Small Government Book Fan Club discussion
This topic is about
The Hunger Games Trilogy Boxset
General Book Discussions
>
The Hunger Games Series
date
newest »
newest »
Read the books and I was pleasantly surprised at how good the first one was...it went downhill from there. Book two was iffy and three was just atrocious. The author's portrayal of how war is waged was so bad that I actually felt bad for her father, who she credited with advising her. Just the image of Katnis shooting down bombers with a bow and arrow, explosively tipped or not, while soldiers with modern weaponry were helpless just made me shake my head.
Mod
Mod
The heroine, Katniss, is not a strong character. She is not really a warrior or a leader. She is constantly manipulated and is filled with self-doubt. She can't even decide which boy she likes best. Like so many YA stories, the "protagonist" goes on an epic adventure and things happen TO her. She doesn't DO much of anything. Except think and worry and doubt. It's not my intention to slam the books or the author but I think that a strong female protagonist would have made for a more compelling adventure.
OOps. My reading of the first two books was super-positive on the libertarian scale. But I got sidetracked and could not get to the third book, so did not know how the trilogy ended. I have been recommending the series (though no comments on the third book). (See my review of #Catching Fire: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/... ) Guess that was a big mistake. Will read it for sure now, just in case you all are missing something positive in it, but will stop recommending the series till I finish it.
Steve wrote: "The heroine, Katniss, is not a strong character. She is not really a warrior or a leader. She is constantly manipulated and is filled with self-doubt. She can't even decide which boy she likes best..."I think this could be a good point. It definitely applies to Katniss, but I can't say I have much experience with many other YA stories. From my understanding of other popular YA stories like Harry Potter and Twilight (sorry, like I said I don't have much experience), this doesn't seem to be the case. Before reading the series, I actually thought it would be safe to assume a benevolent outlook would be applied because of the intended audience. I was wrong.
Also, I don't know about you, but I still had hopes for Katniss to pull out heroic qualities after the second book. It seemed like she was growing in her convictions and even making a little progress with the love triangle situation. For me, it wasn't until the third book that the Katniss you described became apparent.
Patrick wrote: "OOps. My reading of the first two books was super-positive on the libertarian scale. But I got sidetracked and could not get to the third book, so did not know how the trilogy ended. I have been ..."I enjoyed the first book and I didn't dislike the second book. Actually, the only negatives I had on the first book were the ones you mentioned in your review (my review is very similar although you have more details) and the fact that it depends on the rest of the series too much. I understand the purpose of sequels, but I still enjoy when a book is more of an end itself, and sequels just carry on. So I can't blame you for recommending it.
Also, I've been told my negative views on outcome of the book are a little extreme, so maybe you can fill me in with some positives if you get around to it.
I would compare Katniss to characters like Alice (in Wonderland) or Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz. These character are thrust into situations by external forces. Then they travel to different places and meet strange people. These characters don't drive the plot, the plot drives them. Often, when they do achieve victories, it is by accident. I'm not suggesting that these stories aren't enjoyable reads. Only that I think that a female protagonist (if that word is even appropriate) should be less of a spectator.
Steve wrote: "I would compare Katniss to characters like Alice (in Wonderland) or Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz. These character are thrust into situations by external forces. Then they travel to different place..."Interesting comparison. I would mostly agree with your analysis, because I agree that Katniss is doomed due to external forces. But in Katniss's case, I think there is more of an offensive, implied, human inadequacy to deal with the external forces. I do not get the same degree of this feeling with Alice or Dorothy. Suzanne Collins's view is "darker" than that of just an external world controlling a mindless character (as I think Alice is and to a lesser extent Dorothy). Katniss is purposely put into situations where heroic human characteristics are needed. Further, Katniss displays potential for obtaining and utilizing these characteristics to her success. This makes it far harder for me to enjoy (proved impossible with these books quite honestly).
Katniss's potential is shown:
1. Taking care of her family as a kid - I do not believe one loaf given by Peeta breaks this point.
2. Refusing to accept the rule change in book one - This was a conscious decision not to lose who she wanted to be, it wasn't forced upon her as the author might want you to think. She was able to think up the solution and succeed.
3. Protecting Prim and Peeta's life at all costs throughout
4. Choosing and affirming to rebel in book two - She is able to clearly see the evil after certain events, but she is seeing it. Not being forced into it.
