244 replies to this topic

[Starkess]

Black Walder, on 23 March 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

Missed Potential Example: I'm not a particular fan of any specific character, but I personally felt that Finnick's death was kind of cheap. After so much character-building, to have him go out like, "Oh crap, we lost Finnick," without any greater bearing on the plot was just annoying on the heels of a scene in which Peeta goes apeshit and throws Random Army Guy #2 into a deadly trap. Replace RAG#2 with Finnick and it's awesome character conflicts ahoy, but instead we get a cop-out.

Hm. To me that was actually the point. Like, Finnick survived all this other shit, but then he just kind of goes out due to happenstance or bad luck. Like, hey, this is war, people die. And they don't always die in a heroic stands or great battles or whatever. Plus since we are seeing this through Katniss's eyes, it shows the kind of PTSD numbness she is experiencing as she watches those she cares about just snuffed out.

[Black Walder]

Starkess, on 23 March 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

Hm. To me that was actually the point. Like, Finnick survived all this other shit, but then he just kind of goes out due to happenstance or bad luck. Like, hey, this is war, people die. And they don't always die in a heroic stands or great battles or whatever. Plus since we are seeing this through Katniss's eyes, it shows the kind of PTSD numbness she is experiencing as she watches those she cares about just snuffed out.

Sure it works for the desensitization theme, and I'm glad it wasn't some cheesy heroic sacrifice, but it would've been nice if it had some kind of effect on anybody at all, IMHO. Towards the end, it just started to feel like the entire cast was getting fridged despite glaring opportunities to kill them in more interesting and meaningful ways.

ETA: Anyway, that was just one example of what I saw as lazy writing. Another: Beetee makes Katniss some kind of special super high-tech bow, right? It activates and deactivates with voice recognition and improves her archery ability... HOW? No explanation given whatsoever; it just works, to the point where she can (WTF?) shoot down bomber planes with it. One or two toss-off lines from Beetee about an HUD display wirelessly projecting onto contacts or something and problem solved, but instead we just get, "A wizard did it."

Edited by Black Walder, 23 March 2012 - 10:14 AM.

[Starkess]

Black Walder, on 23 March 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

ETA: Anyway, that was just one example of what I saw as lazy writing. Another: Beetee makes Katniss some kind of special super high-tech bow, right? It activates and deactivates with voice recognition and improves her archery ability... HOW? No explanation given whatsoever; it just works, to the point where she can (WTF?) shoot down bomber planes with it. One or two toss-off lines from Beetee about an HUD display wirelessly projecting onto contacts or something and problem solved, but instead we just get, "A wizard did it."

Ha, I noticed that too. I was like, it's a bow, I don't see what "activating" it is supposed to do. But I just rolled with it and took it as using a bow-like device to work as like a sort of rocket launcher to work with Katniss's skillset. Or something like that. But yeah, that was weird that she specifically mentioned how it could be activated and then put to sleep but never mentioned what the hell the difference was.

[Black Walder]

Starkess, on 23 March 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

Ha, I noticed that too. I was like, it's a bow, I don't see what "activating" it is supposed to do. But I just rolled with it and took it as using a bow-like device to work as like a sort of rocket launcher to work with Katniss's skillset. Or something like that. But yeah, that was weird that she specifically mentioned how it could be activated and then put to sleep but never mentioned what the hell the difference was.

Yeah, it didn't make me throw the book down or anything, but it took me out of my SOD a bit. The pilots just flying into the meat-grinder several more times after seeing what she and Gale were doing to them was a little disconcerting, also. I can accept that the protagonists win through superior ability, and I can even accept dumb luck, but watching them slaughter antagonists who're just lugging around the Idiot Ball is dramatically unsatisfying for me. I got the same feeling toward the end of Catching Fire, when Brutus and Enobaria, supposed stone-cold killers who've not only trained their whole lives for the arena but have individually beaten it, write off Katniss as dead when they see her down instead of administering a 1-second coup d'grace, even though they have easy access to her helpless form and know for a fact that she isn't dead yet because they didn't hear the cannon. WTF? It's no fun watching somebody beat down mentally-disabled people.

General Question: Why did the Capital punish Haymitch for the way he won? Guy used the conditions provided in the arena to produce at least one spectacular death that the audience who loved Spiked Mace year but hated Hypothermia Year probably ate right up, and got disemboweled in the process. This should read like, "Capital shoots, Capital scores!" in their mind, and yet they whack his loved ones and eliminate their lucrative hold over him because... No reason, that I can see, really... it's like the author was afraid that she might confuse us if they patted somebody we're supposed to like on the back for doing exactly what they wanted.

