...but dragged down by almost the same things. Also, stereotypes.

There's something to be said about Jackson Pearce's Fairy Tale retellings - parts of the book make me want to stand and fist-bump the nearest person around (in this case, my plush turtle.) (or at least I would have, if it were not for the splintering headache I  was sporting at the time. Not the book's fault, I promise.) 

Other parts just make me want to slam my head against the book. I might have done that a few times, actually. In fact, much of the reasons why it took a sequels-and-prequels challenge for me to pick "Sweetly" up was because of some of the major problems I had with its predecessor. To put it bluntly, there was more things  I didn't like about "Sisters Red" than I did.

That said, "Sweetly" definitely makes it on the "Better-than-the-first-one" sequels list, (which is an admittedly short selection.) The stakes are higher even if the plot is not as tight, the characters felt real, and the romance, which is usually the most boring thing about paranormal YA for me, I didn't really mind here. (Nothing wrong with romance, mind you, but after reading the same descriptions of zings and butterflies in the stomach and guys looking hot without their shirts on, it gets old.)

Ansel and Gretchen Kessel got thrown out by their evil stepmother and take a cross-country trip to escape the bad memories of their home town - the sister who disappeared in the woods, the parents who died of grief, and being those  weird kids at school. Their car breaks down near Live Oak, Carolina (was it?) and they take up jobs at Sophia Kelly's sweet shop to pay for tow. While there, Gretchen learns that a lot of girls have disappeared after Sophia's annual chocolate soiree (I refuse to call it a festival, even if the book obstinately tries to do it.) She also learns that her sister disappeared because she was eaten by a werewolf, so she enlists the help of local huntsman Samuel Reynolds to... learn how to hunt them. Well, mostly how to shoot a rifle. 

You can probably see some of my problems with the book from this bit.

Spoilers to follow.

Something funny happened to me as I was reading "Allegiant".

I didn't go in with a completely unbiased mind. I hadn't enjoyed "Divergent" or "Insurgent", and, as an added bonus, I'd also spoiled myself thoroughly about the ending (I'm the kind of person who clicks on the spoiler tag. Curiosity is my middle name.) I had a ton of preconceived notions, and I thought that this would be a fairly straightforward, for-the-sake-of-research-and-goals type of read.

It didn't turn out to be like that. Because, halfway through the book, I had this thought, and once it took root, suddenly I saw everything (the whole series, not just this book) in a completely different light. I daresay it changed my entire opinion of it. It started off with me muttering about how Tris never struck me as a particularly interesting narrator, and how she was so annoyingly perfect, and how she didn't learn anything. And then I thought:

What if this wasn't Tris' story at all? What if it's Four's?

Content note: Discussion about abuse, sexism and gun culture under the cut. 

Also, spoilers.