Connect with us

Entertainment

The 15th anniversary of Divergent is here, but Veronica Roth isnt done with the series

On Jan. 13, 2026, Veronica Roth published a newsletter entitled “Do I Like It? Reflecting on Divergent After 15 Years,” in which she addresses just how she feels about her bestselling Divergent series. Despite selling over 32 million copies worldwide and launching a series of film adaptations, the negative reception often rings loudest. The series ending is divisive among fans, and as Roth aptly says on Substack, “Your brain is good at keeping you safe by storing negative experiences.”

And despite publishing 10 books outside of the series, readers still come back to Divergent, with Roth saying in her newsletter: “And the people who hated Divergent? They really hated it, and often go out of their way to tell me why…whenever I try to talk about any new work. Or old work. Or any work.”

Yet, the author has not ceased writing. Seek the Traitor’s Son, the first book in a new romantic dystopian fantasy series by Roth, is coming May 12, 2026. But maybe more surprisingly, it’s not the only series Roth has coming this year because on Oct. 6, 2026, the Divergent series continues with The Sixth Faction, the first in a new duology.

At BookCon 2026, Roth announced the series to her fandom after keeping the long-held secret. But it’s neither a sequel nor a prequel to her original series; instead, it’s an alternate universe in which the heroine, Beatrice Prior, makes a different choice at her Choosing Ceremony.

We had the chance to sit down with Roth at BookCon 2026 to hear about her new fantasy series and just how she feels about Divergent with the announcement of The Sixth Faction.

Samantha Mangino: How are you feeling about the 15th anniversary of Divergent?

 Veronica Roth: I feel good about it. Writing [The Sixth Faction] books, because they’re both done, really did help me to like feel more positively about the series. It doesn’t like bother me as much when people talk to me about Divergent because I don’t feel like I’m stuck in the past, because I’m writing something new, so it feels like we’re talking about what I’m doing now instead of what I was doing when I was 24, which is more restorative, regenerative, and exciting for a creative person.

SM: You’re very matter-of-fact when talking about your writing. Do you think that’s something that’s just come with time and being able to look back?

VR: I think this is honestly just how I am. I’ve got a Polish mother, and I live in the Midwest, so I think we’re just really straightforward people. It doesn’t cost me anything, and so I do it. I’m a terrible liar.

SM: Do you feel like this post-Divergent mindset led you to being able to write Seek the Traitor’s Son? Or was it something that felt like a natural progression?

VR: I worked on Seek the Traitor’s Son over the course of five years and 10 drafts. It was just a joyful project for me. It’s full of everything that I love, and I also learned important lessons from it, about keeping stories intimate, even though the backdrop is big and epic. And you know I couldn’t have written The Sixth Faction without that because I needed to be able to not think about all the things that Divergent is, and just focus on the story and the characters that I love. So Seek the Traitor’s Son taught me how to do that.

 SM: Divergent is a massively popular and widely beloved thing, but I think it also falls into opinionated internet conversations. I’m curious, how that has felt like it’s affected your writing generally?

VR:  I think it has been a challenge to navigate because it’s a lot of negativity, even though it’s also a lot of positivity. And as I’ve discussed, I’m much better at retaining negativity than positivity. That’s just how my brain works. What I’ve been able to do is create a safe space for myself in my writing. I think with the process of writing Seek the Traitor’s Son, that’s kinda what I was doing because it wasn’t for anyone else. It was a healing book.

 SM: Do you have to set boundaries with yourself in online spaces to stay in a clear mindset while writing?

 VR: I have rules, so if someone’s mean to me, I block them. I set up filters, sometimes I have to filter myself because the algorithm is like, ‘you might be interested in this,’ but, no, I’m not — I don’t wanna see that. I don’t make anyone else responsible for my emotional well-being — that’s my other rule. But it is fun to engage with readers, so you wanna talk to them and answer their questions and joke around with them. It’s just a bunch of people talking about books; we all love books.

 SM: I’m wondering if you’ve noticed a change in internet spaces now compared to when you published Divergent in 2011?