[Starkess]

Black Walder, on 23 March 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

General Question: Why did the Capital punish Haymitch for the way he won? Guy used the conditions provided in the arena to produce at least one spectacular death that the audience who loved Spiked Mace year but hated Hypothermia Year probably ate right up, and got disemboweled in the process. This should read like, "Capital shoots, Capital scores!" in their mind, and yet they whack his loved ones and eliminate their lucrative hold over him because... No reason, that I can see, really... it's like the author was afraid that she might confuse us if they patted somebody we're supposed to like on the back for doing exactly what they wanted.

I thought that was just an illustration of the fact that the Capitol (side note: it bothers me that it is Capitol and not Capital) treated all the victors like crap. And then Haymitch obviously has some anti-Capitol leanings, so he may have said or done something to piss off the powers that be and then they killed his family off to demonstrate to him that just because he won they still owned him.

[Black Walder]

Starkess, on 23 March 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

I thought that was just an illustration of the fact that the Capitol [snip] treated all the victors like crap. And then Haymitch obviously has some anti-Capitol leanings, so he may have said or done something to piss off the powers that be and then they killed his family off to demonstrate to him that just because he won they still owned him.

Sexual slavery is pretty crappy and demonstrates ownership, plus profitable, and young Haymitch was "something of a looker" according to our narrator when she views his tape. Snow could've traded his ass for money and favors for years, like Finnick and who knows how many others. They could've said that they tried, Haymitch refused, and they killed his family over that, but instead he was punished for doing what he was told, which isn't a great way to instill obedience. It's one thing to portray the overlords as relentlessly cruel (all-too-believable), and another to portray them as mindlessly spiteful to the point of self-harm (which can also happen for real of course, but is less interesting to read about because it's kind of pointless and stupid, though arguably consistent with the entire premise of the story).

Starkess, on 23 March 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

[snip] (side note: it bothers me that it is Capitol and not Capital) [snip]

I somehow managed a complete mental block on that through three books, until this moment.

[Lady Octarina]

Starkess, on 23 March 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

Hm. To me that was actually the point. Like, Finnick survived all this other shit, but then he just kind of goes out due to happenstance or bad luck. Like, hey, this is war, people die. And they don't always die in a heroic stands or great battles or whatever. Plus since we are seeing this through Katniss's eyes, it shows the kind of PTSD numbness she is experiencing as she watches those she cares about just snuffed out.

It would have made more sense to me if it had been Peeta who died. But the author decided that the only one really close to Katniss who should die was the little sister she was trying to save all that time, which made sense too. But yes, Finnick's death made no sense to me; in fact, the character stopped making any sense after the wedding. She stopped developping him, which was probably the best indication as to what his fate would be, but still... Pointless.

Black Walder, on 24 March 2012 - 01:08 AM, said:

Sexual slavery is pretty crappy and demonstrates ownership, plus profitable, and young Haymitch was "something of a looker" according to our narrator when she views his tape. Snow could've traded his ass for money and favors for years, like Finnick and who knows how many others. They could've said that they tried, Haymitch refused, and they killed his family over that, but instead he was punished for doing what he was told, which isn't a great way to instill obedience. It's one thing to portray the overlords as relentlessly cruel (all-too-believable), and another to portray them as mindlessly spiteful to the point of self-harm (which can also happen for real of course, but is less interesting to read about because it's kind of pointless and stupid, though arguably consistent with the entire premise of the story).

[Nearly Headless Ned]

Just finished the trilogy. Was expecting to loathe Mockingjay due to the negative views it recieved but I found myself to be rather affected by it. I suppose I'm a sucker for kids suffering from PTSD. Yeah, there are numerous flaws that are all disccussed far more eloquently than Im capable of so I'll just say it was refreshing to read a tale that doesn't have the heroes come out the end mostly untouched (without any wistfull melancholic remembrances of comrades who died like sgt Elias in Platoon) but severly damaged individuals.
It will be interesting to see the movie adaptation of Mockingjay as different viewpoints other than Katniss will hopefully add a bit more depth. It was a bit confining just being in her head even if she was a compelling character I had great sympathy for.