5. The longing to bring justice to Snow.
6. Tricking and killing coin.
Thanks for the response. This one made me think a lot. I started writing a post thinking I disagreed, but ended up writing myself into a point where I saw it was just a question of degree for me.
All excellent observations. It's interesting to me that later in the series, it is the rebels who manipulate her into playing the role of the Mockingjay and restrict her from actual combat. Again she is being used by forces greater than herself.
Interesting thread. I picked up Catching Fire from the library 12 days ago, just started it yesterday, and am trying to get finished with it before it is due on Friday. Katniss is a girl, who can hunt animals, thrust into a situation way beyond her abilities. There is a huge difference between hunting animals who respond instinctively and fighting organized criminality (the Capitol). I'm really not surprised that she is having difficulty in book two. She is reacting based on the emotions of the moment as any untrained person would do. Being able to respond (not react) requires extensive training to the point you are capable of suppressing emotions out of the equations and incapable of forgetting protocol under pressure. A tall order for a girl who has practiced little more than insubordination by hunting in the forbidden zone.
I'm interested to see if that's how it all plays out through the series or if there is a clear agenda that deviates from what would be a girls emotional reactions beyond her ability (training) to think under pressure.
Funny, I had to go pick up the book to remember how the ending went down, an author should probably be embarrassed to hear something like that. The plot at the end was so convoluted, I forgot how it ended, I just remember a grinding sequence of battles, injuries, and escapes. This thread in general seems full of complaints either about Katniss as protagonist or against the author making the world unbelievable and malevolent. I am okay with Katniss, if only because there was never a minute in the story, probably never a minute in her life, that someone wasn't holding a gun to her head. Given that constraint, she was pretty good at finding options and staying true to herself.
The author noted somewhere that she was inspired by the juxtaposition of the invasion of Iraq and some episode of "Survivor" or some similar brutally humiliating reality show sharing her TV. The novel was an allegory about media manipulation and propaganda, with a good dose of PTSD. It indeed lacked realism. But given the point she wanted to make, I'd say the malevolence was appropriate. [SPOILER] If district 13 had truly saved the day, or Katniss had been able to turn into liberty Jesus and outwit both the capital and district 13, that would been even more bizarre than the ending we got. Maybe the author could have had them reinvent the Internet to find the truth? How could Katniss win? And if she did, how would that change the message? If Katniss had won, that would mean "Don't worry, just elect a really nice president next time, then everything will be okay!" Or maybe Katniss could just read John Galt's speech to Snow and Coin and they would have given up their power lust to usher in the libertarian utopia. Or Katniss could turn into John Galt, invent a perpetual motion generator, and persuade everyone to follow the nonaggression principle. I guess.
Mod
There are only a few ways a dystopian ending can go-
1. Oppressors win- freedom loses (1984 and too many to count; most dystopias have dark endings)
2. Oppressors overthrown or heroes escape; the story ends there and the reader fills in the details- freedom wins by implication (Anthem, Equilibrium movie)
3. Oppressors overthrown, but replaced by revolutionaries who are just as bad- freedom loses (Hunger Games)
4. Oppressors, and then the bad revolutionaries, are overthrown- freedom wins (Shadow Children)
Of course there's the "WTF just happened?" ending like The Giver, but that doesn't count.
In the end, it comes down to what you're looking for when picking up a dystopian novel in the first place.
**I made slight edits to clarify Realism, Naturalism, and Romantic Realism, hopefully a notification wasn't sent every time."The plot at the end was so convoluted"
- I agree. I started to think this would be around 25% into the third book. I should have guessed it from the amount of ground the second book covered in terms of the revolution plot line.
"I am okay with Katniss, if only because there was never a minute in the story, probably never a minute in her life, that someone wasn't holding a gun to her head. Given that constraint, she was pretty good at finding options and staying true to herself"
- As I stated above, I agree with this in books one and two. That's why I was upset with the ending. Katniss showed potential despite the environment, then at the end of three, she accepts her fate and her newly controlled life.
I'm not sure what to think of the last part of your post. I put the information about Rand in the intro to give some information about myself for friend requests, and also to let people know my aesthetic philosophy. Being a small government group, I figured her philosophy might be known by some, and if it was, anyone with this same philosophy might be able to agree or disagree with me from this POV. I did not expect or want this book to end like Atlas Shrugged.
