Skip to main content

What is John Green arguing in Paper Towns?

In Paper Towns, John Green is arguing that we often misinterpret other people and that identity (particularly in adolescence) is a fluid, ever-changing phenomenon in a person's life. 


This is quite apparent in the book with Quentin's changing ideas about Margo. In Quentin's mind, Margo continues to exist, much unchanged, as she did when they were children. The "love" that he feels for her is really love towards a perception he has of her that isn't real. Quentin realizes this at the end of the novel and gives up his relentless pursuit of her. 


This idea about the divide between reality and perception is further encapsulated in the title and one of the motifs throughout the book: paper towns. Paper towns are fake towns printed on maps to prevent plagiarism; they seem to exist when you are looking at the map but are, in fact, not real. However, that part of the map still exists; it's just that you won't find what you expected when you get there. 


Quentin spends the entire book chasing an idea of Margo that is constructed from his fantasy, and he ultimately chases her to a paper town. In doing so, he realizes that his idea of her is also a paper town. It exists in his personal "map" of the world but not in reality. 


In sum, John Green is arguing that our perceptions of others are subjective, and he is imploring us to look past the paper town we construct of someone and understand who they really are. Additionally, he is exploring the manner in which a person's identity is formed throughout adolescence. Quentin still imagines Margo as she existed when they were children. She is, in fact, an entirely different person now, one that he doesn't know at all. 


Key quotes:


“What a treacherous thing to believe that a person is more than a person.” 


“It is easy to forget how full the world is of people, full to bursting, and each of them imaginable and consistently misimagined.” 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.