[sperry]

I really liked them.  The first was excellent, a lot better than the 2nd and 3rd, but I still liked them.  I think you can tell that their was a lot more inspiration behind the 1st one, whereas the 2nd and 3rd kind of exist because the 1st was so popular and fans wanted to know what happened to Katniss and Peeta and the evil Capitol.



Whenever I pick up a novel, I read it for the story, not the elegance of the prose or something like that.  I'm looking for a story that's exciting and captivating, and so long as the writing is not so bad that it takes away from the story, I'm fine with it.  (For context, some examples of things I did find the writing to be so poor I couldn't enjoy the novel:  Dan Brown books, and John Grisham books.  In both cases, I saw the films before I read the books, and enjoyed the movies.  The writing, on the other hand, was so bad that it ruined what were overall fun plotlines).  I thought the Hunger Games was reasonably well written.  Yes, the prose is simple, but it's young adult fiction, and it wasn't terrible or riddled with unrealistic dialogue (well, aside perhaps from some of the sappy love triangle moments).  Story trumps elegance of writing to me.



Apparently some people are really bothered by small inconsistencies, which isn't something that bothers me.  Yes, the magical bow that can shoot down space ships is a little silly.  Still, it was one scene and didn't really detract from the overall story.  It's not like the whole plot revolved around teenager's abilities to shoot down planes with a bow.  Same goes for the potential logistical difficulties of the districts and the settings.  I feel like world building requires you to either go all in, or live with some incosistencies.  Yes, perhaps Collins could have stretched this into 5 1,000 page books and properly built up a working economy for Panem and the districts, with realistic population figures and geographic sizes.  Instead, she asked the readers to just go with it and assume everything works out, and things aren't so unrealistic that I find it difficult to do so.



The one thing that was a detractor was the silly love triangle, but I think that has to be excused too.  I think when Collins was writing this, her target audience was clearly teenage girls.  I doubt she foresaw this becoming popular across a wide range of demographics, so the silly triangle that only a teenage girl could enjoy or find remotely compelling was meant for a different audience, not for me.  For the most part, it wasn't too prevalent.  I could pass over the random paragraphs interspersed throughout the books where the characters would get mad and jealous over some petty slight.


Anyway, to end my rambling, probably incoherent post.  If you want a fun, exciting page turner this is a good one.  If you're looking for a literary masterpiece, you're going to be disappointed, although considering this is YA fiction, I'm not sure that's a realistic expectation.

[Errant Bard]

sperry, on 21 April 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

If you're looking for a literary masterpiece, you're going to be disappointed, although considering this is YA fiction, I'm not sure that's a realistic expectation.

Watership down is YA.

[Howling Mad]

Errant Bard, on 22 April 2012 - 02:17 AM, said:

Watership down is YA.

And its good literature

ETA in Elmer Fudd's voice "kill the wabbbit, kill the wabbit"

Edited by Howling4Reed, 22 April 2012 - 02:26 PM.

[Davos55]

The first two were great and I was truly drawn into the world and wanted to see what happened. Then I read the third one..

Mockingjay was disappointing in every sense of the word to me.  I really hated it and felt it was a rushed and cheap ending to the series. It is hard to talk about without spoiling anything, but when I finished it, I was very angry.  The ending was so rushed and underdeveloped, and there was no real closure for almost all of the supporting characters.

Overall, it is a good series, not great, and pretty dark (especially the third) for YA material.

Interested to see how they make Mockingjay PG-13 and not disappointing to a mass audience.

[Migey]

Davos55, on 25 April 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

Interested to see how they make Mockingjay PG-13 and not disappointing to a mass audience.

Don't hold your breath.

[11th Heaven]

For all those who thought it was a sad ending, be grateful that Joe Abercrombie wasn't given the task of finishing it. If he had, Peeta probably would have eaten prim, gotten stabbed through the eyes by a mad Gale, who would then begin an abusive relationship with Katniss. She would probably commit drunken suicide in the epilogue.

So count your blessings

[Frog Eater]

I read the series recently, and it is indeed a fast read. I liked the first book, the second was ok, but started hating the third book. I only finished it to finish the series. I think a lot of the third book ruined the taste of the series for me. I think I would have enjoyed it more had I only read the first book.