It's also a little confusing since your sarcasm states that it would have been less a work of Realism had the ending been different, or similar to Atlas Shrugged, and therefore worse. Rand was a proponent of what she called "Romantic Realism", not Realism. And my posts have actually implied that it had too much of a Realist flavor (actually Naturalist..more in last paragraph). The main post from a Realist perspective in this thread was one that thought that Katniss was an appropriate protagonist.
So to skip the sarcastic questions and answer your main question:
"How could Katniss win?"
- She didn't even have to 'win' given the nature of her environment. This book could still have possibly been enjoyable to me if she would have lost in a physical sense: died fighting, been forced to live on to fight another day under another tyranny, or forced to fight for the best of two evils. But my view, expressed in this blog post, is that she died in spirit at the end of the final book.
Also, my gripe is with the entire third book, not specifically the ending. The author chose the specific characteristics of 13 and Katniss that did not have to be. It brings in too much Realism (to the point it might be more accurate to say Naturalism) with the nature of 13 and weaknesses of protagonists as I mentioned in other posts.
Masha wrote: "I haven't read the series, but I have read enough dystopias to know that the ending is always tricky and could, if handled badly, ruin the whole thing.There are only a few ways a dystopian ending..."
Masha,
I guess I was thinking it was not going to be a typical dystopia. But I think your summation of the types is good.
I had these expectations because it was very popular among YA's and the whole trend of YA books right now is for benevolence (Harry Potter, Twighlight).
Also, as I mentioned in my post to Dave, #2 would have been OK for me. Even #3 could have possibly been enjoyable if Katniss wouldn't have died in spirit.
Hunger Games ending does give a possibility of an interpretation between #4 and #2, and I was expecting to have people defend it from this POV. That's another reason I made this topic. I wanted to hear this POV. But it seems I've had more people agree with me than not.
Mod
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Thanks. I read these some time ago.
Thanks for the link and another review. Good review, Mike. The review picks up on some protagonist issues even in the enjoyable first book.
I waited until I finished the third book to write my review on the first, which I guess is a little unfair. But as Mike said, the third brings the whole series down.
My original review is here:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27...
The issue I found with the protagonist, strictly from the first book, was the fact the good guys needed to protect her with white lies so often. She seemed too smart to need this much protection. This is similar to the instances in Mike's review where Katniss seems to lose grips with her intelligence.
Sorry for too much sarcasm. There is definitely something disappointing about the series, though I'm not so sure what it is. The economy isn't believable, but that's not so important. Maybe I am flipping my previous attitude - Katniss needed to come up with a way to win, for the districts to stick together, to deflect the manipulations coming from the capital. That is a tall order for a young protagonist, but I'd love to have seen it.
Mod
Mod
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matched Looks ok. But perhaps to much of a female focus? I noticed that focus in Hunger Games, but it did not bother me too much.
Mod
Mod
Maybe you should use a ruler on your hand????
I read it Vlad. I wouldn't call it plagiarism, LOL.The ideas are similar of course, maybe very similar but that's true of a lot of books.
Anyway, I agree it's well worth reading.
Some background: I am a laissez faire capitalist and proponent of Objectivism (philosophy of Ayn Rand).
The first book of the series is entertaining and hard to put down. The story hints at themes centered on the importance of the independent mind and person in a society. Given this, I was a little excited to read the 2nd and 3rd books, but in the end, let down.
***Spoilers Below***
By the end of the third book, the author clearly portrayed her malevolent views on the universe. The protagonists were basically tricked through the entire 2nd and 3rd books. The power of the evil mind triumphed over the good's ability to use theirs. Then, after their failures, the protagonists accepted their new role in life - still not free - and the impossibility of escaping the corrupt nature of human and governments. I think even "1984" and "We" have better endings than this, because at least their minds are controlled (I have not read these books in awhile, but this is what I remember of them).
Soooo...
I read these books based on a suggestion. I decided to pull trigger based on a wikipedia summary of the plot and to get away from my streak of non-fiction.
Questions:
1. Have you been suggested to read these books?
2. What did you think of them?
3. I'm new to Goodreads and am looking for people who have like minded interests to "Friend". Feel free to add me so I can follow your feed and views on books!
Thanks.