Ceridwen's Reviews > The Hunger Games
The Hunger Games (The Hunger Games #1)
by Suzanne Collins
by Suzanne Collins
Ceridwen's review
bookshelves: america-and-environs, the-future-is-now, young-adult
Dec 17, 09
bookshelves: america-and-environs, the-future-is-now, young-adult
Recommended to Ceridwen by:
Meredith, some other folks
Recommended for:
everybody?
Read in November, 2009
Before I start into this review, I would like to pose a question. Why is it so hard to talk about the books we love? I have been having just an unrelenting bitch of a time writing this review. I keep falling into holes and back-pedaling, not wanting to sound too squee or insincere and bring ruination on my real love for this book. Maybe it's because it's YA, about a plucky girl who surmounts incredible obstacles – but then, there, I'm doing it again – implying in my flip description that I'm somehow too adult and worldly to fall for this narrative. (And, I did it again.) I did fall for this narrative, hard, and I'm going to have to just suck it up and soldier on.
I read this book in a swoon, compulsively. It was the kind of reading experience where I totally screwed myself by reading far into the the night, nervously checking the clock thinking “damn” as 1:15 flew by, then 2:45, knowing full well that kids would be up and jumping on me in six hours, five hours, just put the book down and sleep! If you could somehow concentrate and aerosolize this feeling, you would find me down by the railroad tracks, under a bridge, huffing powdered books out of bag, their glitter mixing with my drool and b.o.
And here's where the digression comes in. So, here, in my city, at some point in the last five years, it became a thing for the homeless to stand at the entrances of freeways and other major roads holding signs. They tend to say things like “wounded veteran” and “trying to get home” and “God bless.” In my driving about, I've seen that the cardboard signs lay folded in the shrubbery, waiting for the next person to come along, unfold, and stand on the edge of the frontage road. There's one on 54th and Nicollet that reads “absolute desperation.” At first this set me giggling, because I'm an asshole, but then it got me thinking. This is a true statement, and terrifying all the more because the sentiment is interchangeable; something that can written on a piece of cardboard and reused by any person standing on that corner. Not that I need to justify this, necessarily, but I live in a pretty extreme climate, and the people standing on these corners are not doing this for kicks, but because it's cold and they're hungry or jonesing for something or whatever, and this seemed like the best option available. The best option. Yikes.
I've had a long running joke with my husband about how we all live in bubbles of like-minded people, the kind of people with whom you argue vehemently about the nuances about how you all totally agree. We sort ourselves into the blindness of our own comfort, and I don't mean this just in the happy, healthy, developed world sense of comfort that I was born into. We take it farther, drawing bright red lines down the political aisle and using those lines to determine whom we respect and where we live. It's not a new thing, certainly, but in early new millennium America, I'm just floored by the widening gaps in our political discourse and how they are made manifest in the very real physical embodiment of the completeness of the gerrymander and the ease we all acquiesce to that reality. Taken as a whole, the country is awash in purple, but as you look from locality to locality, they flame bright blue or bright red as we sort ourselves into two Americas that exist in the comfort of local smugness balanced against that old, hoary American favorite, massive paranoia about what the other half is doing. This book takes the bubbles of our acquaintance and schematizes them into a distopian hell-hole.
It's a post-American America, with the center, the Capitol, ruling 12 districts that each supply their different products: electronics, coal, agricultural goods, etc. Maybe 75 years before, there had been a civil war, a rebellion by the districts ending in vigorous and complete quashing. As a reminder of the sin of rebellion, every year the Capitol chooses 2 children from each district, between the ages of 12 and 18, to fight in the Hunger Games. They fight to the death, until there is one kid standing. The whole event is, of course, televised. (I know that there has been some criticism that this plot has been used before, but this is sheer bone-headed stupidity. So what if Ice-T did it first?) This is not an economic/political system that makes a ton of sense, if you look at it too closely, but that's not the point, or it is the point exactly. Collins takes our American disconnects and makes them manifest, relocates the people with cardboard signs reading “absolute desperation” from the arteries of our Interstate system and concentrates them into concrete ghettos of poverty and subjugation.