 VR: I think it feels pretty much the same, but the platforms are different. My real thought about it is that it is my responsibility to develop a sufficient amount of resilience. To deal with some negativity, because that is the nature of being a public person. It was the nature of my sister working in a J. Crew. As an adult, everyone is required to tolerate some people being unkind to you — that’s existing in the world. But you’re also allowed to defend yourself and to separate yourself from things that are toxic. So I try and balance those two things. I can’t control people. I can only control me.

SM: After taking a break from Divergent, do you feel like you’re carrying any new wisdom into The Sixth Faction?

 VR: Stories about young people have changed because the world has changed. So in this book, Tris is a little less of, ‘I will save the world on my own,’ and a little more of a 16-year-old navigating a very difficult sociopolitical situation that she is not prepared for. And that just feels like the reality of being a teenager right now, and I wanted the story to speak to that. When you get a little bit more life under your belt, as a person and as a writer, you’re able to approach the series with a new perspective.

source

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Entertainment

How Stargate SG-1 Used A Classic Trope To Emotionally Wreck Its Fans

By Jonathan Klotz
| Published

Garfield and Friends said it best: “Oh no, we’ve resorted to an evil twin storyline.” Star Trek: The Original Series did it the best with Mirror Universe Spock, and ever since, it’s been a lazy excuse for every series to use when they run out of ideas. The exception is Stargate SG-1’s sixth episode, “Cold Lazarus,” which plays with the trope by making the twin less evil and more confused.

When fans say they skip this episode when rewatching, it’s not because it’s a lazy, poorly written episode. In fact, it’s the opposite. The ending of “Cold Lazarus” is a pivotal character moment for Jack O’Neill (Richard Dean Anderson) and a gut punch to the audience. 

Stargate SG-1’s First Evil Twin

“Cold Lazarus” opens with the SG-1 team on a planet that doesn’t look like Vancouver (it was a giant pile of sulfur at the port of Vancouver). The desert landscape is dotted with shattered blue crystals that look like the remnants of a civilization until we see a crystal eye-view of O’Neill, a mysterious light knocks him out, and all of a sudden, a second O’Neill is looking down at the first. Turns out, the crystals are the civilization. 

Fake O’Neill is trying to figure out who O’Neill is and what SGC is all about. When he pulls out photos of his family, it takes Samantha Carter (Amanda Tapping) by surprise. O’Neill’s never mentioned his wife, Sara, or his son, Charlie. Confused, the Fake O’Neill goes to the home, where Sara is disgusted he’d come by and thinks it’s a sick joke that he’s asking about Charlie. If you’re wondering if you missed a key part of O’Neill’s backstory, don’t worry, this is the first time that either Sara or Charlie is mentioned, and tragically, we soon learn why. 

No One Ever Dies

Charlie shot himself with O’Neill’s gun. Fake O’Neill starts to piece this together when he goes into Charlie’s old room and breaks down, prompting Sara and him to finally have the conversation about their shared grief. Back in SGC, the crystal’s nature is revealed to be an energy alien calling itself Unity, which accidentally killed a Jaffa, and the Goa’uld shattered them in retribution. That’s when O’Neill stumbles back through the Stargate, and the team realizes the mistake they made. 

The Fake O’Neill is soon captured at a local hospital, suffering from Earth’s radiation, where he explains that he sensed O’Neill’s pain after he took his form and wanted to help ease the suffering, as nothing ever truly dies to Unity. To prove its point, Unity transforms into Charlie, giving O’Neill and Sara one last chance to see their child. Fans who haven’t lost a child can understand the emotion, but for fans who have, this scene is emotional torture, in the best way possible. 

Jack knows this isn’t Charlie, but he talks to him like he is, and then they walk together through the Stargate back to Unity’s planet. It’s a beautiful moment that explains so much about O’Neill’s throwing himself into work and how even his friendships remain professional. “Cold Lazarus” may have started out with the “evil twin” trope in full effect, but the ending is proof that even early during its run, Stargate SG-1 was going to be the greatest. 


source

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Star Trek’s Scariest Episode Secretly Answered Fans’ Oldest Complaint

By Chris Snellgrove
| Published

Star Trek is a long-running franchise filled with tropes, some of them more annoying than others. For many fans, the dumbest trope that keeps popping up is when there’s only one ship that can save Earth from one catastrophe or another. It always begs the question: why isn’t the seat of the United Federation of Planets better protected? It certainly feels like such an important planet would have its own fleet for protection rather than relying on a long-range vessel like the Enterprise to warp in and save the day.

