Active Users:201 Time:28/03/2024 02:16:03 PM
I took it as both a lot more than reality TV satire, and not really that at all. Cannoli Send a noteboard - 04/03/2012 10:56:22 PM
I love the irony of that they're making a movie of this book. That's all. It's just so ... perfect. And let's be honest, they can pretty much take the book as it is written and slap it up onto the screen and everything would work out perfectly because that's THE ENTIRE POINT! It's a dystopia that is distinctly modern, a beautiful almost satire-like twist on "reality" television. Survivor on crack-cocaine. Everything that happens falls into a wonderful story, and that's because the characters want it to be so.
Actually, it's because the audience wants it to be so.

That's the whole point of the Games: to make a story, a horribly, horribly violent story of forcing small children into desperation and murder. The fun part is figuring out how our heroes are going to not only stay alive, but keep themselves from falling into that violent mindset.
Not really, they have no problem with the violence - the real issue is the reasons for it, and being forced to do so at the behest of those in power. The book is not about reality TV, it's about war and slavery, and the nature of power and oppression. The Hunger Games are the War on Terror, and ObamaCare, and the PATRIOT Act, and the Federal Reserve, and segregation, and affirmative action and every evil perpetuated by totalitarian governments or oppressive institutions to maintain their power. The Games are not about entertainment for the masses (who don't really seem to like them), they are about keeping the masses downtrodden and the more privileged content & complacent under the rule of the elite.

What I'm trying to say here is that I really liked this book. It was a very fun and fast read, quite enthralling.

Like reading an Animorphs book. It's kind of devoid of substance, so reading it is like eating a glass of water - not particularly challenging and goes down without any effort.

The real draw of the story and the series, IMO, is the allegory of oppression. The book said what needed to be said early on, and by the time you get to the actual games, it's just padding to spell out explicitly the ramifications for its immature target audience who might not grasp all the implications from an expository description of the Hunger Games, and sentimentality. If this were directed at adults, it would suffice as a short story.

The story is told in the first person present tense, which I often don't like but I think worked very here to heighten the urgency and immediacy of what was happening. Naturally, we get to know Katniss the best, and she is the roundest and most developed character. She is also a very interesting character. Her strength, tenacity, and cunning are refreshing.

Yes, no one tries to write tough or smart characters anymore. It's nice that they did this.

I've heard her described as "the anti-Bella" which while completely true, kind of also belittles Katniss a bit.
Not really. They are both blank characters on whom the reader can project himself and in this case, understand the point the author is trying make by sympathizing with the degredation the character undergoes. She is the anti-Bella in that she is there to make a point about how bad and random her world is, whereas Bella is there to show how awesome her love interests are and to let the reader enjoy her adventures vicariously.

But at any rate, most of the other characters are pretty flat, which is fine because they do their jobs. I think mostly what fits this book into the category "Young Adult" is the relative simplicity of the plot and the characters (as well as their ages). Nothing wrong with that! Though I am left really itching to know how the mechanics of the government of Panem really work. But Katniss doesn't know, so we won't know.
I don't think that sort of thing is necessary in this case (even though I'm usually a fan of world-building), because the point seems to be the result and the effects of Panem's form of rule. Does it really matter what species of oppressor is in charge? Too much detail and we risk a political screed, like Ayn Rand seems to be, or other works that have degenerated into specific grudges.

I have high hopes for Catching Fire ... the Games are over, but the REAL games are maybe just beginning?
That would be interesting.

The second book only gets better, and then the third book really takes a radical shift in tone. I will post my review later if there are people who are interested in discussing it.
Maybe after I read them. I am kind of hesitant about it, because as far as I'm concerned, the first book made it's point. I'm not particularly invested in the characters, and not sure that continuing the story would not be just pointless fan service and a silly "scrappy rebels inexplicably take down the oppressor" tale or worse, "a Mary-Sue inspires the masses by not really doing all that much"(like Terry Goodkind, for example) On the other hand, if the author maintains the higher ideals implied in the first book, there are a lot of good places the series can go too. For instance, the "real games are just beginning" notion alluded to above - In addition to the mechanics of oppression, the Games could very well serve as a means of singling out would be troublemakers and rebel leaders or rallying points. All we really know about the life of a winner/survivor is that they are housed in special locations and circumstances and forced to participate in other ways (as Haymitch was effectively compelled to be a pimp in order to help Katniss & the guy, and to play the game in a completely different arena, which nonetheless makes him complicit in the atrocity in a fashion).
Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
Reply to message
The Hunger Games - 04/03/2012 07:53:10 AM 2076 Views
I have got to read these. - 04/03/2012 11:46:49 AM 1062 Views
Oh yeah, they're super easy to read - 04/03/2012 06:58:03 PM 1210 Views
Interesting you say the second one is better. - 04/03/2012 01:00:39 PM 1258 Views
I actually really liked the third book - 04/03/2012 07:05:28 PM 1359 Views
I took it as both a lot more than reality TV satire, and not really that at all. - 04/03/2012 10:56:22 PM 1243 Views
I heard they were awful... - 05/03/2012 01:11:07 AM 1014 Views
I intend to read them at some point... and the government's name is pretty clever. - 05/03/2012 11:28:09 PM 1070 Views
Where's the divided opinion? - 06/03/2012 05:48:47 PM 1090 Views
That's not true - 07/03/2012 12:41:06 PM 1214 Views
It's anything like twilight only in the sense that it has a lot of fans. - 07/03/2012 03:36:43 PM 1067 Views
What about the fact it plagiarizes a better book and movie? - 10/03/2012 04:38:15 PM 941 Views
Which plagiarized Dune and so on and so forth. [Battle Royale plagiarized the Lotterry, etc, etc] - 12/03/2012 06:29:35 PM 1044 Views
You can't improve on perfection - 12/03/2012 06:36:38 PM 1019 Views
Hmm. - 30/03/2012 05:12:24 AM 1123 Views
More. - 06/03/2012 07:45:15 PM 1098 Views
First person present tense sounds horrible for me - 07/03/2012 12:42:12 PM 1163 Views
Even before reading on wikipedia, I thought, "this is a rip-off of Battle Royale." - 10/03/2012 01:33:55 AM 969 Views
Definitely can vouch for the movie. *NM* - 10/03/2012 07:55:32 PM 503 Views
Perhaps you're doing it an injustice... - 23/03/2012 09:03:45 PM 1033 Views
Possible explanations. - 23/03/2012 10:50:36 PM 1216 Views
Re: Possible explanations. - 24/03/2012 01:11:19 PM 1029 Views
The movie was just released on Blu-Ray. - 24/03/2012 05:20:51 PM 1009 Views
They were okay - 25/03/2012 12:58:30 PM 1018 Views
I have a question re: difference to the film - 29/03/2012 09:51:57 AM 1506 Views
(way too detailed) Answers. - 29/03/2012 06:02:38 PM 1130 Views
You know what I was thinking, watching the movies? - 30/03/2012 05:16:11 AM 1039 Views
You wouldn't make it out of the initial bloodbath. - 30/03/2012 03:50:08 PM 924 Views
Ha! - 10/04/2012 04:32:19 AM 1080 Views

Reply to Message