And now for my love of the protagonist. I can see why this happens, because writers have to live with the people they create, but so often a writer's love of the character strips them of moral ambiguity, even while that ambiguity nips at their heels. This may be even more true for YA lit, with things like Bella Swan's clumsiness standing in for an actual character flaw, even while Bella herself wallows in self-centered satisfaction at her flattened aspect to everyone around her but Edward. (Yup, gotta get in the Twilight dig.) Katniss is competent and clueless and savage, a reminder to us old folks that sometimes the young have worlds of understanding that isn't based on experience, but on character. Or it is based on experience, but simply because they have less of it, doesn't make it something you can measure using the yardstick of duration.
I was nailed to the floor when Katniss made her first kill in the arena and doesn't have a what-have-I-done? melt-down, but is instead gratified by a horrible act that can never really compensate for the horrible acts enacted by the events preceding. We, as readers, are gratified, because it's what we want, some good Old Testament justice that spills a little blood to try to even the odds in a seriously unjust system. The writerly propensity to fig-leaf this murderous satisfaction with an immediate “Oh no! I'm so bad for loving this” is absent. This is not to say that Collins sees these actions as having no moral, personal impact – Katniss's mentor, who also survived the Hunger Games, is a constant, alcoholic reminder of how something like this might mess a brother up good.
There are plenty of themes I hate with a passion – say, “crazy makes you deep” for example – but one that's pretty high on the list is “you, reader, are a voyeur, and I, the author, will dish out a bunch of sick shit and blame it on you.” This is generally some lazy, lazy stuff; the kind of stuff used to plug the holes in the leaking boat of D-grade action films and misogynist bullpucky. This book could be that, easily, in less adept hands. But I'm still not through worrying about my intense reading pleasure in relation with a story that makes children fight to the death. No, of course the children aren't real, but to mangle a quote, they are living in imaginary gardens with real toads in them.
It makes me think of the short story by Ursula K LeGuin called “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”. In the story, LeGuin conjures a utopia whose perfection is tied, in some undefined yet concrete way, on treating on single child with the most unbelievable cruelty – never touched, never allowed to see the sun, nothing. Children, upon reaching the age of 16, are brought to see this child, as the basis for their adulthood. Most see and stay, but some simply walk away. I read this, and it felt kind of bloodless and psychomythic. Like, okay, whatever, fictional world. It felt like one of those indictments of people who are not abjectly impoverished that says, “No one should party while other people are suffering” I thought she was valorizing the walking away. Some time later, I freaked out, because I felt like I'd missed her point entirely. We all live in a society, in societies, where, right now, there are people living in the most shit-hole injustice, untouched, hungry, brutalized. I think probably the brutalized child is a fact of all societies, like it or not. Walking away doesn't make you better, it just makes you end up in another society with a different kind of kid in the basement. And if you're the child, walking away simply isn't an option.
I read this book in a swoon, compulsively. It was the kind of reading experience where I totally screwed myself by reading far into the the night, nervously checking the clock thinking “damn” as 1:15 flew by, then 2:45, knowing full well that kids would be up and jumping on me in six hours, five hours, just put the book down and sleep! If you could somehow concentrate and aerosolize this feeling, you would find me down by the railroad tracks, under a bridge, huffing powdered books out of bag, their glitter mixing with my drool and b.o.
And here's where the digression comes in. So, here, in my city, at some point in the last five years, it became a thing for the homeless to stand at the entrances of freeways and other major roads holding signs. They tend to say things like “wounded veteran” and “trying to get home” and “God bless.” In my driving about, I've seen that the cardboard signs lay folded in the shrubbery, waiting for the next person to come along, unfold, and stand on the edge of the frontage road. There's one on 54th and Nicollet that reads “absolute desperation.” At first this set me giggling, because I'm an asshole, but then it got me thinking. This is a true statement, and terrifying all the more because the sentiment is interchangeable; something that can written on a piece of cardboard and reused by any person standing on that corner. Not that I need to justify this, necessarily, but I live in a pretty extreme climate, and the people standing on these corners are not doing this for kicks, but because it's cold and they're hungry or jonesing for something or whatever, and this seemed like the best option available. The best option. Yikes.
