The Hunger Games

Today we review The Hunger Games (book 1 and movie) by Suzanne Collins:

Snowee l says

I think it's about time we review Hunger Games

Or well past the time, but let's do it anyway.

Let's begin with the disclaimer; we spoil everything so don't come crying to us if you read something you didn't want to know.

Scottie B says

Yes, agreed it is about time.

So basically we have a story that has a character that is placed in an extreme situation and it tells us how she deals with life.

Book One! Hunger Games: It starts with Katniss Everdeen explaining her story; this book is written from the perspective of the main character. It starts with how the world has become separated into districts, why they were separated, and that each year they hold the Hunger Games. This happens to be a sport where they take two teens from each of the 12 districts and pits them against each other in a battle to the death. Maybe you can see where this is going...

Snowee l says

We noticed immediately that it was a little like taking the short story 'The Lottery' and the reality TV show 'Survivor' rolled up into some pop-culture plot.  The well-written segments were, imo, mediocre and the rest of it was less than that.  What did you think?

Scottie B says

Overall I did enjoy the first book of the series. Agree that the story was definitely reality TV esque, and had similarities to the short story The Most Dangerous Game also. While I enjoyed reading the book I still had some problems with the story though. I also had to keep reminding my self that this is a book written for a younger audience.

Snowee l says

It was numbingly predictable.  We both discussed that.  I'm afraid I've forgotten some of the details of my complaints at the time which is making me reflect that the book might not have been all that bad, but I didn't like it.  I read from such a critical view of writing (where I believe most people can enjoy the plot despite that) it ruins a lot of authors for me.

It felt a bit choppy throughout, like a conglomeration of scenes rather than an examination of cause and effect.

Scottie B says

I agree that it was predictable. The first being that Katniss would survive. It was hard to really think that she was in danger throughout the book/series since they were all from her voice.

The fact also that Peeta was going to survive with her was blatantly foreshadowed as early as the train scene when they were first leaving for the games.

Snowee l says

It doesn't bother me quite as much when a book is written from first person perspective, but in this case, yes, it takes out the question of survival right up front.  It could have been a more intense ending if we could not be sure.

I agree we know Peeta lives then, but I also knew pretty quickly while they were in the city how it would happen.  It wasn't just the predictable outcome, it was being able to see how it would happen so that I kept asking myself why I kept reading.

Scottie B says

You know as well that I am not a fan of the first person story, but have been getting over that hang up recently. This book proved to me why I originally thought first person was a bad idea.

Snowee l says

You read a lot of fantasy which is often heavy on the action/peril storylines so that makes sense.

I've written both and read both so for me, it's a decision of how to tell the story better.  In this case, third narrative might have been better.  I can agree.

Scottie B says

The other problem was the author, imo, trapped herself with this style. I felt that there were several points in the story where I could felt like I could see that she wrote the story in third person and then went "wait" I am in first person here and now I have to make it work.

Snowee l says

Poor choice on her part.  It might have made it more engaging in many sequences.  I tend to focus on the climax which, it turned out, felt brief and anti-climactic because I expected the final battle to be so much more.

Scottie B says

That is true. So basic problems that I had as we discussed already predictability. Here are the others that I had. It wasn't really explained why it was kids that had to fight and seriously after 74 years of this happening no one rebelled sooner? Me as a parent, I would die trying to protect my kid.

Snowee l says

I realize they were supposed to be a sacrifice or punishment for previous uprising, but humans have shown that they do not care about self preservation on this level.  They will rise up in groups and fight a war if they have to.  Humans love a good war.

Scottie B says

No they don't. Heck the news just recently - oooh I am going to make a commercial and I am going to stand up to and I am going to do this and that. All over some guy in Africa making kids into killers. Nope we don't just sit around. We like war and trying to prove our supremacy.

So what I really guess that it is (and I am treading as lightly as I can), but Germany in WWII had the concentration camps and while this is a shadow of a situation comparatively people didn't just stand by and let it happen. Basic humanity just doesn't allow for situations to occur that long.

Snowee l says

Should we just tack the movie bit in here, too?

I mean, I have little to say except the movie was vaguely more enjoyable and J *loved* it.

And the ending seemed better, but they took out the dogs being mutations of the people which was a HUGE point.

One of the few things I liked (from a dramatic point)

Scottie B says

I liked that too, only because it told a point of where humanity can be completely deranged. I did enjoy the movie too, but it explained less of the why and really didn't explain why people had their name in the lottery more than once.

Which was a big thing too.

Snowee l says

As a whole, then, this franchise brought up some distaste in the mouths of (mainly) mothers.  I consistently heard people who didn't like it because it was horrible to think of kids doing this to each other.

That had nothing to do with my complaints seeing as how more adults ready YA fiction than actually young adults, it feels like so maybe it was always for adults under the guise of YA fiction just because the main character is a teen.

That's how they decide where a book fits in, you know.

Scottie B says

true

Snowee l says

And these same people would encourage the same kids to read Lord of the Flies if it was assigned for school.

Without this becoming a Lord of the Flies discussion, I don't see Hunger Games as any more distasteful.

Scottie B says

Neither do I.

There are plenty of other YA fiction that puts kids into horrible circumstances and no one bats and eye. I mean Harry Potter wasn't all roses and jelly beans, but it was wonderful! And, no, this will not be a Harry Potter discussion. Anyone who knows me knows where I stand there.

Snowee l says

I won't even read that, but it's pulling teeth to get me to read YA.  The fact I've read any shows I've come a long way.  The last YA I read before this recent upsurge was when I was 12.  I have little taste for kids their ridiculous problems.

