Hunger Games

For those who don't know the plot, here it is:

Every year, the Capitol (the bad guys of the novel) hold The Hunger Games, a reality TV show where twenty-four teens fight to the death, in an arena littered with traps, until a winner emerges. (The Highlander in me is awakened. THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE!)

So anyway, two contestants, a boy and a girl, are picked lottery-style from each of the twelve districts surrounding the Capitol. (There used to be a District Thirteen, but they fought back against the Capitol, and the Capitol made an example out of them. This is the reason for the Hunger Games: to keep those naughty districts in line.)

The book follows the story of young Katniss Everdeen and her fight for survival throughout the Games.


So, I picked the novel up mainly because everyone else was telling me to read it. Granted, I should have known better. I mean, hello, all the people telling me it was so amazing also said the same thing about Twilight. But what really convinced me to take a chance and just read it already was the fact that Stephen King actually wrote a positive review for it, whereas he flat-out said Twilight was a piece of crap. I thought, "Okay. I can trust this guy."

I felt like such an idiot when I got done reading.

I thought Hunger Games was okay, but it was far from great. It had some major flaws and I think there were a few places where my eyes got tired of rolling. (Example: Whenever Katniss needed something, like burn cream, she could just ask for it and her coach could send it into the arena in a little silver parachute, practically screaming "DEUS EX MACHINA.")

The way Suzanne Collins portrayed Katniss was just so bland. The novel's set in first person present tense, which may help the pace, but that's about it. Katniss was suppose to be this rebel girl from the slums, yet she kept speaking way too formally, falling into passive voice, and constantly using words like "arbitrarily" and "deluge."

Two-thirds through the book, I guess Collins decided it was time to activate the contrived romance mechanism. And my brain about died. (Seriously, the love interest in this novel says some things that would make Edward Cullen jealous.)

So, I'm wondering if anybody else read The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins and shares some of the same feelings? Or is it just me that dislikes this book?

This post has been edited by Mizzuz Spock on Oct 25 2009, 06:24 PM

Haven't read this; haven't even heard of this until you mentioned it here. That's a premise I've always loved, but the only time I've ever seen it pulled off well is in Battle Royale (and even that is debatable).

How does the author manage to keep a sense of drama when you can get things from outside? Like you said, this sounds like a too-convient explanation for deus ex.

I often find the first person present to needlessly distracting, though that may just be a failing of me as a reader. Also, Twilight has instantly made me skeptical of any book written in the past 5 years about a teenaged female protagonist written by a female author in the first person. Horribly sexist? Perhaps so, but I don't care.

That said, I'll probably look into reading this. Not like I'm reading anything else right now.

I really enjoyed Battle Royale and I felt Hunger Games actually kind of ripped a few things off, especially (you should probably be warned, since you're thinking about reading it) in the second book. Yes, it's a series. A trilogy, actually. (For now anyway. I mean, it could easily turn into a "Cycle" or a "Saga.")

Naw. I'm exactly the same way. In fact, I was like that BEFORE Twilight. And I'm a teenage girl, the targeted audience. x]

Started reading this; groaning at how stupidly evil this government appears and the vast amounts of info dumps. First person present hasn't been bothering me as much as I would have thought.

The more I read, the more I feel that way too, yeah.

This post has been edited by TheLurker on Oct 25 2009, 09:52 PM

Is it YA? Just curious, since it's been compared to Twilight.

Heh, this is why I never trust author reviews even if I like said author's work. I've been burned too many times.

I may have to read this for the wince-factor, even though the bare description reminds me of that Nascar-from-hell Jason Statham movie that came out last year.

Yeah, it's YA, complete with all the trappings of bad YA fiction, such as underestimating its audience's capabilities for understanding political and moral issues.

I'm about 80 pages in so far, and while it's not terrible, unless it picks up in the next 300, I'm probably going to come back here and rant about it for a bit. In particular, its a good example of how to fail with first person: the narrator, who should have all sorts of interesting traits and quirks based on her rough life experiences, instead comes across like post-apocalyptic Bella Swan.

EDIT: Gets worse. Oh man, does it get worse.

This post has been edited by TheLurker on Oct 26 2009, 01:41 PM

I know, right? It's the classic evil government controlling the world because...well...just because. I mean, SOMEBODY'S gotta be a dictator for things to run smoothly in the post-apocalyptic world!

Ha! You think it's bad NOW? Wait for it. Just wait. The ending is priceless.

You won't be disappointed. :]

This post has been edited by Mizzuz Spock on Oct 26 2009, 05:18 PM

I read it already, and I really didn't notice anything about the way the government was run, unless that changes in the second book. I'm being grateful for that, because I know that government can really be messed up.