I've had a long running joke with my husband about how we all live in bubbles of like-minded people, the kind of people with whom you argue vehemently about the nuances about how you all totally agree. We sort ourselves into the blindness of our own comfort, and I don't mean this just in the happy, healthy, developed world sense of comfort that I was born into. We take it farther, drawing bright red lines down the political aisle and using those lines to determine whom we respect and where we live. It's not a new thing, certainly, but in early new millennium America, I'm just floored by the widening gaps in our political discourse and how they are made manifest in the very real physical embodiment of the completeness of the gerrymander and the ease we all acquiesce to that reality. Taken as a whole, the country is awash in purple, but as you look from locality to locality, they flame bright blue or bright red as we sort ourselves into two Americas that exist in the comfort of local smugness balanced against that old, hoary American favorite, massive paranoia about what the other half is doing. This book takes the bubbles of our acquaintance and schematizes them into a distopian hell-hole.
It's a post-American America, with the center, the Capitol, ruling 12 districts that each supply their different products: electronics, coal, agricultural goods, etc. Maybe 75 years before, there had been a civil war, a rebellion by the districts ending in vigorous and complete quashing. As a reminder of the sin of rebellion, every year the Capitol chooses 2 children from each district, between the ages of 12 and 18, to fight in the Hunger Games. They fight to the death, until there is one kid standing. The whole event is, of course, televised. (I know that there has been some criticism that this plot has been used before, but this is sheer bone-headed stupidity. So what if Ice-T did it first?) This is not an economic/political system that makes a ton of sense, if you look at it too closely, but that's not the point, or it is the point exactly. Collins takes our American disconnects and makes them manifest, relocates the people with cardboard signs reading “absolute desperation” from the arteries of our Interstate system and concentrates them into concrete ghettos of poverty and subjugation.
And now for my love of the protagonist. I can see why this happens, because writers have to live with the people they create, but so often a writer's love of the character strips them of moral ambiguity, even while that ambiguity nips at their heels. This may be even more true for YA lit, with things like Bella Swan's clumsiness standing in for an actual character flaw, even while Bella herself wallows in self-centered satisfaction at her flattened aspect to everyone around her but Edward. (Yup, gotta get in the Twilight dig.) Katniss is competent and clueless and savage, a reminder to us old folks that sometimes the young have worlds of understanding that isn't based on experience, but on character. Or it is based on experience, but simply because they have less of it, doesn't make it something you can measure using the yardstick of duration.
I was nailed to the floor when Katniss made her first kill in the arena and doesn't have a what-have-I-done? melt-down, but is instead gratified by a horrible act that can never really compensate for the horrible acts enacted by the events preceding. We, as readers, are gratified, because it's what we want, some good Old Testament justice that spills a little blood to try to even the odds in a seriously unjust system. The writerly propensity to fig-leaf this murderous satisfaction with an immediate “Oh no! I'm so bad for loving this” is absent. This is not to say that Collins sees these actions as having no moral, personal impact – Katniss's mentor, who also survived the Hunger Games, is a constant, alcoholic reminder of how something like this might mess a brother up good.
There are plenty of themes I hate with a passion – say, “crazy makes you deep” for example – but one that's pretty high on the list is “you, reader, are a voyeur, and I, the author, will dish out a bunch of sick shit and blame it on you.” This is generally some lazy, lazy stuff; the kind of stuff used to plug the holes in the leaking boat of D-grade action films and misogynist bullpucky. This book could be that, easily, in less adept hands. But I'm still not through worrying about my intense reading pleasure in relation with a story that makes children fight to the death. No, of course the children aren't real, but to mangle a quote, they are living in imaginary gardens with real toads in them.
It makes me think of the short story by Ursula K LeGuin called “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”. In the story, LeGuin conjures a utopia whose perfection is tied, in some undefined yet concrete way, on treating on single child with the most unbelievable cruelty – never touched, never allowed to see the sun, nothing. Children, upon reaching the age of 16, are brought to see this child, as the basis for their adulthood. Most see and stay, but some simply walk away. I read this, and it felt kind of bloodless and psychomythic. Like, okay, whatever, fictional world. It felt like one of those indictments of people who are not abjectly impoverished that says, “No one should party while other people are suffering” I thought she was valorizing the walking away. Some time later, I freaked out, because I felt like I'd missed her point entirely. We all live in a society, in societies, where, right now, there are people living in the most shit-hole injustice, untouched, hungry, brutalized. I think probably the brutalized child is a fact of all societies, like it or not. Walking away doesn't make you better, it just makes you end up in another society with a different kind of kid in the basement. And if you're the child, walking away simply isn't an option.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Hunger Games.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-50 of 282) (282 new)
message 1:
by
Elizabeth
(new)
Dec 17, 2009 02:14pm
Awesome, Ceridwen, a totally great review. And I mean this in the best possible way; you've me sure that I don't want to read this one. Sounds amazing, really, but the complicated ritual game thing just drives me crazy. I can't stand it. I've never figured out why it fascinates so many writers either.
