The Hunger Games

Finally finished Mockingjay tonight. I have to say I'm disappointed in the way it ended. I thought it was cruel how Collins put the blame on Gale for Prim's death, and then to have him leave and be gone just like that. :no: Katniss never forgiving him...:sad:I think a lot of people were unhappy with the ending because they're used to the all tied up with a nice little bow endings of series. Like HP - All was well.

But I think that's what I admire about Collins. The whole time you're reading Mockingjay you're hoping for that happy ending. You're thinking how is she going to get this to work? How are the love birds going to live happily ever after.

But we all forget she's writing about war. Katniss was used and abused by everyone. Gale was just as power hungry as Snow or Coin and he was just as creative as the Gamemakers.

I think it's up to each person to judge if he was right or wrong in developing the weapons he did. He didn't intend for them to be used on Prim, but he did intend them to be used on other innocent people - he just didn't anticipate that Coin would put Prim on the front lines.

What I love about the series is that Collins shows throughout every chapter of every book how her characters are manipulating and being manipulated and how little free will there is in the world of Panem. You think Katniss is surviving then someone puts up a roadblock like a wall of fire in the area, an electrified fence in Catching Fire or a hijacked Peeta. You get to the end and you're like 'yay Katniss and Gale have almost made it' but they're still AT WAR and we forget that until poor Prim shows up.

The books needed that to have the final consequence that it did, otherwise, we'd have in Coin what we had in Snow.

For me it was very brave of her not to have an 'all is well' ending. Because if you could imagine living in that world - nothing would be well. It would take years and years of healing for things to be set right again. So Katniss couldn't say goodbye to Gale and Gale wouldn't have expected her to. And for all the very good he did for her, he got caught up in the 'games' himself, which was his downfall.

I specifically didn't read Mockingjay because of all the negative reviews I read. I knew this series didn't really have a chance of ending completely happily ever after, but man, did it have to be so depressing?? So, now that I see, once again, that Gale of all people was made into some sort of villian does not fly with me. I fell in love with Gale when I read Hunger Games because of how much he cared and looked out for Katniss. For him to leave...I don't know.Well, if you read Mockingjay you may find that Collins didn't paint him as a villain. He just turned out to be just as manipulated as Katniss was. He thought he was in control of what he was doing and while he was fighting for the greater good, he was also not seeing clearly who was leading him.

I thought Mockingjay was really good. It was unconventional for sure. Depressing? A bit, but at the very, very end she leaves us with healing and that is all you can hope for in a war-like situation.

I'm not all for a happy endings in books, in fact, that's kind of what this ending felt like. Katniss ended up with Peeta, like lovingbooks said, because he was there. This way it's like Katniss didn't have to choose between the two and it wouldn't be hurting the other. It's like she used her grief for Prim so she wouldn't have to bother with Gale, because she couldn't bare to look at him. I'd have preferred it if she'd ended up with neither, but she ended up with Peeta and children, which she doubted she wouldn't be able to do before.

I'd have preferred it if she'd ended up with neither, but she ended up with Peeta and children, which she doubted she wouldn't be able to do before.

I think she doubted it before mostly because of Snow being the one who'd arranged everything for them, so that she wouldn't be able to have a say in anything, not even whether she really likes Peeta or not. I think she hated the decision because she didn't know how she felt about it, because she couldn't judge for herself, if she was going to make the same decision on her own or if she'd have chosen differently.

I think her grief over Prim was very understandable. She went twice through the Games because she loved her and wanted to protect her from the same fate hundreds of other children had to face, only to have her killed by her best friend.

I also don't think Collins 'used' Katniss' grief to put Gale out of the way, :shrug:. It's been shown throughout Mockingjay that Katniss disapproved of Gale's strategies and voiced her objections. He didn't seem to share her feelings towards the people trapped inside that mountain in District 2, he wanted them all dead - he didn't give much thought if they were innocent or not. What I mean to say that is that the 'disagreement' went back much earlier than Prim's death.

