Hunger Games

[Jocassee]

I started the first book this afternoon. The main character is from a place in the coal country that could be Alabama, WV, or PA. and is shipped off to a shining Capitol in the west, called Panem ("Bread") to participate in that civilizations version of the gladiator games. The denizens of that burg also have Latin names.

So far I'm getting a very strong red state vs blue state vibe from the book. Is that misplaced?

I'm too lazy to post a full out review, but I'll contribute my impressions as they come.

[Brad Johnson]

Finished the series not too long ago.  Not a bad read.  I think your red/blu vibe is misplaced.  More of a people-in-power vs freedom-for-the-opressed thing.

Gonna be a movie, too.  Trailer is on youtube.

Brad

[MillCreek]

My wife says that these books have replaced 'Harry Potter' as the popular books amongst the upper elementary and lower middle school grades.  She sees a lot of kids reading them.

[seeker_two]

Gonna be a movie, too.  Trailer is on youtube.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2402131481

Kinda has a The Handmaid's Tale vibe to me....

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099731/

[SteveS]

I don't see the red v. blue thing, either.  

It does remind me a lot of The Handmaid's Tale and several other dystopian stories.

[RevDisk]

Eh, think it's a bit more basic.  "Power corrupts."

Or "All politicians are evil twisted creatures". 


That lady in the end?  Got what she deserved.

[BReilley]

I finished the first book moments ago, having read it on recommendation by my wife.  I guess lots of her students had been reading it, too.  I enjoyed the book, though it's certainly written for school-age kids(still, it's refreshing to have a book carry itself without sex, profanity or unduly gratuitous violence).  There were a few points where suspension of disbelief was not possible, but I'll forgive that... I've read much more far-fetched stuff.

Come to think of it, the book bears many similarities to "Tunnel In the Sky".  Main character capable and savvy but also dense in some ways, an engineered, controlled test of survival, even a "stobor" creature to be afraid of.

Worth reading.  Wonder whether the movie will be any good or if they will turn it into a gory action flick and neglect Katniss' internal conflicts.

Minor spoilers follow.

Political themes were many:
Central planning pays off only for the planners
Abrogation of private property rights
Abolition of any sort of personal weapon(including hunting implements)
Diminished worth of the individual, who is absolutely subject to the capital-S State
Highly restrictive laws - at one point a character mentions that anyone is at everyone else's mercy because "who hasn't committed a crime?"
Overly harsh punishments, "making an example" of lawbreakers
Etc etc.

I got no red-vs-blue vibe.  If anything, the book is a warning against the concentration of power(or the concentration of wealth, but I think that's presented as a symptom and not the illness) and the diminishment of the individual.

[Jocassee]

I finished the first book moments ago, having read it on recommendation by my wife.  I guess lots of her students had been reading it, too.  I enjoyed the book, though it's certainly written for school-age kids(still, it's refreshing to have a book carry itself without sex, profanity or unduly gratuitous violence).  There were a few points where suspension of disbelief was not possible, but I'll forgive that... I've read much more far-fetched stuff.

Come to think of it, the book bears many similarities to "Tunnel In the Sky".  Main character capable and savvy but also dense in some ways, an engineered, controlled test of survival, even a "stobor" creature to be afraid of.

Worth reading.  Wonder whether the movie will be any good or if they will turn it into a gory action flick and neglect Katniss' internal conflicts.

Minor spoilers follow.

Political themes were many:
Central planning pays off only for the planners
Abrogation of private property rights
Abolition of any sort of personal weapon(including hunting implements)
Diminished worth of the individual, who is absolutely subject to the capital-S State
Highly restrictive laws - at one point a character mentions that anyone is at everyone else's mercy because "who hasn't committed a crime?"
Overly harsh punishments, "making an example" of lawbreakers
Etc etc.

I got no red-vs-blue vibe.  If anything, the book is a warning against the concentration of power(or the concentration of wealth, but I think that's presented as a symptom and not the illness) and the diminishment of the individual.

This is very well said. I slammed through the first book in a little less than 24 hours and really enjoyed it. My initial red-vs-blue prognosis is, I think, a result of the historical allegories I've drawn in my head between our own corupt government and the final centuries of the Roman empire, which is emphasized fairly explicitly for the ruling civilization in the book. Violence as entertainment, grotesque and/or absurd body modifications as "beauty," Extreme cultural shallowness, ignorance of history or willful twisting of it by the media and government in the form of education--these are all trends in society now, but admittedly cannot all be distilled into a red/blue conflict.

However an all-powerful, governing central city that attempts to pit outlying territories against themselves, extracting resources while simultaneously regulating their own use--the sitution in the book is extreme, but follows a trend (as I see it).  I cannot help think of the cultural enmity that exists in our own country between the elite and those in rural areas that feed them resources. Have to drive 30 miles to work? "Gas prices are going to skyrocket" so that we can save the earth. Trying to grow food? Don't raise any dust. And so on.

[Jocassee]

I just finished the third and final book.

I enjoy good books but I suck at identifying literature. So I have no idea how to grade it as such. But if I had to guess this series will age well in the annals of fantasy literature.

I'll try to sum up more completely later, but the ending about damn near made me cry.

[BryanP]

I haven't read them myself.  My stepdaughters both agree that the first book is phenomenal and the ending of the third is a complete letdown. I'll have to find out sometime.

[Jocassee]

I haven't read them myself.  My stepdaughters both agree that the first book is phenomenal and the ending of the third is a complete letdown. I'll have to find out sometime.