reply
|
flag
*
I too have problems writing reviews of books I really love - there are only so many superlatives in the English language, and when I use them all I end up sounding like a raving fangirl: OMIGOD YOU GUYS IT WAS LIKE TOTALLY AWESOME!!!1But your review here is wonderful. I need to read this book.
This book is excellent (I just finished it over the weekend) and I had the same issues with not wanting to put it down (or in my case, turn off the mp3 player). Great review--you've written all the things I wish I could, but don't have the ability to do.BTW, I'm about 2/3 of the way through Catching Fire and it's a great sequel.
Yes, you captured what's so great about Katniss, Ceridwen - her mix of cluelessness, determination, and skill. She's real, and she's cool, and you SO want her to win. Great review, yes, we pass by people living in awfulness daily...
And here's where the digression comes in. This made me laugh out loud - I was thinking it started a little earlier but damn, you pulled it all together.
I fully sympathize with your difficulties in discussing a really beloved book. Anytime I try to review the newest Terry Pratchett book I always feel so unfocused. Excitement and appreciation always seem so much less easy to organize than criticism.
just put the book down and sleep! If you could somehow concentrate and aerosolize this feeling, you would find me down by the railroad tracks, under a bridge, huffing powdered books out of bag, their glitter mixing with my drool and b.o. HA YES.
Abigail wrote: "ARGH! Another kick in the pants! I really do need to get to this series..."Why is it so hard...to wait for certain friends to read books you've loved. Abigail, and a few who shall remain nameless but you might know who you are!, I've been dying to see what you think. Silly readers who wait until a whole series is published! (Actually, rather smart if you have a hard time with cliffhangers.)
Elizabeth wrote: Sounds amazing, really, but the complicated ritual game thing just drives me crazy.Seriously, I'm with you. I reeeeally didn't want to read or like this, because it felt like putting my hand willingly into some super fake bear trap. There are so many ways this could have gone wrong - veering into cruel, fakey flagellation of the reader, but I don't think it did.
Jackie wrote: you SO want her to win.
Which is part of why I worried - I went into this with the pretty safe assumption that she would win, because there are sequels, and I'm not sure most YA lit would murder the protagonist in the first book. I feel like it's generally true, for me anyway, that we readers are inclined to root for the protagonist, regardless of whether its warranted. I like that Collins kept reminding me that there are other kids who were just as worthy - and in some cases, maybe more so - than Katniss. But the system was designed to make us forget that there are options other than "choose one" - something that Katniss's final choice in the arena (no spoilers!) I think illustrates really nicely.
Dori wrote: BTW, I'm about 2/3 of the way through Catching Fire and it's a great sequel.
I did compulsively read the sequel. I swear I put down this book and drove to the book store like a junky knifing toward a fix. Review forthcoming. But I've only recently gotten my brain around the first one, and I have some digesting to do still.
Thanks all, for your lovely comments.
not sure i want to read this before i read the book (i got it out of the library a few days ago), so i'll just comment on the first sentence. yes, it's a bitch to write about books we love. i really would like to write a review of Purple Hibiscus but don't know where to start. okay, i'll read this after i read the novel. i'm one of those people. i don't even read the back cover!
I really look forward to your thoughts on this, jo. Read the book now! Go! And write that Hibiscus review! I kind of love spoilers myself, because, well, I don't know, I'm kind of sick? Knowing the facts of the plot doesn't interfere with my experience of reading? I don't read a lot of mysteries though; I'm the kind of jerk who reads the last page first. What if I get hit by a bus?
Ceridwen wrote: "Knowing the facts of the plot doesn't interfere with my experience of reading? I don't read a lot of mysteries though; I'm the kind of jerk who reads the last page first. What if I get hit by a bus?"I DO THAT TOO, and people have treated me like an axe-murderer because of that! My husband especially can't deal with it, heh.
