my editor, there would be no great perhaps in Looking for Alaska, no Augustus Waters in The Fault in Our Stars, and no Agloe, New York in Paper Towns. Without copyeditors and proofreaders, my books would be riddled with factual and grammatical errors that would pull you out of the story and give you a less immersive reading experience. Publishers add value, and lots of it, and without them the overall quality and diversity of books will suffer.

There is lots of room in this world for indie publishing, and I’m excited about all the reading opportunities that the Internet has given us, from blogs to fan fiction to direct-to-ereader novels. But comparing publishing to music or TV is really troubling to me, because people listen to a lot of music: In an average week, I probably listen to 200 songs. I probably watch 5 hours of television or YouTube. But in an average week, I read one book (and that puts me on the far end of the reading bell curve among Americans). Given how few books are read—perhaps 500 million a year—the current publishing landscape does an astonishingly good job of making sure there are plenty of books available to a wide variety of audiences. There are books about little people who survived the Holocaust and the Islamization of the Uzbeks and how to swing a golf club.

My fear is that if there are only two or three voices in the publishing retail landscape—say, Wal-Mart, Target, and Amazon—that diversity will dramatically decrease. Only a few dozen books a year will be available at large retailers like Wal-Mart; the rest of literature will exist only in the kindle store. Those books will have difficulty being discovered, because there are so few readers and so many titles. (You are starting to see a similar phenomenon on YouTube right now, actually, but in publishing it will be far worse, because it usually only takes a few minutes to watch a YouTube video.)

Here’s my concern: What will happen to the next generation’s Toni Morrison? How will she—a brilliant, Nobel-worthy writer who doesn’t have a huge built-in audience—get the financial and editorial support her talent deserves? (You’ll note that there’s no self-published literary fiction anywhere near the kindle bestseller lists.) Amazon will have absolutely no investment in that writer, and they won’t need to. Over time, I’m worried this lack of investment will hurt the quality and breadth of literature we actually read, even if literature remains broadly available.

So my issue is not with self-publishing. My issue is with Bezos profiting from this false narrative that an Amazon monopoly will benefit both readers and writers. In truth, I don’t think it will benefit anyone. In the long run, I don’t even think it will benefit Amazon, because if they succeed in destroying publishers, the quality of the books they sell will suffer, and even fewer people will be inclined to spend their evenings reading.

1,932 notes   •   October 09 2012, 03:37 AM   •   VIA   •   SOURCE