This book is a letdown only in the sense that it does not have a happy ending. It also sucks all the glory from war (but not the heroism). I think Collins may have been attempting to suck all the morality from war and violence, but in my opinion she negates that conclusion before the end by the spectacular cruelty displayed and the necessary violent (and morally just) reaction.

The book has a number of similarities with Lord of the Rings--the basically good, but at times inattentive hero absorbed in his/her struggles who carries the burdens of a much larger population. The cast of supportive yet mildly suicidal followers, who, because of their better grasp of the larger picture lay down their lives without hesitation for the furtherance of the cause. Katniss, unarguably, trips along her path of destruction much more ignorantly than Frodo ever did, partly because she has been kept in the dark and partly because of her at times infuriating self absorption--though that trait grows harder to judge as the emotion weight she is carrying drastically increases toward the end of the story.

Of course the other thing that sort of infuriated me is that Katniss is basically a stone cold bitch most of the way through the book. Accepting affection only tentatively, and never physically, she strung both Gale and Peeta along in a VERY Stephanies Myers-like fashion. Since the book was written by a woman, I guess I have to accept the excuse given at face value that there was simply too much going on emotionally for her to let go to the level required to accept or spurn the affections of Gale or Peeta. The final selection of Peeta makes sense for the reason given in the final pages of the novel--that she and Gale would not have made a match because their personalities were too similar. Two warriors, two killers. Emotionally, they did not complete each other. I don't have the book in front of me--there was a little more to it but that's the gist of it. This conclusion is interestingly similar to that in J K Rowling's series. Harry and Hermione could never be together--neither of them could provide what the other needed. They were both great leaders. Warriors. Of those who faced great trials in the book, they alone survived to bear the emotional aftermath and live in a world that may perhaps never understand what they went through. They made a great team--but both of them married the "nice guys" in their lives.

Speaking of which--a couple of side notes. Why did Katniss finally choose Peeta (aside from the final, given reason)? Gale was the provider. Peeta was the protector. Two sides of the same coin? I may be lingering over this issue but it stuck in my craw. And I didn't know exactly who I was rooting for anyways. If I hadn't stumbled upon a mild spoiler I would have guessed halfway through the third book that Katniss dies single and lonely, with no one able to cope with her memories but herself.

Secondly. I imagine that for some readers, the way personal drama affected the greater story arc was annoying. I personally rather enjoyed it and found it rather Shakespearean, if not utterly realistic. It did make sense to me however in the way Collins created such a small world, that relationships would leave less space between actions and reactions--even on a national scale.

Overall, I would give this book a 8 out of 10 on the pop literature scale, and perhaps a 6 out of 10 on the classical scale.

[RevDisk]

This book is a letdown only in the sense that it does not have a happy ending. It also sucks all the glory from war (but not the heroism). I think Collins may have been attempting to suck all the morality from war and violence, but in my opinion she negates that conclusion before the end by the spectacular cruelty displayed and the necessary violent (and morally just) reaction.

There ain't glory in war. Said glory exists in books, movies and political speeches about war. Wars are a combination of ego/stupidity/hubris, business and politics. Never forget that.

As for the ending, the lady did what had to be done in the only way it could have been done. There is infinitely more glory in what she did than any war waged by humanity thus far.

Of course the other thing that sort of infuriated me is that Katniss is basically a stone cold bitch most of the way through the book. Accepting affection only tentatively, and never physically, she strung both Gale and Peeta along in a VERY Stephanies Myers-like fashion. Since the book was written by a woman, I guess I have to accept the excuse given at face value that there was simply too much going on emotionally for her to let go to the level required to accept or spurn the affections of Gale or Peeta. The final selection of Peeta makes sense for the reason given in the final pages of the novel--that she and Gale would not have made a match because their personalities were too similar.

*blink*

I thought you spent time in places where folks risked starving to death? Her attitude as a "stone cold bitch" is moreso "staying alive and trying to keep the few people in her life alive". Starvation does that to a person. That's like getting angry at winter for having the audacity of being cold.

She strung Peeta along under duress. Snow was intentionally trying to get her to feel for Peeta in order to gain leverage over her. Not giving too much of a hell about either of them would have bad for business. Can't threaten someone with nothing to lose. So you give them something to lose, and then threaten it.

She didn't go for Gale for the reason she articulated more than once. Good hunting partners are hard to find.

[Jocassee]

There ain't glory in war. Said glory exists in books, movies and political speeches about war. Wars are a combination of ego/stupidity/hubris, business and politics. Never forget that.

As for the ending, the lady did what had to be done in the only way it could have been done. There is infinitely more glory in what she did than any war waged by humanity thus far.

You are correct and I didn't mean to insinuate that there is glory in war. I suppose my beef, a little better articulated, is the way she sets up the "glorious" scenes of a just war --speeches, shooting down airplanes, etc, only too pull the rug out from underneath and say "HA! fooled you, all war-makers are equally evil." At least that's what it felt like, especially considered--all other things apart from the attempted assasination-by-Peeta of Katniss and the bombing scene at the end--the rebels' cause was certainly more just, but I don't get that vindication from the book (yes, yes I know, I'm still an idealist).
*blink*

I thought you spent time in places where folks risked starving to death? Her attitude as a "stone cold bitch" is moreso "staying alive and trying to keep the few people in her life alive". Starvation does that to a person. That's like getting angry at winter for having the audacity of being cold.

I have spent some time in those places but haven't spent a lot of time around people that desperate and so truly cannot say how the threat of imminent physical harm or deprivation affects ones emotions. Again, I expect that is merely my inner romantic asking for a favorable resolution to the tension.