What if I get hit by a bus? What if I hate the book and never read to the end? Then I'll NEVER know. =0) I'm with you on the internalizing of this book Ceridwen--I can't even decide how many stars to give it. I loved it, I hated it... It made me think in a very profound, tumultuous way about the un-reality of our own lives. The lies we tell ourselves to make it through the day.
I really liked the analogy you make about the American political system. The differences between us are hangnail thin; but we treat them like the bloody Grand Canyon. And surely I can sell you some form of propaganda about health care or Cap and Trade. It doesn't matter what the differences are any longer; only that we fight to the death for them. Figuratively, for now.
And the visualization of "huffing powdered books"? Priceless.
A small yet important point of contention: All who stand by the freeway are not homeless. More importantly, most homeless people don't stand by the freeway and ask for money. It's just that the freeway standers are the most visible, the most bold, demanding an act of compassion that gets to you and I. Those people are called panhandlers. Defined by their actions and not by our assumptions.
The lies we tell ourselves to make it through the day.This is the thing about this book for me: It is in some ways aggressively fictional, because the way Panem works is kind of stupid, and well, a bunch of other stuff that I can't talk about, because then I'd be dropping spoilers. (All I'll say is: muttations.) Collins tricks you into watching the Hunger Games, because you, reader, are the fat cat in the Capitol, with your free time and your library card. You have to walk away, not read this book at all, if you want to stay unsullied by the events within. (So, go Elizabeth with your bad self! Read this not!) But then, I don't know, is watching really complacency? I mean, obviously it is on some level, but then I think about dropping my boy off at school this am, and one of his classmates was having a massive, rending tantrum, and they were all quietly watching as the teacher adeptly talked this screaming kid down. We're social creatures, and sometimes seeing a lesson is the same as learning the lesson.
Defined by their actions and not by our assumptions.
No, you're right. I knew when I chose that word that it wasn't really accurate. The finer gradations of poverty are something I have only theoretical knowledge of. Just to come back to the book, I really liked how Collins doesn't make the poor either morally degraded or morally superior. Katniss lives in a community, an impoverished one, but a community nonetheless. People suck or are awesome the way people suck or are awesome anywhere. Actually, same goes for the people of the Capitol. Katniss wants to hate them all, because they are so blind and wallowing in their comfort, but then they just turn out to be people.
Lisa wrote: "Silly readers who wait until a whole series is published! (Actually, rather smart if you have a hard time with cliffhangers.)"This was me for the longest time, due to the childhood trauma of not having the next book in a series and having to wait for my father to take me to the bookstore to buy it. Some things stay in your psyche for awhile (20 years or so...) I only recently broke this habit (starting with my exception for HP, which didn't exactly have cliffhangers thank goodness, but really expanding in the last year as I've been flying through books). Now there are so many people I can talk to about books I like that I don't want to miss out on the discussion while they are popular (even though the cliffhangers do still get to me.)
Ceridwen wrote: "I did compulsively read the sequel. I swear I put down this book and drove to the book store like a junky knifing toward a fix. Review forthcoming. But I've only recently gotten my brain around the first one, and I have some digesting to do still."
I'm really looking forward to your review. Your reviews really are great, whether you loved or hated the book. Since I can't review anything worth a damn, I admire those of you who can.
Great, great, terrific review from the book, to huffing book powder by the railroad tracks, to the men with their signs, to "The People Who Walk Away from Omelas," and back to The Hunger Games.Thank you kindly.
I know the proper response is "You're welcome," but that always makes me feel weird, so I say thank you instead, Julia.
For my Constitutional Law class, the professor just assigned The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas. I was trying to figure out all night what review it was where you talked about the story, and then I started reading the story and immediately remembered. It's that same "peace requires human sacrifice" thing, except in this case, "peace requires torture." And in this case, it's not even that sense that foreign countries don't matter, it's total disregard for people we consider "criminals." So creepy.
Wow. I'm incredibly impressed that LeGuin was assigned in a law class. I feel like I should probably re-read The Ones Who Walk Away, because I bet it would be different this time. Le Guin rules.
Yeah, I like my professor for that class. I thought it was cool that he assigned that reading because the rest of the assignment was a case talking about the presidential power to detain people who are considered "enemy combatants," but are still citizens of the U.S.
