The Hunger Games (The Hunger Games, #1) The Hunger Games question

Too Violent?
Stefanie Câmara Manoel Stefanie Jun 07, 2012 07:52PM
I think that Suzanne Collins should've died down on the violence... anyone else agree?

It's a book about kids being chucked into an arena and forced to kill each other... IT'S GOING TO BE VIOLENT!!!

I think people thought it WAS too violent. You can't always sugar coat war. I mean it's kids killing kids, it wouldn't sound right if she said " And the girl lightly tapped her head but because the girl hurt her head before she died", " boo-hoo" no. I think that because of people thinking that it was too violent that they told their friends and that's why everyone is afraid to read it. I don't think it was really violent at all. just a few parts.

Nothing quite like a book about poverty, strife, war, and a fight-to-the-death with very little violence. Very real, very....gritty.

Look, people worry that children are going to be desensitized by too much violence, but when you're talking about a story like the one depicted in The Hunger Games, shying away from the violence can actually do more harm than good. Would you rather your kid be horrified at the things going on in the book, or sit around thinking, "Huh...fights to the death aren't so bad"?

People can be extremely violent. That's life.

Kate Kid (last edited Jun 08, 2012 02:27PM ) Jun 08, 2012 02:27PM   0 votes
It's a killing game and to tell you the truth it wasn't that violent. She could have writen every single detail about how they died but she didn't. To me it wasn't that violent at all. Belive me, it could have been 10 times worse!

At first I was turned off by the violence of the book but by looking at the overall tone and theme of the series you cannot help but agree that it is something that cannot be avoided nor toned down.

No, considering that's kind of the entire point of the book. I actually hated how they toned down the violence in the film. Yes, seeing children being murdered is a horrible thing but that's the premise of the series. Don't get me wrong, I really loved the movie, but I think they could've portrayed the violence better. After all, this is not a CHILDREN's book, it's Young Adult. There is a big difference.

Devora I feel the same way but still loved the movie.
Jul 26, 2012 04:09PM · flag

There is no such thing as too much violence!

I think the entire power and depth of the book rested on it's representation of senseless violence. You're supposed to be outraged, that's the whole point. So no, I don't agree. It was strongly written and dared to push the envelope and say some really important things about society and how shallow we can be, and too about how precious freedom is and how powerful we can be together, fighting for the right things. It's one of my favorite series now and always will be.

I didn't think it was violent, but cruel. But you gotta love how Collins took a twist to even out that cruelty by having two of the players falling in love. Although, that can be also be a cliche.

if you think this book is violent you should read the forest of hands and teeth

For me I actually thought it wasn't violent enough. I know that it's YA, but with the premise being a fight to the death it didn't depict enough of it for me personally. I think I was expecting more because I had read Battle Royal about a year before. If you want a book with a similar premise, but a lot more violent and gritty, pick this up. It's amazing. Having said all that there's no way she could have kept it in first person and added more violence and kept the book as narratively tight. For me one of the big reasons I like this book so much is the fact that that we're seeing it from Kat's viewpoint.

deleted member Jun 08, 2012 04:49AM   0 votes
yeah it waz seriously violent but awesome too:)
no saying i think bein violent is awesome or anything

What's not violent about kids being forced to kill kids???

Everyone should respect other's opinions. Also, I'm on both sides.

ya it wasn't that bad when you think about all the violent stuff kids watch nowadays..... it could have been alot worse and I have a feeling this was the toned down version of what the book could have been. Plus the book was more realistic and that was the main theme, it would have been different if it was un-nesscasary violence but it wasn't.

its not you idiots

well, war isn't a kind suject. so I disagree. by making it graphic and violent, it made the readers connect to the characters more, and realize how sad and depressing it is. cause if she just barely made it violent, people would have been like 'nah. who cares?' but, by making it violent, people were instead like 'whoa! this's...supercalifragileisticexpialydocious! yes, it's violent, but It's like you're right there! and the suspense is amazing!'

so, all in all, I don't think that it was too violent

S.L.J. (last edited Jun 08, 2012 02:33PM ) Jun 08, 2012 02:33PM   -2 votes
Not violent enough. The berries, the off-screen deaths. it's like they were afraid to show it.

Kimberly naw, i think it just didn't have nu-necessary violence. she could have made it more violent, but as someone said before, violence was not the main the ...more
Jun 11, 2012 04:21PM · flag

back to top