Finally finished Mockingjay tonight. I have to say I'm disappointed in the way it ended. I thought it was cruel how Collins put the blame on Gale for Prim's death, and then to have him leave and be gone just like that. :no: Katniss never forgiving him...:sad:

Sorry for my random jumping in here. :whistle:


I had a tough time with mockingjay initially as well. It took me months to get thru whereas hunger games and catching fire I finished in a few days. I thought the pacing was uneven and there were a lot of parts where katniss is essentially just wandering around in a daze. I remember waiting for the pace to pick up like it was in the prior 2 books, and finally feeling somwhat gratified when I got to the last 100 pages and the flight thru the capitol.

Unfortunately,the climax initally left me incredibly disappointed and sad on so many levels.

1. I actually expected Katniss to make it to the mansion and kill snow. The fact that she didn't make it and ended up getting burned instead made the whole mission and all those deaths seem so futile. Finnick, etc. may have been alive if they turned back right after Boggs died.

2. I hated the way Finnick's death was treated like an afterthought. I was so shocked at how quick and callous that death was described in the book. Rue's death had so much more emotional impact. I understand that Suzanne was trying to illustrate how quick and meaningless death can be during war, but this was just gut wrenching in how casual it seemed.

3. As many have discussed, I felt the resolution of the love triangle was sorely lacking. I really expected a better reunion between Peeta and Katniss with some actual dialogue. I was surprised that it seemed like Katniss ended up with Peeta by default (since Gale never came back and knew they could never get past what happened to Prim.) I guess I was hoping for something more emotionally satisifying rather than the lackluster few sentences we got at the end of the book especially since their scenes in the prior 2 books were written so beautifully.

4. It was tough to be in Katniss' psyche by the end of the book. She seemed so broken and an empty shell of her former self. She didn't seem to care abou t anything, and that may be why the love triangle was such an afterthought. I think she was left so numb by all the pain she endured and the loss of Prim, that she didn't have much left emotionally to try and restore her friendship with Gale or to really give her love over to Peeta.


However, now that it has been some time since I read it and I have had time to process it, I am not quite as disappointed as I was initially. I understand that Collins was aiming for a more realistic ending and tried to demonstrate how truly damaging war is. It was just so depressing. I just didn't expect that from a YA series. I remember thinking if I wanted to read about the horrors of war and post-traumatic stress disorder I would have just picked up an adult war novel. I literally had to reread the hunger games again just to remind myself why I enjoyed this series to begin with.

I definitely preferred the way the HP series ended. Harry had gone thru a war as well and experienced so much death and loss, but he was still able to survive, persevere, and find joy in life with his friends and his new family. With Katniss, it was almost like she was emotionally dead by the end of the series and barely hanging onto her sanity.

I definitely preferred the way the HP series ended. Harry had gone thru a war as well and experienced so much death and loss, but he was still able to survive, persevere, and find joy in life with his friends and his new family. With Katniss, it was almost like she was emotionally dead by the end of the series and barely hanging onto her sanity.

I preferred this ending in the long run. I may have not appreciated as I read it, but once the story settled with me I found myself more appreciating the end. It was more realistic to the impacts of war. I thought Collins handled this really well.

I preferred this ending in the long run. I may have not appreciated as I read it, but once the story settled with me I found myself more appreciating the end. It was more realistic to the impacts of war. I thought Collins handled this really well.

I liked both endings, myself. I think the term of war differed in HP and the Hunger Games. That's why the outcome was different in both cases. The war in HP was not as destructive as in HG. Perhaps more people died in HP, but no cities were destructed or brought down on their people. In HP it was a certain group of people who were targeted, in HG whole cities were destructed because of the actions of a little number of people.
It's true Harry had lost many people he loved dearly, and I'm sure he had a difficult time overcoming their deaths. In Katniss' case however, she lost everything she could call home; her family, her district, her best friend, everybody she knew as a child with the exception of the few people who happened to be out of D12 when it was bombed. I think Katniss had a great deal to cope up with, it wasn't just a matter of the death of people she loved, but everything that counted as comfort for her.

http://www.hypable.com/hunger-games/2011/06/16/scholastic-announces-four-new-hunger-games-books-in-anticipation-of-film-release/

With this in mind, Scholastic will be publishing a movie tie-in version of The Hunger Games, a Collector’s Edition, and two entirely new books that sound VERY interesting!

