3 for enjoyment, 2 for substance.[Warning: I'm not sure if this turned out to be a review or a philosophical discussion, or some freaky lovechild of the two. Bear with me...]Matched can be an enjoyable, engaging read, but it more often tends to be melodramatic and overwritten at times. It's the type of story that definitely requires willing suspension of disbelief -- otherwise, you'll constantly be asking yourself how this world came to be, and wondering what happened to all of the rebellious spark and subversive traits that are so innate in human nature. But if you're willing to go with it, Matched has some of those aspects that are the hallmark of a good dystopia, especially the most crucial and intriguing aspect inherent in dystopian works: the question of the trade-off. Is it okay if the rules and lifestyle a society/government/ruler sets provides for the general well-being and/or happiness of most people, at the expense of personal freedoms and choices?In the case of Matched, everything is so controlled and absolutely micromanaged by the Society that choice is nearly non-existent. And this does not just apply to marriage and mating; people in the Society are told when and what to eat, what to wear, what jobs to perform, how many kids to have, and when to die. But as a result, people are generally happy and healthy, prosperous, long-lived and fulfilled. So the question is, what's so bad about having all choices made for you, if they are seemingly the right ones? Of course, no one really wants to agree to this. We are all controlling and need to feel we have power in our own lives. And more than that, are you really living if you never make decisions, never make mistakes?So all of that ↑↑ is going on in the back of your mind while you're reading Matched, and it adds this nice little layer of tension and doubt to the story that I really liked. But at the same time, even though it raises some interesting questions, it's still the story of one girl and a choice between two boys -- potential Matches -- when there should be no choice (according to Society). We've seen this formula before, sure. And having it narrated by one person, and having a very finite number of people actually effected by the choices made for most of the story can cause a disconnect. I sometimes felt myself questioning Cassia, and the idea of selfishness. Things happen very quickly -- her entire turn-around is so quick and so total that it did threaten to break my WSOD. But weirdly, at the same time, it sort of made it more realistic. And I did like Cassia, for the most part. And Xander and Ky, her Matches. Ky's background and the handling of his character, especially, added a great element to the story, and aided my willingness to "go with it". But I think there are people that aren't going to be able to enter into and enjoy this story, and will see nothing more than a sometimes too melodramatic and formulaic typical teen dystopia, or a bland rip-off of some of the dystopian greats, like The Giver and A Brave New World. Also, even for those who do enjoy it, it may be the type of story to fade from mind quickly. But for others, this is certainly going to be a fast favorite, and they will find themselves really invested in the fates of Cassia and her beaux. As for me, I'm somewhere in the middle. Someone in a discussion thread on Goodreads mentioned that it would have been more interesting if it were queer, and I have to say, YES, that would have been brilliant. The dystopian element would have been much more powerful and meaningful in that case. But as it was, I enjoyed it while I was in it, and I'll read book 2 for sure -- but I won't necessarily be waiting at the edge of my seat for it.*Please note: I read an ARC of Matched, so the final version may (and probably will) differ.I received the ARC at ALA.