But I can see this book is screaming revolution, and if I can pick up on it that easily, its more than blatantly obvious. The condescending part is a little annoying, more because of the interruption of the story. I don't think that she is quite a Sue, given the setting, but she's close. Dropping stuff in, to me, is not such a big deal, since the "gamemasters" can throw basically anything that they want to at the kids.
I would rate this as "typical".


It gets worse??

Yep. The Beatles' "Revolution" could practically be the theme song to Catching Fire, the sequel. Plus, it's ridiculously predictable. The way some of the chapters left off, I felt like I was supposed to be surprised, but I wasn't. I was just like, "Okay. And how are you going to complain about this now, Katniss?"

And it's mostly in the second book where the government is described and what their motives are. Well, okay, you don't really learn WHAT their motives are, except to keep control, but you see some of the lengths they're willing to go to to maintain control.

And while the Gamemakers can throw whatever they want at the contestants, it's aggravating to know that the main character will be okay. Katniss got into a few situations that were resolved way too easily. Something (or someone) just happened to show up to help her out. Got kind of annoying after awhile.

This post has been edited by Mizzuz Spock on Oct 27 2009, 12:46 PM

Just finished this today. Ending felt inconclusive (I know it is a series, but truly good books make you feel satisfied after finishing them regardless of if they are part of a larger work or not). I won't post any spoilers, but at about 2/3s through, when the rules change for the first time, the book really, really goes downhill. Especially when they get down to the last few Tributes; then sense of tension that the author had built (quite well, actually) before that gets lost, and we are left with a final confrontation that pretty much comes out of nowhere and adds nothing (have to vaguely phrase that). I think I would have just preferred the Tributes hunting each other to what actually happens.

Dropping stuff in, while it was explained, was one of my biggest problems with this book. The gifts from the outside were every bit as obnoxious as I thought they would be: they aren't deus ex, again, because they are explained, but they do show up (again in the last 1/3) too frequently.
And the same is true of bad things happening for no reason, as well. The first time the Gamemakers messed with the arena, it was novel, but again, it got abused as a way to manufacture tension and also to wrap things up. Really, that is what the last 1/3 of the book feels like, to me. Far too fast, and too easy, like everything just falls into place and then BAM! Sequel.

The real question is why the people haven't rebelled already. Throughout the course of book 1, we have not seen a single characer who is not a member of the government who supports the government. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. You have the makings of a classic communist class struggle there (a distant, wealthy elite who control the means of production and thus can intimidate and impose themselves over the powerless, poor masses). It also probably doesn't help that things are so black and white: the government do nothing for the people and live shallow, hedonistic lives, while all the poor citizens are hardworking and decent and just struggle to make a living.

I felt the Sue level skyrockets in Catching Fire. If I told you why, it'd give away the plot.

But...they did rebel. That was District Thirteen. (Which, maybe it's just me, but there's something really cliche about that name.) Nobody has rebeled because they're afraid to turn out like them. The Capitol hangs Thirteen over the rest of their heads. It just goes to show how spineless the people are.

Glad to know it's not just me. And the "werewolf" thing just made me laugh.

This post has been edited by Mizzuz Spock on Oct 27 2009, 02:33 PM

yeah, but I mean, more than that. I mean, recently. The conditions since then have only worsened, it seems. It seems like that would only strengthen their resolve, not weaken it.

Were they actually werewolves? I kept trying to convince myself "No, no way. That is just too stupid." But yeah, I thought they were described that way. And yes, that was out of nowhere.

The genenically modified animals were out-of-place in general, though.

This post has been edited by TheLurker on Oct 27 2009, 02:43 PM

I didn't have a problem with the muttations. I felt they fit into the whole world and story, but they definitely became a nuisance.

I'm not sure if they're werewolves, per se, but I can't think of what else to call them. Zombie wolf skinwalkers, maybe? Would that be a more accurate term?

They definitely came out of nowhere, yeah. And it was rather anticlimactic, in my opinion.

...Wow. I definitely have to read this book.

My friend was reading it over and over the other day, and she kept gushing to me about how awesome it was, and how much she loved it and everything. Honestly, I don't always trust her opinion when it comes to books.

I see now that I was right.

Going to post a late disclaimer saying that this post, and probably the discussions past it, will be filled with SPOILERS.

Well, it wasn't even so much their presence as it was how out of nowhere they were (especially the werewolves, but also the super generically modified wasps of DOOM!). The only ones that I thought were properly foreshadowed were the mockingjays which were pretty cool apart from suffering a horrible name.

Still, even the way those were introduced, through Katniss receiving that pin, made me do a double take. I dunno, it just seemed weird. If they could've been introduced better, I think I would have liked them fine.