Here’s a breakdown:
- The Hunger Games Collector’s Edition will be released in November and include a slipcase that features new mockingjay art. It will be priced at $29.99.
- The Hunger Games Movie Tie-In will be just the original book but the cover will be replaced by a poster for the film. It will cost $12.99.
- The Hunger Games: Official Illustrated Movie Companion will sell for $18.99 and we’re guessing it will follow closely the idea of The Twilight Saga Official Illustrated Movie Guides. You can see one of them here to get an idea of what The Hunger Games companion may be like. It will be released in February.
- The World of The Hunger Games is the second new book and at this time there are no details (other than price: $17.99), but this sounds like a sort of encyclopedia to us. It too will be released in February.

More on the link.

I definitely preferred the way the HP series ended. Harry had gone thru a war as well and experienced so much death and loss, but he was still able to survive, persevere, and find joy in life with his friends and his new family. With Katniss, it was almost like she was emotionally dead by the end of the series and barely hanging onto her sanity.I find them hard to compare. In HP Harry has no life before Hogwarts. He's lonely and not quite happy, with no real family or friends. He's nice and good and obeys the Dursleys, but there is no real sense of 'when I'm out of here, I'm going to...' there is no looking towards the future.

With HG you have a main character who is proactive and inventive and helping her family survive. She loves her family, has a very close friend and aside from the whole starvation thing, she is fairly content with life.

So when Katniss gets pulled into a warlike situation against her will, she's merely surviving to the best of her ability.

When Harry jumps into the fray, he's doing it whole-heartedly. He wants to fight, he wants to make change, he wants to save the wizarding world.

Katniss - she's being manipulated to fit everyone else's plan.

This is why Katniss ends up being a shell of a person, while Harry is happy - fully happy - for once. Meaning to say that Katniss starts moderately happy and ends moderately happy, while Harry starts out lonely and ends up surrounded by love. Different struggles, different outcomes.

I really enjoyed this series. I find Katniss a likeable protagonist, I didn't like Johanna at first but she grew on me in the third book. They are really the types of books that make you read them fast, like a few days. I just hope they do a good job with the film, Jennifer Lawrence looks the part of Katniss, but I'm not sure about the guys who play Gale and Peeta.

Yeah, I can see that. However, if you look up interviews of Josh Hutcherson (Peeta), you can see why they picked him for the part. He's mesmerizing. When he talks, you want to listen - and that's Peeta's talent. I don't think he exactly looks the part, but I think he's a very subtle actor and he will do well.

Liam (Gale), on the other hand.. Does not look the part and I don't get the Gale feel around him, although I have to admit that I haven't seen him act. I believe he had a fairly big role in a Miley Cyrus movie, but I haven't seen that.

Some pictures came out last week, among then a picture of Peeta standing, covered in flour, before the bakery, holding burnt bread. Ooooh that moment <3

I hope they'll do a midnight showing of this movie - I'd be there!

I love the first book. The third book was disappointing.

I was referred to this series last summer but was not able to start it until last fall. The series is set in a post-apocolyptic world where the Capitol sends people (ages 12-18) from the districts to fight to the death I began reading the books at the store and had to wait a couple of weeks each to buy them or finish them. I was able to buy the Hunger Games and Mockingjay but had to read Catching Fire at the store over three weeks. My favorite book had to be Catching Fire. All of the plot twists in that kicked everything up a notch. If you haven't read this series I suggest you that you do read this series. Some things to note are that the writing style is in 1st person I believe. The first page was jarring but by the end of the chapter I was hooked. Most of the characters are extremely likable but don't get too attached to them. Katniss the main protagonist is a good heroine. Peeta, Gale, Haymitch, Cinna, President Snow, Rue are all awesome and those are only some of the characters from the first book. This series is heavy on the plot twists and making things worse. So pretty much you think things are bad now, you haven't seen anything yet

I finally read this series this summer.