However, it seems that Star Trek’s scariest episode might have secretly answered fans’ oldest complaint about the franchise. Over on Reddit, user u/Wallname_Liability presented a compelling theory: that in the Star Trek: The Next Generation two-parter “The Best of Both Worlds,” the collection of Starfleet vessels lost fighting the Borg at Wolf 359 was the home fleet. This theory would help explain that Earth was typically better-defended than we might imagine and why there were fewer ships to protect the planet in later movies and shows.

My Borg Friend’s Back (And There’s Gonna Be Trouble)

In Star Trek: The Next Generation, most of the adventures take place in deep space because the intrepid crew has an ongoing mission to explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, and (come on, you know you’re already saying it out loud) boldly go where no one has gone before. But in “The Best of Both Worlds,” a Borg Cube starts heading directly for Earth. The Enterprise crew tries to develop a weapon that can defeat this implacable foe, one who seems nearly unstoppable after they assimilate Captain Picard. Meanwhile, a fleet of Starfleet ships assembles at Wolf 359 for one last stand against the Borg.

Unfortunately, that entire fleet is wiped out. The Borg makes it to Earth, but the Enterprise manages to stop these bionic baddies after rescuing Captain Picard. Data exploits Picard’s connection to the Collective and puts the cube to “sleep,” and it explodes soon after that. Picard and his crew get a mostly happy ending, but the same can’t be said for the crew of the ships that fought at Wolf 359. All vessels were lost, and only a handful of people survived, including Benjamin Sisko and Liam Shaw. 

Resistance Was Futile

According to this Redditor’s theory, the fleet that assembled at Wolf 359 was the home fleet assigned to (among other things) protect Earth. Some of the ships were likely already at Earth (possibly undergoing repairs or retrofits), and others might have been located near some of humanity’s older colonies. But everyone would have had to have been close enough to Earth to quickly warp to Wolf 359, a real star system that is only eight light-years from humanity’s home planet.

Why is the idea that this was the home fleet so important? In various Star Trek episodes and films, there has often only been one ship (usually the Enterprise) close enough to save Earth. In Star Trek: Generations, for example, the Enterprise-B is on a shakedown cruise, but it’s the only ship close enough to save the El-Aurian refugees from the threat of the Nexus. In Star Trek: The Motion Picture, only the Enterprise can intercept V’ger. In Nemesis, the Enterprise is the only Starfleet ship capable of preventing Shinzon from killing everyone on Earth, and so on.

The Best Of Trope Worlds

This trope can get frustrating when you start comparing Starfleet to, say, the United States Navy. How insane would it be if the whole country had to keep relying on a single ship to save us from major existential threats? Star Trek asks us to repeatedly believe that there’s only one ship within spitting distance of the entire solar system that can take care of the crisis du jour. It’s completely unbelievable, but this Wolf 359 home fleet theory helps make these frustrating moments make more sense. 

It’s entirely possible that, in the time of Star Trek: The Original Series and its spinoff movies, there wasn’t a home fleet. Starfleet was a lot smaller back then. Remember, the original Enterprise was one of only 12 Constitution-class vessels. However, both The Motion Picture and The Voyage Home had Earth being attacked by seemingly unstoppable alien forces. In each case, the only man who could stop things was James T. Kirk, but Starfleet must have known he wouldn’t be around forever. Therefore, sometime before The Next Generation premiered, they developed a home fleet that could protect the Earth from overpowered alien attackers.

The Worst Massacre In Starfleet History

Or so they thought. The Borg wiped the floor with the fleet at Wolf 359, which helps to explain why the admiralty needed to assemble an ersatz fleet in First Contact. They were still rebuilding from earlier losses, and most spare vessels were probably being ordered to areas of interest as the Dominion War loomed near. Speaking of which, that war is the most likely reason that the Enterprise was the only ship that could help in Nemesis. The movie took place four years after the Dominion War ended, and once more, Starfleet would have needed time to fully rebuild its fleet.