Thank you Carla! Just fyi, there is an edit function on your own comments, so you can go back and correct mistakes, if you need to. You just click the little edit thing in the lower right, next to the flag and delete links. (Of course, you can only edit your own comments, otherwise it would be anarchy.)Thanks again. I'm seriously excited for Mockingjay.
Wow, just wow. You really have a way with words. I read this review simply because I wanted to know if the book was any good and worth reading (I tend to be picky with what I read); but I now I feel like rushing off to the nearest library or bookstore to get my hands on the book. I can never write a review ungrudgingly because I feel the way I write it does not express the way I feel for it. But I think you pretty much summed up these great "ideas" (for lack of better words) perfectly. I found this a very interesting read.
I love this review to tears. Not only have you successfully (and finally) gotten me off my butt and out of making excuses that there is no more good YA fiction to read--I say this after having been to Borders a few days ago and stared down an entire YA section filled with vampire related books--you've given me a context and a perspective to look for and to take into account as I am reading. I am so glad I happened to read this before I picked this book up--I was barely considering reading this before your review! Of course, I did not get to read the entire thing, as soon as I read a line of spoiler, but from what I've read so far, I am anxious to get this book in my hands. Thanks!
It's really good, and not just in that it's-good-enough-for-children-because-they-are-stupid way. I hope you enjoy!
I'm confused :(The world - doesn't make much sense. Check.
A hardboiled heroine hardened through hardships thus not overly perturbed by violence. Check.
The game - doesn't make much sense. Check.
Plot twists practically announced with road signs. Check.
Character development - next to none. Check.
The book's entertaining for sure. But really, how do these 5 star reviews come about?
I'm not picking on yours - it was simply the first one in the list.
The book's entertaining for sure. But really, how do these 5 star reviews come about?I'm not picking on yours - it was simply the first one in the list.
I actually think this is a valid question - and I think all my noodling around at the beginning of the review skirts around it a bit. Part of it, for me anyway, is that I don't ask for fiction to be anything but fictional. Maybe this is a weird way to put it. I actively dislike fictions that attempt to draw reality on a one-to-one scale - it's the same reasons why I've never been drawn to stuff like Second Life - my god, I live like that, why would I want to play at living like that, or listen to someone else's stories of living like that. (And someone could probably point out an example of a social realism - or whatever this is called - that that I really do love, so grains of salt all around.)
Interestingly, if you look at something like Twilight, which this gets lumped with a lot, I think because they are both YA with female protags - the thing that killed me about Twilight was WHERE the unreality came in. Sure there's glittery vampires and stuff, which is obviously melodrama & symbolic insanity, but the social structures & trauma of Bella's everyday life were, for me anyway, too accurate, too real, and I hated that high school crap when I was living it, and I hate it still now. (Also, Smeyer is a terrible writer, etc, but this is old news and low hanging fruit.)
Wait, am I over-thinking this? I guess my stock answer when it come to star-ratings is that I rate on emotional reaction over literary merit - which is not to say that the two aren't interrelated most of the time. I also believe that the GR rating system has fine gradations of enjoyment, but almost none for dislike, so the difference between "I liked it" and "it was amazing" isn't a huge chasm - it's just gradations on the scale of enjoyment. I can't say I identified with Katniss exactly - I honestly think she's too well draw and too much of an individual for most readers to superimpose their experience over her - but I can say that I recognized her as a whole person, not just a stock character. Obviously, not everyone will agree with this, and that's fine too.
Pavel, I actually don't agree with any of the issues you bring up. By which I don't mean to say that one of us is wrong and one is right, but that ratings are pretty subjective, and once we've gotten over the hurdle of "can write complete sentences," it's pretty much all a matter of taste and what our own personal experiences make us think is reasonable or enjoyable.I mean, based on how I read the story, there was a lot of character insight and development for Katniss, Peeta and co. (Katniss being "hardboiled" wasn't a problem for me--I was thrilled to read a book with a protagonist who felt realistic, given the events she'd lived through.) The "game" and the world made sense to me. I don't remember how surprised I was by plot twists, but I do remember being shocked by events in the sequels. All this is just to say--I've loved books others have hated, and hated books others have loved, and it's just the way of the world.
Ceridwen wrote: "GR rating system has fine gradations of enjoyment"You're right. If I think of the star rating as a personal gradation of a personal experience (enjoyment in this case) it does make sense.