[Errant Bard]

11th Heaven, on 15 May 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

For all those who thought it was a sad ending, be grateful that Joe Abercrombie wasn't given the task of finishing it. If he had, Peeta probably would have eaten prim, gotten stabbed through the eyes by a mad Gale, who would then begin an abusive relationship with Katniss. She would probably commit drunken suicide in the epilogue.

So count your blessings

If Joe had written this book, the bad guys would have been competent and aware of what public relations are. The ending would have been everyone continuing to live their bleak little lives after having failed to change either the system or themselves. Joe does not do sad, he does bleak. But he still writes better, and his endings are still a hundred times preferable to that of the Hunger Games.
...
Not being written by a good author is not a blessing.  

[Shryke]

Borrowed these off my sister to have a quick light read on vacation.

Overall, better then I expected. I liked the story as a whole and I impressed with the interesting and rather dark places the author went with the story. Katniss is very clearly a scarred and traumatized person and it shows throughout the story. In fact, most of the people involved are traumatized. And I really liked that the story doesn't sugar-coat it or wave it all away with a happy ending. The end isn't a mega-happy one, but rather one of people enduring and eventually, slowly, over-coming but never truly leaving behind the horrors in their lives.

There's some misteps and the plot meanders a bit too much in books 2 and 3, but overall very well done and impressive for a YA book. I dislike child fiction that coddles. (/salutes Maurice Sendak)

It also takes a different tack then I expected. The comparisons to Battle Royale seem kinda silly after reading the series. The Hunger Games is more about propaganda and war then it is about kids killing one another. The whole series is centred around Katniss based on her ability to play to the audience and how that's important. An interesting turn I didn't see coming, which is always nice, and a good theme the series carries the whole way through.

The unfocused plot was a bit of a letdown, but not terrible by any means. It was serviceable and once it got moving along, it worked.

The prose, especially at the beginning of the first book, is really quite bad. I think she was going for a very direct style, since it is all from Katniss' viewpoint, but for the first good chunk it just sounds really really bad. It only really works during the action parts where doing nothing but describing exactly what's happening doesn't seem as out of place. By book 2, and 3 especially, it seemed to get better. Still direct and very much about clear statements, but there's some actual subtlety there too.

Random thoughts:

1) The books themselves. I can see why some people like book 1 best. It's the most focused and the most cohesive. "Katniss goes to the Hunger Games" makes for a simple direct story. At the same time, the plots occasionally quite contrived, the prose is ugh and the whole story is overall fairly simplistic. Still good, but while the other books are less focused and suffer for it, they are also more interesting. Collins does a good job of following through on the premise and actions she sets up in the first book in a meaningful and sensible way. She wins in book 1 but the game is far from over and I'm glad the series deals with that.

2) People complain most about book 3, but I found book 2 the worst. The first 2/3rds, while important, drag on far too long and make the book a bit of a chore. Then there's the Quarter Quell at the end which is the best part of the book, but is also really rushed feeling. The length of these two plots should have been exchanged or something. Book 3 I found a better read, even if it meandered more, because the subject matter dragged way less.

3) I found the complaints about no sex in the books really weird. I mean, right from the first book, Katniss' character is established as the kind of person for whom a lack of sex makes sense. She's emotionally shutdown and traumatized right from the start. Her father's death weights heavily on her long before she volunteers for the Hunger Games and just her whole world is traumatic. She doesn't really want anything to do with a relationship or a family and understandably so.

4) I actually liked the "Love Triangle" in the series because it really wasn't much of one. Alot because of the above. Katniss is obviously very confused about what she even wants out of life. She doesn't really spend alot of time mooning over which boy she wants. She's more confused what she even wants from life and whether she feels anything at all for either of them.

I also like the way Collins uses Peeta (terrible name btw) and Gale to represent different desires in Katniss. Makes the ending work better and more emotional.

[Accio Euron]

I enjoyed the first book and couldn't wait to get my hands on the second one. I liked the second one just as much, but it lost its appeal and I didn't like the third one really. I felt the ending was rushed.
I think I will reread them again without the haste of wanting to know what happens.

[wolverine]

I enjoyed the first one, just not enough to actually read the next two, especially when I found out Katniss was going back to the games.  I read summaries of the next two.

I usually can't really read most YA that I have tried at this point, but I found Hunger Games pretty entertaining.

[Myrddin]

valentinaofmilonas, on 11 July 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

I didn't like the third one really. I felt the ending was rushed.

Seeing that they're splitting the last book into 2 movies, this might be a rare occasion where the movie improves on the source material.