Obviously, these are only theories, but they are compelling ones. It makes sense that Starfleet would have learned its lessons from V’ger and the Alien Probe and developed a home fleet, only for it to be destroyed by the Borg at Wolf 359. Afterward, the next big Borg attack and the Dominion War destroyed many vessels, all while requiring the existing fleet to stretch that much thinner. Fortunately, Earth was in good hands. No matter how bad the war with the Dominion got, Captain Sisko and Admiral Ross ensured that there was always a fleet or two close enough to protect paradise, even from those pesky Breen.


source

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Ben Stiller Makes The Same Screwball Comedy For The Fourth Time In New Trailer

By TeeJay Small
| Published

Paramount Pictures dropped an announcement trailer for their upcoming film, Focker In-Law, last week, and it immediately caught my attention. As you can probably tell from the title alone, the film is the fourth installment in the Meet The Parents film series, which originally kicked off in 2000. While I loved the original film and enjoyed parts of the 2004 sequel, I can’t help but feel frustrated that we’re getting the exact same movie for the fourth time. From the trailer, it looks like Focker In-Law promises to add some comedic beats from Ariana Grande, but little else.

A Strong Start And Slow Decline

In case you’re not hip to the franchise, the original Meet the Parents tells a very straightforward comedic story of an obnoxious, anxious man named Gaylord Focker (Ben Stiller), as he encounters his girlfriend’s family for the very first time. Focker wants to take this opportunity to get the family’s blessing to propose, but he’s mired by a series of misunderstandings and social faux pas at every turn. To make matters worse, Focker must contend with his girlfriend’s domineering ex-CIA father, Jack (Robert De Niro).

The second film, Meet The Fockers, introduces some fresh talent, flips the script on Jack a little bit by taking him out of his comfort zone, and ratchets up the tension as the happy couple navigate their upcoming wedding and a premarital pregnancy. It’s sort of unnecessary, but it’s a harmless way to squeeze more laughs out of a pretty simple premise. Then, in 2010, we got Little Fockers, which produced absolutely no memorable moments whatsoever. Seriously, Ben Stiller even took to X this week to say “I stand by the first two” installments in the franchise, ignoring the third film entirely.

The Same Old Jokes For A New Generation

Ben Stiller chewing familiar scenery for the fourth time

Now, it looks like we’re due for the same material a fourth time with Focker In-Law. Greg Focker is still an awkward, bumbling mess, while the aging Jack flexes his people skills and dunks on his son-in-law for having a stupid last name. Meanwhile, a new generation of Focker men have emerged, with Greg’s son Henry (Skyler Gisondo) planning to propose to his girlfriend, Olivia Jones (Ariana Grande). From the trailer, it looks like Grande plays an FBI hostage negotiator, who wishes to pry Focker Jr. away from his emotionally topsy-turvy family in favor of a life of relative normalcy.

Will I watch this movie as soon as it comes out? Almost certainly. But will I have any memory of seeing it within hours of leaving the theater? I’ve got my doubts. The truth is, Focker In-Law could have been an opportunity to completely reshape the characters in fun and exciting ways. We could have had Greg really come into his own with age, assuming a more confident and bullish attitude. We could have even seen him and Jack get on the same page for once, and work together to test Ariana Grande’s worthiness to enter the coveted “circle of trust.”

Another lie detector test as if it’s a new joke

Instead, it seems like we’re due for another 90 minutes of Robert De Niro rolling his eyes at Ben Stiller, and conflicts driven by characters who refuse to sit down and explain themselves in plain English. The trailer reveals that even minor side characters from the other film are returning to do their same schtick. I’m not mad about Focker In-Law basically recycling the Meet The Parents script for the fourth time, but I am a bit disappointed, since I know for a fact that Stiller, De Niro, and the others are capable of putting out something much stronger.

In fairness, this is all a reaction to a single trailer. There’s an extremely minute chance that Focker In-Law subverts all my expectations, and delivers a new comedy classic that can hold its own. There’s a similarly likely chance that the earth is obliterated by a meteor before the film hits theaters, but I won’t be holding my breath either way. If this film is what Ben Stiller needs to finance a third season of Severance, then I’m content to buy 50 tickets and give Focker In-Law the best damn opening weekend I can.


source

Continue Reading