Sorry, you must be a member of the group to do that. Join this group.
Mockingjay
question
Did the First Person Story Telling Hurt Mockingjay?
Mark
Dec 20, 2013 10:57AM
I am a little behind the times and just finished Mockingjay. I thought it was good but not great, the ending especially, and I think the reason for the letdown was that the story telling was done in the first person from Katniss’ point of view only.
In my opinion this worked wonderfully for The Hunger Games since it all revolved around her and let the reader be surprised by events right along with Katniss. With Catching Fire Collins shoehorned it in to make it work, but the story started to feel overly limiting since so much big picture activity was happening away from Katniss. It left the reader being told of events rather than living them with the character as in the first book; especially the first half of Catching Fire. With Mockingjay I think the first person story telling really did the story a disservice throughout the entire book.
So many rich characters could have been delved into with great detail along with the motivation behind their actions. This added depth was not available to Collins because everything had to be seen by Katniss and interpreted through her lense for the reader. This was particularly apparent to me in the last 3 or 4 chapters where everything happened away from Katniss while she was unconscious or locked up. Plus the reader was left assuming what character’s motivations were for their actions in the end rather than knowing for sure.
Leaving the reader with a little mystery and self-interpretation in the end can go a long way, but I think Collins left far too much open because Katniss didn’t really know, therefore the reader didn’t. Some people may call that artistic and sophisticated storytelling, but for this reader it feels more like a missed opportunity to make something good great.
Any thought, am I way off base here?
In my opinion this worked wonderfully for The Hunger Games since it all revolved around her and let the reader be surprised by events right along with Katniss. With Catching Fire Collins shoehorned it in to make it work, but the story started to feel overly limiting since so much big picture activity was happening away from Katniss. It left the reader being told of events rather than living them with the character as in the first book; especially the first half of Catching Fire. With Mockingjay I think the first person story telling really did the story a disservice throughout the entire book.
So many rich characters could have been delved into with great detail along with the motivation behind their actions. This added depth was not available to Collins because everything had to be seen by Katniss and interpreted through her lense for the reader. This was particularly apparent to me in the last 3 or 4 chapters where everything happened away from Katniss while she was unconscious or locked up. Plus the reader was left assuming what character’s motivations were for their actions in the end rather than knowing for sure.
Leaving the reader with a little mystery and self-interpretation in the end can go a long way, but I think Collins left far too much open because Katniss didn’t really know, therefore the reader didn’t. Some people may call that artistic and sophisticated storytelling, but for this reader it feels more like a missed opportunity to make something good great.
Any thought, am I way off base here?
reply
flag
I don't mind the first person narrative but the active voice got annoying after awhile. I used to admire writers who could use the active voice, because imo, it's harder to use. But as the action built up in Mockingjay, the active voice became imo, cumbersome.
Not really, I mean at times I wanted to know what it was like in another characters view, and in fact I only felt this way after you asked. But it don't think it ruined the book in any way, but I must admit I would like to know how Finnick or Peeta felt during the book
Yes, I think both the first person and the present tense hurt this book. But it might also have been annoying had Collins suddenly changed it. I still think there were ways that she could have kept us better informed than she did, though.
Actually, I really think the ending was the best part of this book. The last chapters, especially after the incident with the children and the bombs, made me think I could almost forgive the author for the first part. They were sad chapters but I believe a book based on that kind of horror should have ended with a feeling of desperation as it did. But I do agree that seeing things only through Katniss' eyes didn't let the reader experience the best part of the story.
On the other hand, this is exactly the reason I believe the movies have the potential to be greater than the book. The director will be free to reconstruct the scenes we only "heard about" while reading this book.
On the other hand, this is exactly the reason I believe the movies have the potential to be greater than the book. The director will be free to reconstruct the scenes we only "heard about" while reading this book.
Mark Henrikson
I appreciated the ending Collins came up with as far as how each character wound up; depressing but realistic.
The piece that really ruined it for me ...more
· flag
The piece that really ruined it for me ...more
· flag
Ana Campanha
I understand the feeling. Besides "understanding" that the story was only told by Katniss I also felt disappointed about not knowing what was explicit
...more
· flag
· flag
I think you're completely right. I couldn't understand why I liked the first one (and even the second) so much but really disliked the third one, but now I think you've figured it out. It's exciting to hear the story from Katniss's perspective when she's running around in the Hunger Games, but the reader feels the same boredom her character must have when she was cooped up for so much of the third. Thanks for solving the mystery!
SC has said that the trilogy is about the affects of war ie. PTSD. War veterans on the Amazon site have said how accurate it is. I think SC intended that the reader should feel the apathy, disillusionment and hopelessness Katniss feels. We don't hear much outside of Katniss's POV because Katniss is beyond caring about it. The trial, as curious as the reader might be about it, isn't important to Katniss's story. Only the outcome is.
MJ is a bit like a detective story, you need to find the clues to the plotting going on behind the scenes because Katniss doesn't lay it out for you. She's either too busy in the heat of battle or too depressed to care. A rushed, or incomplete reading prevents you from seeing them.
The number of people who hadn't worked out why Katniss voted 'yes' for another Games is substantial. I don't know if that's the reader's fault or SC for not making it clearer.
MJ is a bit like a detective story, you need to find the clues to the plotting going on behind the scenes because Katniss doesn't lay it out for you. She's either too busy in the heat of battle or too depressed to care. A rushed, or incomplete reading prevents you from seeing them.
The number of people who hadn't worked out why Katniss voted 'yes' for another Games is substantial. I don't know if that's the reader's fault or SC for not making it clearer.
I think that the book being written in first person really helped me understand the story A LOT. Especially Katniss's actions.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