Scottie B says

Where I have been reading more YA fantasy because they move faster than some of the Adult fantasy out there. Maybe because the YA moves you through story and they don't tend to bog you down with extraneous description. Although I think that Hunger Games could have use more thought out descriptions and been told from a third person point of view.

Snowee l says

Yes, definitely.  We need to stop agreeing so much...

Overall recommendation.  Read?  Watch movie? Or you are not missing anything special?

Scottie B says

If you are thinking of reading and enjoy YA fiction then read it, but just stop with the first book. That imo is really the only one worth the read. If you want you could read book two, but book three felt like she was just trying to put something out there (contract?). I do think that you can get the gist of the overall story with the movie, so save yourself time and watch the movie. The sequels have been announced so you could just wait

Snowee l says

My opinion is none of it is worth it.  You're not missing anything.  Jane loved it, though, and getting her to read fiction is sometimes a challenge.

Scottie B says

fair enough, I while I had my issues with the first book and progressively more issues as the trilogy went on, I enjoyed the read.

enough to recommend it to someone who wants a brainless book to read.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter - A satire of revisionist history?

No, really, we do have plans to review more books!  Pinning Scott down when he's home is just rough.  We would rather PLAY!  Outdoors, even!

However, I do have a bunch to say about Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.  I'm not quite finished, but awfully close.  Maybe something else will be said on the subject.

Let me start by briefly explaining the difference (imo) between a Historian and a history buff/enthusiast.  In college, I was taught that truth in history is about studying the sources as well as the information they present.  Who wrote the information you are reading?  When did they write it?  Are they a contemporary?  A witness?  Someone who is writing something that has been passed orally before they put definitive words to it?  Why did they write it?  What's the ulterior motive?

Basically, what is the reliability level of the source and what else is out there to back it up.

People in society tend to hear something and not ask where it came from or why it is said, but they have no trouble believing it is true.  When it comes to historical subjects, this amuses me sometimes because people think they sound so intelligent by what they "know", but in reality, it's fiction.  Especially amusing is when I know where the legend came from, but it has been distorted by oration to be ridiculous.

Additionally, we have my pet peeve for historical fiction (specifically fiction that is creating a story set in history, not the well-researched fiction that is basically non-fiction, but because the author fills in the blanks, it is considered fiction).  Fiction writers who use history as a setting love to throw in famous historical figures.  Not everyone in the 1870s met Billy the Kid and not all gangsters hung out with Al Capone.  It's just ridiculous.  Having the novel BE Abraham Lincoln was one of my biggest reasons for avoiding it at first.


Knowing that, you'll understand my reactions.  When I first heard the title, I thought, "What?  That is some far-fetched crap."  Then the curiosity set in.  Curiosity is what has driven me to read many horrible books (don't stop here.  I'm not saying it's horrible.  More to come on that.)  My brain kept saying "How on earth is he going to make that happen?"  Granted, there are holes in my knowledge about Abe, but much of it is because there are holes in what we as historians CAN know.  Vampire Hunter?  That's obvious insanity.  It would take quite a trick to make that plausible in any world, I thought.  So, of course, I finally bought the book.

As is typical, it's like I have three people in my head reading any book.  There is a part of me that is constantly amused because I feel like Grahame-Smith has taken all these legends we hear about Abraham Lincoln, set aside the question of whether or not it could be true, and found a very creative way to make it work.  I look at it like it's not just revisionist history to the extreme.  It's a satire.  Somewhere in there, he's a make a joke on the fact that legends become larger than life.  I expect it's not his intention, but that's how one part of my brain keeps reading it.

Another segment of my brain notices the ways in which he is breaking the rules of writing (like I do, actually).  I do think one of my biggest hurdles in reading is that I see flaws in the technical aspect of writing whereas most people can look past that and see only the story.  This has made me rough on most best sellers, but I am coming to realize that I am allowed that opinion even though other people try to tell me I'm just not smart enough to understand and that's why I don't like those best sellers.  Technique and mechanics are an important part of writing.  His mechanics are fine and the technique isn't specifically awful, it just breaks the rules of what is "supposed" to work, and still tells the story in an enjoyable way.

Sometimes a great writer tells a horrible story.  Sometimes a great story is saddled with a horrible writer.  In this case, I should dislike the writing, but I don't.  Without spoiling too much, it is a little back and forth and not very smooth, yet it works.

The third part of me is enjoying the story and style separately from that.  With a strong conclusion, the story itself can be great.  His style keeps the story moving and there are a lot of fun events.  Obviously Abe Lincoln really did associate with a lot of the people famous from that period so they have to be mentioned.  I'm torn every time it happens, though, but I think it's because it's clearly fiction using a famous person's name.

I haven't gone through a book this fast for about a year.  Even books I really really enjoy take me 10 days to 2 weeks.  I started this about a week ago and think I may finish it today (6 days).  Yeah, I'm not a "stay up all night" reader.  I feel I absorb more if I give myself a chance to digest every few chapters and come back refreshed.  I rarely re-read a book because when I try, I find I remember pretty much every nuance because of the way I read in the first place so why bother when there are so many more books out there to be found?

Time to finish this one and move on to the next.


Edit to add: I realized a couple of things bothering me about this book, but talk about spoilers.  The vamps never get a fair shake.  Abe rushes in and kills on little more than suspicion most of the time.  Too much True Blood if I'm worried about the vampires?  Probably, but does it really jive with the man freeing slaves?  It almost belittles Abe's reasons for freeing slaves and by the end, I really did feel like the vampires were not given a chance.  A little uneven.  More on this later.  Scott is going to read the book *after* the movie.  Perhaps there will be interesting comparisons to be made...