The Hunger Games (discussion welcome and wanted)

The Hunger Games was much more enjoyable then I expected, though not flawless. If you've read it, read my short review (warning, contains SPOILERS) below and then share your thoughts, if you're so inclined.

As I said above, I enjoyed it. I found the prose nice and simple (I always know it's the case when I don't have to look one word up in the dictionary), the story gripping and well paced, and the main character likable for her uniqueness as a character--she was flawed as a person, and I liked that.

My main complaint is about the main character, Katniss, though. When it came to her intelligence, she seemed inconsistent. At times she was incredibly astute at figuring things out, and on others incredibly dense (her continuous confusion as to his motives and feelings, for example). This is often the case with YA novels, it seems, as the author seems to dumb down the main character in order to preserve the obvious "plot twist." It has its benefits for younger readers, who may not catch on to what is coming, but it can be tiresome for the more experienced, or older reader.

Another of my main problems was when the werewolves-mutation-monste-things showed up in the end. It was a definite "Why?" moment. The only reason it didn't totally ruin the story for me was because it did have a symbolic message--the previous contestants had truly been transformed into the bloodthirsty animals the games had made them become--but I could've have definitely done without it. It felt like the author felt compelled to force them in there in a pure attempt to pander to her audience. I guess she couldn't think of a way to fit vampires in, so she settled for werewolves.

In the end, I still liked it. The werewolves played a very temporary role and then were gone, so that was good. It did seem pretty brutal for a YA novel, but then I'll never understand while brutal violence is okay for "young adults" while the merest allusion to sex or the use of any curse word immediately crosses the line . . . but I digress. Even with it's flaws, the pros still made it a fun read, and I definitely found it to be a cut above the usual YA fare.

6.5/10

I'm pretty ambivalent about it as well, I read this book in one sitting (I think it took like 2-3 hours) and not much stuck with me. It's formulaic but it works decently as a bit of light entertainment.

As far as YA novels go, and especially ones that become popular, I found it to be better than most. It's definitely not as good as the Amazon reviews would have you think . . . though I should probably just stop thinking Amazon reviews hold any water at all.

(Are we only discussing the first one in the series here?)

But anyway, I didn't really view the mutts at the end as 'werewolves'. I thought they were basically just wolves. I guess it was meant to show the horror of the Capital, and how they make everything twisted and corrupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

(Are we only discussing the first one in the series here?)

---

Yeah.

I read this at the request of a friend, and as far as YA lit. is concerned, I thought it was pretty good, not particularly great, but better than I had expected.

As to Katniss, I agree she's pretty inconsistent. But, in my opinion, she's redeemed for at least being a strong female character. After Bella Swan, she's a superhero.

Cheers,
Alyson

The Hunger Games is my biggest obsession at the moment. I enjoy that she is flawed, and that the whole book isn't surrounded by romance, even though it's in there. And since I pretty am a young adult at 18. I usually don't read young adult books, but this one caught my eye (or more so, my roommate forced me to read it).

I absolutely love Peeta, even if at times he seems a little too perfect. I'd really like to see the book in his POV.

I finished the first two books in one sitting, even though I pulled an all-nighter, and the third one the day after. Now I must go start a thread for the other two because I'm dying to review them ;)

I thought it was good also. Katniss has flaws, she can be slightly dense sometimes and self-absorbed, but I think her weaknesses and her strengths, of which she has many, combine to make a strong female character. I never thought of the wolves at the end being werewolves really - I didn't like that scene either really though. I thought it seemed forced from the author and was disappointed in it being the final fight in the arena.

Anyway, the book did seem to drag in some places but I enjoyed it enough to read the second which I liked better. I'm not interested in the series enough to read the third though, for some reason, so I cheated and looked up what happened to satisfy my curiosity.

Will anyone be going to watch the film?

There's too many similarities between Battle Royale and The Hunger Games. I just don't know why The Hunger Games is so much more popular, it's not nearly as well written and the content is nearly the same as the Hunger Games. My English teacher even said The Hunger Games is a stupider Battle Royale and by the way Battle Royale was published nine years earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quintus Ennius

There's too many similarities between Battle Royale and The Hunger Games. I just don't know why The Hunger Games is so much more popular, it's not nearly as well written and the content is nearly the same as the Hunger Games. My English teacher even said The Hunger Games is a stupider Battle Royale and by the way Battle Royale was published nine years earlier.

---

Besides the fact that they involve children killing each other the two works are thematically different in their treatment of the same subject (i.e. in BR there isn't audience participation, and there's less focus on their lives prior to the event, and there's less interest in what the game means in terms of society). BR also is very different in its form of characterization, relying on rather silly extremes (Kouza being a sociopath who apparently has never felt emotion) and the sensationalism of the violence in a campy B-movie way, which is an entirely different aesthetic from Collins' approach. The romance subplots of the two works are also very different. BR is fun in its own way, but it overflows with the shallow philosophizing, type casting, and melodrama of conventional Japanese pop culture.

The Hunger Games has some thematic cross-over in the consideration of the boundaries of what one will do to save one-self, but Katniss is a very different character from Shuya, so the same theme ends up being treated very different. Collins is using the scenario more to explore things like the commodification of violence and specifically it is a critique of the Iraq War.