I loved the first book. The second I enjoyed. The third was overwhelmingly disappointing :shrug:

To start off positive - Collins had a great idea. She had a unique setting, interesting characters and character dynamics, and most of all - an intriguing idea. I was hooked within a few pages. I wanted to know more about the Districts. What was this Reaping? And are the Hunger Games what it sounds like? All in all, Collins had something that could've been great.

However, I had several problems with the series. I don't want to come off as if I'm bashing the series - I'm not and that's not my intention. I really did enjoy the series as a whole, but if I am to be truly honest, then I should also post my thoughts about a few other things.

One big thing is Collins' writing style. The writing feels lazy most of the time. Not just her prose, but writing method. A lot of things in the books felt rushed, as if Collins' was too lazy to expound on her ideas. Not to mention that it feels like Collins' tells more than she shows. She doesn't really let the reader "experience" many events. Some examples are the Victory Tour and Harvest Festival. Both events felt like they had been built up - I felt anticipation as Collins builds up these events (and this goes for other events too), then disapointment when Collins' summarizes these events in just a few paragraphs :shrug:

Just like the sub-plot of the mysterious District 13. Collins' builds it up, then it feels like she says "oh yeah, guess what, it's actually real. Let's go visit it." Then that's it.

And what about the backdrop of the other 12 Districts? The possibilities were endless with the setting alone. Another thing that I felt Collins' could of expanded on.

The plot is great at first, but fails to follow through.

Another thing was the character development of a few characters - namely Prim and Rue. I felt underwhelmed when Prim's name is drawn. I also felt like I was supposed to be surprised, but I hardly knew a lot about Prim, so the moment wasn't as dramatic as I felt it was supposed to be.

The same goes for Rue. I only knew her for a few chapters, then she was given an extremely emotional death. I honestly didn't feel much for her character when she died. I was sad because I liked her character. But then she's killed off before I can really get to know her, and then it feels like we're supposed to react to her death too. But Collins didn't give Rue enough page time for me to have the reaction that Collins' expected.

Many aspects of the books had the potential to be so much more, but I felt like Collins' was too lazy to expand them or too lazy to take her book elements to the next level.

As for the climax and ending...? Finnick's death is casual. It was almost like it was mentioned in passing.

What about Prim's senseless death, then Gale being blamed for it? :no:

Then the epilogue felt like it was tacked on: "And Peeta and Katniss got married and had 2 kids. Oh, and Katniss is still having some emotional problems. The end."

In short, I felt like the last book doesn't live up to the expectation that Collins sets after book 1. She set up a great idea, but just didn't follow through, IMHO. These are just a few of the major problems I had with the series.

A disappointing ending to a series that had A LOT more potential.

I will say that I am looking forward to the first movie, since that was my favorite book.

Both events felt like they had been built up - I felt anticipation as Collins builds up these events (and this goes for other events too), then disapointment when Collins' summarizes these events in just a few paragraphs

Summerising most of the events was probably the main reason I didn't like Mocking Jay like the other two. As someone had mentioned on the review thread, Katniss seemed to faint at all the exciting moments, and then we get a short account of what had happened, :shrug:. Collins can write good action scenes, I wonder why she went for that fainting thing in the last book.

Mockingjay is probably my least favourite, too, (for quite different reasons, though, I'm okay with everything you put in your last spoiler, :whistle:), with Catching Fire being my most favourite.

Just like the sub-plot of the mysterious District 13. Collins' builds it up, then it feels like she says "oh yeah, guess what, it's actually real. Let's go visit it." Then that's it.

Now that you mention it, I think it's actually the way Collins casually introduces the idea about District 13 still being out there, that made me over look that possibility, that it might actually exist and will be the setting for the whole following book!