So, since I've ripped on this book for so long, I figure I should talk about what I actually enjoyed. About the middle third or so, when the games first start and she is alone, I thought were done pretty well. Katniss legitimately seemed vulnerable at that point, and in the face of some action, she developed something of a personality. And Rue's death, that was good, too. Though the whole last rites bit seems like it would have taken too long, especially for someone who was activately being hunted after pissing a bunch of people off.

[SPOILER ALERT]




Eh. The biggest problem I think I had with this novel was the fact that I didn't find it suspenseful at all. It's in first person, so I knew she'd be okay, no matter what. I began to care more about the other characters than Katniss. She just became flat-out annoying, especially when she'd talk about how she was going to die at the beginning of the novel.

Also, the berries. The berries felt rushed to me. Maybe if they had been introduced in the beginning of the book and then tied into the end... I dunno. I just didn't like how it was her and Peeta in the end. BOTH found a way to win, so the stupid love triangle could carry over into the next book. (Seriously. My biggest pet peeve in YA novels, especially those aimed at teen girls like myself, is the disgustingly cliche love triangles.) I almost wish it had been her and anybody except Peeta. Somebody she didn't have a thing with. Like maybe Cato. That would have been an interesting twist... But I can't change the book, so I digress.

I suppose the only thing I really liked about this whole book, besides the idea of the arena and the Games themselves, was Haymitch. The drunken mentor. Not exactly original, but I liked his attitude and I felt he was the most believable (ha!) of all the characters. (I came to like him even more, once I found out how he won his Games in the second book.)

Eh. Maybe I'm just being too critical of this book. But I just couldn't get as into it the same way I could with The Running Man or Battle Royale.

OMG! Yeah! The wasps' names didn't even imply that they were Doomsday devices at all. Tracker jackers? Really? It makes me think of truck drivers, for some weird reason...

I noticed this too, but the problem I felt was that Katniss's personality was mostly conveyed through dialogue and not actually in the narration itself. Like, as she was writing, she was almost a different person. (Though, I realize, after writing that last sentence, that that probably makes sense, especially if she's writing as some old lady in her spare time, but ANYWAY, that's besides the point.)

I actually liked Rue's death, too. Though I wasn't digging the song. (It just bugs me not knowing how songs in books are suppose to go.) I also didn't get how the whole flowers thing made the Capitol mad, exactly. Unity between Districts or something? I definitely think I missed something there.



This post has been edited by Mizzuz Spock on Nov 5 2009, 07:56 PM

My mind brain-filtered that as "Cracker Jack" throughout the whole book. Hilarity ensued.

.

Katniss the narrator and Katniss the character seemed like two separate entities, or at least personalities. Really, I'm questioning why is book needed to be in first person. I didn't really feel any connection to her that I wouldn't have gotten in third person, and then we could build some suspense (jump to other combatant's viewpoints, focus more on terrain and description, show us some of the drama unfolding outside of the games back in the capital.) I dunno, I think this could've helped.

I think it pissed them off because it showed that she genuinely cared about Rue dying, and was willing to waste time and risk getting killed in order to give her a decent sendoff. The Gamemakers would prefer if it was every District for themselves, yeah.

When I first read this book, I liked it. But they I liked Eragon the first time I read it too ><

To prove my ability to tell a good book from a crappy one, I did notice the massive amounts of info-dumping. It felt like we needed to learn every bit and nuance of the history.

And there's a love triangle in Catching Fire? Seriously? I thought that since Katniss (That name has sooo much potential for abuse) explicitly stated that she didn't like what's-his-face, we wouldn't have to deal with that sort of thing. So much for wishful thinking...

This post has been edited by Alfonse Cullen on Nov 7 2009, 10:03 AM

Ditto. Third-person might have amped this book's likeability rate up a few notches. (At least, for me anyway.) And I could seriously have done without the present tense.

It's okay to have a few guilty pleasures. xD

A few of my favorite books are riddled with plot holes and terrible prose, but I'm willing to accept them, flaws and all.

Yes, it does. All you have to do is change a certain letter to a "p" and...anyway, to answer your question about the love triangle: Yes. Seriously. I wish I was kidding. I wish I could tell you the novel broke away from the romance. (I mean, it was all "fake" in Hunger Games, right?) But it becomes a main plot key in Catching Fire. It's vaguely reminiscent of the Jake-Bella-Edward triangle.

Having read Catching Fire my opinion has been lowered from an indifferent "O.K." to "O my". The love triangle is supposed to be contrived, but the contrivance felt contrived. The ending and the second Hunger Games was...I don't quite know what to say about it. But it could be worse. It could also be a lot better