I can't really judge very much the quality of BR's prose, but the copy I have has a rather jaunting abrupt style to it that is a little rough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlysonofBathe

As to Katniss, I agree she's pretty inconsistent. But, in my opinion, she's redeemed for at least being a strong female character. After Bella Swan, she's a superhero.

---

Agreed.

How is having a character who is a sociopath extreme? They aren't that rare and it doesn't seem that silly. Katniss is just another poor girl who goes against the government, as if that's original.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quintus Ennius

How is having a character who is a sociopath extreme? They aren't that rare and it doesn't seem that silly. Katniss is just another poor girl who goes against the government, as if that's original.

---

Oh Kouza is a caricature out of the general frame of reference for Japanese pop media. He is described as a genius with perfect looks, superhuman fighting skills, and a complete inability to feel emotion (Anyone familiar with the character types of manga/anime and lite novels from Japan will recognize him immediately). I don't think Katniss is original, I don't even like Hunger Games, but there is no reason to present BR as if it were any better. BR is straightforward pulpy action, it sticks strongly to its genre conventions in terms of characterization and plot points. Hunger Games is equally generic, but it draws on different cultural references and generic conventions (like reality TV, image consciousness, class inequality).

The translation I read of Battle Royale (I don't know if there was ever another translation, or any further editing) wasn't that great, but good enough. The story moved along well, the prose was good in that way.

Don't forget aptitude for almost anything and wealth. Any major character in any anime have those traits. How come The Hunger Games is popular, though? Is it because it's American?

I personally liked Battle Royale more than the Hunger Games. I don't really see how they're that comparable other than the children vs children death fight, and the totalitarian governments.

Those aren't very key elements are they?

I'm interested to read about what people think. I know the movie is being released and the review on NPR panned it, but said the book was flawless.

I can see people liking, even loving, the book, but anyone who finds the book flawless was reading it with blinders on.

I read the first book and thought it wasn't too awful, but not good. I'm not interested in reading the others or watching the movie. While reading the book I got the feeling it was really intended to be a movie. I think when books are written with the purpose of becoming movies the writing style takes a back seat.

I'm not too sure Collins would have expected them to be made into movies; I mean, for every major mainstream success in YA publishing, there are thousands and thousands of failures.

And the writing taking a backseat? Well, this isn't exactly high literature, it's just a story written for teens, with maybe a little social commentary thrown in for good measure. I don't fault it for not being particularly literary, that's simply not the genre.

That being said, I do think it will translate well into a movie.

Well, Collins wrote for TV, and she is able to keep the plots moving along quite swiftly.

I read the first one last fall, saw the movie last weekend, and finished the second one this weekend. I really like Katniss; she's a more noble, albeit flawed human being, than she gives herself credit for.

I do like the slight social commentary on reality TV. For the most part I find it degrading.

I just saw the movie. I liked it more than the book, actually. I liked how they gave perspective outside of Katniss while the games were going on.

I like this post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

I just saw the movie. I liked it more than the book, actually. I liked how they gave perspective outside of Katniss while the games were going on.

---

I thought the movie was great too, but I was surprised that they didn't include as much of Katniss's 'romantic dilemma' as was included in the book (this doesn't bother me too much as I wasn't too big on the 'teenage romance' anyway), but it is what it is.

Although, it has been awhile since I've read the first of the series. I don't remember if the romantic dilemma didn't heat up until the second book...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by halfmoon25

I thought the movie was great too, but I was surprised that they didn't include as much of Katniss's 'romantic dilemma' as was included in the book (this doesn't bother me too much as I wasn't too big on the 'teenage romance' anyway), but it is what it is.

Although, it has been awhile since I've read the first of the series. I don't remember if the romantic dilemma didn't heat up until the second book...

---

If by "heat up" you mean sex, then no, Katniss didn't do anything beyond kissing and snuggling in the first book.

It is YA, which means that its hard to really compare to adult fiction. It should be compared to YA fiction along a similar vein. The most obvious to me is Harry Potter. But the Potter series does not have a strong female character. Cynthia Voigt is a talented YA writer. She wrote a book called Dicey's Song, which has a dysfunctional strong female lead character. The problem I find with this book is the setting is often ugly; it lacks any poetic qualities.

I haven't read it, but I always assumed Hermoine was supposed to be a trong female character, or is she portrayed like the stereotypical helpless female?

I thought it was enjoyable. Not a scathing political commentary or anything- in fact, quite innocent (all Classical allusions and Scouting trips in the woods).

I meant as the main character. Yes, you are correct that Hermoine is a very strong female character. Sorry, should be more precise!

I thought it was just okay. The first book is the best one, but it still took me a while to get into it as the story dragged on for so long before any exciting action took place - the actual Hunger Games, in this case. The characters were well crafted, but the books just didn't leave a lasting impression on me. I always have problems with stories that tell me what's happening as opposed to showing me what's happening. When this happens, I feel I'm hearing what author thinks as opposed to what the characters think. I want to know the characters. The story just didn't grab my attention enough.