In the book 'Faults in our Stars' the grenade metaphor that is used is not good.

Let's Get Started,Hazel Grace (the protagonist/narrator) repetitively compares herself to a grenade because she feels that one day she will explode which is supposed to mean that when she eventually dies of her cancer, she will cause emotional pain to the people who loved her.However I argue against the grenade metaphor because grenades (in real life) are not always lethal (concussion grenades) while Hazel's cancer is defenitely lethalEven if only lethal grenades are implied, there are still faults with the metaphor. Grenades are thrown away hence this implies that people close to Hazel are going to throw her away which she knows very well is not goint to happen. Her parents are not going to throw her out on the street and her boyfriend will not stop loving her, and I say this based on what they say and their personality development in the book. Grenades can be detonated at will and have a certain time before it can go off. Cancer cannot be set to kill her whenever anybody wants to and does not have a specified amount of time at which it can go off, in other words kill her. Since in the story, the miraculous phalanifixor has bought Hazel some time to live. Grenades cannot be set to explode later or sooner than their original setting especially after the pin has been removed.In Hazel's case, the metaphorical pin of the grenade has been removed since she is suffering from cancer and can die at any time however her treatment buys her some time, while grenades cannot be manipulated in the same way after the pin is removed.The bigger point is that in a grenade a pin can be removed and even re-inserted at will, thus the grenade metaphor implies that someone intentionally made Hazel have cancer(which did not happen) and that someone has the power to save her life.Nobody has the power to save her life, and that is made quite apparent. People (doctors) can only extend her life which cannot be done to a grenade. Thus, the grenade metaphor is an incorrect metaphor.Therefore, I suggest that another metaphor should have been used. I have 2 things in mind for an alternative metaphor:1) Tsunami/Tidal wave2) Active VolcanoBoth are natural disasters which strike unexpectadly just like cancer and when it does splash the shore or erupt, it inflicts so much damage as we all know. Which could be compared to the emotional damage caused by Hazel's death.Now I will compare these metaphors to the grenade metaphor Grenades are thrown away at the enemy but Hazel's parents are not going to give their daughter to live with their enemy. Tsunamis and Volcanic eruptions come unexpectadly upon you to kill you which was what Hazel's cancer is to her parents. Grenades are used to kill intentionally. Nobody planted Hazel with Cancer and thus her condition is unexpected just like an Active Volcano which can erupt at any time or a Tsunami which can arise to devastate the shores at any time unexpectadly. The pin can be re-inserted into a grenade, thus implying that Hazel's death can be stopped. However Tsunamis and volcanic eruptions cannot be stopped by the smartest of humans which is the same case for Hazel's cancer. The only thing my alternatives fall short on is that Volcanic eruptions and Tsunamis cannot be intentionally delayed while Hazel's death is delayed (nothing is perfect now is it?). However the grenade metaphor also falls short in this category since it too cannot be delayed.To finish off, the 3 bulletted points mentioned above must surely prove the alternative metaphors superior since it is a better comparison to Hazel's cancer.