The same goes for Rue. I only knew her for a few chapters, then she was given an extremely emotional death. I honestly didn't feel much for her character when she died. I was sad because I liked her character. But then she's killed off before I can really get to know her, and then it feels like we're supposed to react to her death too. But Collins didn't give Rue enough page time for me to have the reaction that Collins' expected.

I'm afraid I have to disagree here. I don't think the reader (as I see it) has to react to Rue's death as a person, (or Prim's being chosen for the Games as a character). It's the concept we're supposed to react to. There's an eleven-years-old girl, who is taken away from her family, and sent to fight until her death, in other words she is sent in order to be killed, she has no chance, and if she does, that chance means having her kill several children of her age. By putting through Rue's death, Collins isn't casually showing the death of a character, but subtly showing what has been going on for seventy five years. It makes the reader think how many families have had their children killed, and in what gruesome ways, and that it is time to say enough! Which is what happens in the following books.

Some pictures came out last week, among then a picture of Peeta standing, covered in flour, before the bakery, holding burnt bread. Ooooh that moment <3

I hope they'll do a midnight showing of this movie - I'd be there!Come chat with us in the Hunger Games 2012 (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=127616) (movie) thread!


One big thing is Collins' writing style. The writing feels lazy most of the time. Not just her prose, but writing method. A lot of things in the books felt rushed, as if Collins' was too lazy to expound on her ideas. Not to mention that it feels like Collins' tells more than she shows. She doesn't really let the reader "experience" many events. Some examples are the Victory Tour and Harvest Festival. Both events felt like they had been built up - I felt anticipation as Collins builds up these events (and this goes for other events too), then disapointment when Collins' summarizes these events in just a few paragraphs :shrug:I think using the First Person writing style did get her into problems as the story went on. If Katniss couldn't see it, we didn't experience it. I think Collins had a good idea using First Person so that we could see the war and the Games first hand. But as the story grew more complicated, she had to schlep Katniss here and there just so we could learn what was going on.

I think using the First Person writing style did get her into problems as the story went on. If Katniss couldn't see it, we didn't experience it. I think Collins had a good idea using First Person so that we could see the war and the Games first hand. But as the story grew more complicated, she had to schlep Katniss here and there just so we could learn what was going on.

Definitely this. I love the idea of 1st person because it's fun to read the experience as if we're experiencing it first hand, but it definitely became a bit of a problem by limiting Collins' on how she wrote certain scenes.

My mom actually introduced me to this series. I picked it up at the beginning of the year but didn't get past the first chapter. She was explaining things to me, about the concept and the battle scenes, and it seemed interesting but I just put it down one day and forgot about it. I picked it up again a few months later and I literally read all 3 books back to back within like 2 weeks. I really enjoyed it and I'm really excited about the movie. It's gonna be like a family day for my mom and I when it htis theatre's next year lol! Anyway, I loved the detailing, and the katniss-peeta-gale love triangle as well as the connection between katniss and rue. I loved rue's death scene; I definetly think that was a pivotal moment in the book, especially for the rebels. I also found it interesting how peeta would sometimes inadvertently put katniss on the spot; it's kinda like she always found a way to challenge snow even if she wasn't the one pulling any strings. Kinda like Harry Potter in a sense because Harry always found what he needed in order to defeat voldermort even if he wasn't pulling any strings. But I did think it was sad, at one point, that katniss used peeta and the whole 'we're a couple' thing during the games. Yeah, they have to fight to the death, but peeta was actually quite serious about it which put them both in an awkward position, especially katniss since she kinda knew at times that he was being real. The surprise twist with her sister prim being killed was good, but I didn't like the surprise twist when peeta announced that katniss was pregnant. I felt like it didn't go anywhere. There was nothing leading up to it, and the effect it had was gone as soon as you finished reading it. Like, the scene with prim being blown up, katniss and her companions were actually in this major climactic battle scene. So it worked out fine. But sometimes, the katniss vs. snow conflict, the katniss-peeta relationship and the whole mockingjay ordeal was just thrown at you just to make the story progress. I felt Collins could've done better with that at certain parts of the book.