Not having read Twilight, the analogy is lost on me but as far as 'fiction' is concerned I don't have any qualms about 'unrealistic' as long as the world is coherent and there's a set of underlying 'rules' to the world pre-existing rather than invented on the fly to enable certain plot turn or device.
to Wealhtheow:
Oh that 'no one is wrong' approach don't sit too well with me, I beg your pardon :) I haven't read the sequels so cannot comment on those but here is an example of the game not making sense:
we're told that
temporary alliances are formed in the initial phase of the game
participants from some districts are trained for games
participants are allowed contact prior to games.
Yet the first battle scene at the Cornicopia does not correlate to these facts in any way - it's an all-against-all battle.
A better strategy for the prepared 'team' would be to eliminate single participants in the many-on-1 bouts and have a couple 'team' members secure resources for the team in the meanwhile.
BTW, Katniss is the character I liked quite a lot so i daresay 'hardboiled-ness' is a good quality. I would also add that her ability to enjoy the pre-game prep and festivities came as a total surprise to me but nevertheless it was written and felt as a very organic part of her character.
Pavel, your strategy seems like it could work to me--although as with any strategy in the Games, someone will probably betray everyone else. Alliances in the Games are made to be broken. And it's not like the Tributes don't make short term alliances...I seem to remember that the best-rated Tributes teamed up and picked off everyone else one-by-one directly after grabbing everything they could at the Cornicopia. I dunno, I'm not a big strategist, but the tactics used in the Hunger Games seemed A)reasonable and B)in keeping with creating a sense of imminent betrayal and death.
Ceridwen wrote: "I don't ask for fiction to be anything but fictional. Maybe this is a weird way to put it. I actively dislike fictions that attempt to draw reality on a one-to-one scale."You and I are so different it’s not even funny. I’ve been half-heartedly pecking away at a review of Mating and trying to figure out why, despite its total, knee-buckling brilliance, I haven’t let things get beyond the heavy petting stage. I decided it’s because the book’s so thoroughly fictional—a big, old-fashioned, plot-heavy novel. Love! Sex! Exotic locales! Important themes! And all of it fake, fake, fake.
You’ve heard this screed before. And so has everyone else. Which is why I probably won’t end up reviewing the sucker. I’m talking to you about it because you’re the only one who’ll put up with it.
The thing is, I can understand where you’re coming from. I can. Because I used to come from the same place. And sometimes I wish I could go back there.
Have you seen Adaptation? I can’t remember whether it’s as smart as it wants to be, but there’s a great scene where Nicolas Cage goes to this screenwriting seminar and asks the writing guru a question:
Sir, what if the writer is attempting to create a story where nothing much happens, where people don't change. They don't have any epiphanies. They struggle and are frustrated, and nothing is resolved... more a reflection of the real world.
And of course, Brian Cox just demolishes him, going into a tremendous, foulmouthed rant about love and murder and genocide and so on. It’s this awesome, over-the-top defence of traditional storytelling (and Hollywood) and I love it. But more and more I’m starting to sympathize with the Charlie Kaufman character. And that can’t be healthy.
Is this post long and self-indulgent enough for you? Because I COULD go on. I've got this whole mothballed review just sitting here.
Buck wrote: "Because I used to come from the same place. And sometimes I wish I could go back there."This is what I thought everyone went through as they got older, a move from children's books to YA literature to bad sci-fi/fantasy to good sci-fi/fantasy to literature to non-fiction...generally. But now I'm seeing that you may be an anomoly in this, Buck.
Eh?, I'm not sure that people move from speculative fiction to lit or non-fiction. Most people I know have a genre and pretty much stick with it. For me, my standards have gotten higher over the years, but no matter how well-written I want my adventures-with-elves, I still want elves. It's not as though literature is by its very nature more mature or sophisticated than good spec fic. And I don't think that non-fiction gets more satisfying the more well-read you become.(Although, I read YA, bad sf/f, good sf/f, lit and non-fiction all concurrently, so I might be a bad person to weigh in on this.)
The good majority of people don't move in a pattern from genre to genre as if graduating from one to another. Most well-read persons read a mixture of genres throughout their life. To graduate from one to another as such would leave entire worlds unexplored for a lifetime. A terrible thing to think I would never read sci-fi again because I had begun to read Kant.
I've been wondering because my reading taste has been changing. I used to want adventures-with-elves, too, all the time, but I don't find the same enjoyment with that anymore. Before stumbling onto this site, I tried to explain the change by developing the wacky idea that there was a ladder or stairway of reading development (I like orderly theories). I tried to read books that seemed more "grown-up" and couldn't figure out why I didn't like them, couldn't get the same immersion into the writing.It's all very duh. The obvious takes time to sink into my swamp of a brain.
Buck wrote: "Ceridwen wrote: "I don't ask for fiction to be anything but fictional. Maybe this is a weird way to put it. I actively dislike fictions that attempt to draw reality on a one-to-one scale."You a..."
This conversation reminds me of the short story The New Automaton Theater by Stephen Millhauser. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/14...
Eh? Eh! wrote: "Oooh, Ceridwen's coming! Popcorn!"Ha! No, I find I don't have much to say, as you all were representing for Team Fiction in my stead. And I do think this:
The good majority of people don't move in a pattern from genre to genre as if graduating from one to another. Most well-read persons read a mixture of genres throughout their life. To graduate from one to another as such would leave entire worlds unexplored for a lifetime.
is pretty much the truth of it.
And, i/r/t: I’ve been half-heartedly pecking away at a review of Mating and trying to figure out why, despite its total, knee-buckling brilliance, I haven’t let things get beyond the heavy petting stage. I decided it’s because the book’s so thoroughly fictional—a big, old-fashioned, plot-heavy novel.
I was over chit-chatting on Elizabeth's Hamlet review, and we were talking about the concept of world-building and how it's often a disastrous missing of the mark when it comes to fiction, how maybe detailing the world of the fiction too closely ends up showing off how fictional it all is. (Must get thesaurus.) Maybe this is why I didn't mind that the economic system in Hunger Games didn't make a ton of sense, because it does make a ton of emotional sense. Maybe the playset had cracks, but the characters breathed. I'd rather have a leaky stage than a robot. Of course, then you get into stuff where the playset has a trap-door, and you fall through it into thinking the author is a liar, and those trap-doors are personal. This metaphor has officially gone insane.
Also, I do like when series get into that slice of life stuff without the catharsis. I've been watching Buffy again recently, and some of the really enjoyable stuff is totally unrelated to the main thrust of the arc - it's just Willow and Xander talking in the hall. But stand-alone novels, and movies too, don't really have time for that - the drive to completion is the thing. I'm not sure I could handle that slicey-lifey stuff if there weren't an arc. I've never been able to read many diaries or memoirs because of this. I have an aversion to knowing too much about authors' lives - I have the New Criticism learned at my mother's knee to thank for my unease with diaries, because they're almost always the published diaries of writers, for obvious reasons. Then there's the added problem that so often memoirs slip into the mode of arcing a life, like a fiction, and then I think liar. That's my trap-door anyway.
This conversation reminds me of the short story The New Automaton Theater by Stephen Millhauser.
I've never heard of this collection, but I did find this handy GR review that really helped me out:
♥THIS BOOK IS ABOUT A GIRL WHO IS WRITING A PEN PAL FROM FAR AWAY UNTIL ONE DAY SHE FINDS OUT THAT HE IS RELATE TO ONE OF HER FRIENDS AND SHE MEETS HIM ONE DAY AND DECIDES HE IS WAY TO OLD FOR HER AND THAT THEY WOULD BE BETTER OF AS JUST GOOD FRIENDS!♥
You know what's funny? That synopsis almost describes our relationship--in a distorted, funhouse mirror kind of way.
Is that from the Nancy Drew girl??? She typed it wrong. Allow me to translate:DiiS BOOK iiS 4BOUT 4 GiiRL TH4T iiS WRiiTiiG 4 P3N P4L FROM F4R 4W4Y UNTiiL 1 D4Y SH3 FiiNDZ OUT TH4T H3 iiS R3L4T3 TO 1 OF H3R FRii3NDZ 4ND SH3 M33TZ HiiM 1 D4Y 4ND D3CiiD3S H3 iiS W4Y 2 OLD 4 H3R 4ND TH4T TH3Y WOULD B3 B3TT3R OF 4S JUST GOOD FRii3NDZ!
Whew! That took way too much effort.