Am I the only person in the world who didn't like it? :eeep:

I've only read the 1st one so far, and I was shocked at how predictable it turned out to be. From the many ecstatic reviews that I read beforehand, I was hoping for, and frankly expecting, some sort of thrilling climax. Okay, so the 100 or so pages of frantic survival were gripping. But I feel like Collins sidestepped the thing that could've made the book's end really epic- Katniss having to kill Peeta and win the games... or else.

Speaking of Peeta, he seemed quite thick and useless. I hated the whole 'fake romance' thing- too confusing, and it made them both look like idiots.

A final word on the subject: I can understand the comparisions to Harry Potter in the sense of popularity and good reviews. But Harry Potter has something that The Hunger Games lacks, at least from what I've read so far. It has an underlying theme that's strongly proven- loves conquers all. What was the theme in Games? 'Let's not let this happen to us in the future, because it's gross'? And honestly, where was Katniss' heart in all this? Okay, she's a jerk. So's Harry, at times. But the thing is, no matter how grouchy Harry can be, he'd sacrifice himself for his friends without even thinking of it. He was willing to walk to his death surely and calmly, wasn't he? Because it meant saving the people he loved, and even some people he didn't love. I did not get that sense from either Peeta or Katniss.

Anyhow, I'll still read the 2nd and 3rd books, in hopes that they'll... I don't know, stun me with their surprising twists? ;)

Speaking of Peeta, he seemed quite thick and useless. I hated the whole 'fake romance' thing- too confusing, and it made them both look like idiots.

But it wasn't fake, at least not from Peeta's point of view.

I'd recommend reading the other two books. For me, it's the series of all 3 that makes the Hunger Games interesting as a whole. I thought the first book was exciting to read, of course it's not the greatest story every told--but it has a hook and it is fairly fast pace which made it a winner for me. I blew threw all three books in four days, that's how curious I was to see how the whole thing resolved.

Speaking of Peeta, he seemed quite thick and useless. I hated the whole 'fake romance' thing- too confusing, and it made them both look like idiots.
I loved this series, and I hated Peeta. I mean I guess I can buy the fact that in a very down trodden community you wouldn't necessarily express your feelings to another person in any direct way. I just felt like he was just such a dud at times. Then again, the fact that Katniss had to compromise her own survival skills to take care of another person was interesting. She is pretty ruthless (which I loved about her) and it wasn't because she loved him that she went and saved him, it was so much about saving face.


A final word on the subject: I can understand the comparisions to Harry Potter in the sense of popularity and good reviews. But Harry Potter has something that The Hunger Games lacks, at least from what I've read so far. It has an underlying theme that's strongly proven- loves conquers all. What was the theme in Games? 'Let's not let this happen to us in the future, because it's gross'? The Hunger Games is definitely no Harry Potter. I will say that over and over again. But I love books about dysfunctional societies, so this was right up my alley. Also because after someone touted Twilight as the next HP (which it was the anti-HP if you ask me) I thought that Hunger Games was finally something worthy of talking about and promoting.

I'm also the kind of person who wonders what kind of people want to be on reality TV shows - they voluntarily go on shows where they suffer in many ways, are humiliated, are made to act in ways they normally wouldn't.

THG sort of plays on that where the Capitol loves watching, but they don't see the other side of it - that kids are forced to be their entertainment.

I was watching "Dance Moms" and "Toddlers and Tiaras" the other day. It made me sick the way the moms are trying to generate - who knows what - fame??? money??? through their kids. And I'm sitting here watching it! The whole thing is so perverse, and I think that is one thing THG is trying to highlight in our current society.

THG sort of plays on that where the Capitol loves watching, but they don't see the other side of it - that kids are forced to be their entertainment.

I was watching "Dance Moms" and "Toddlers and Tiaras" the other day. It made me sick the way the moms are trying to generate - who knows what - fame??? money??? through their kids. And I'm sitting here watching it! The whole thing is so perverse, and I think that is one thing THG is trying to highlight in our current society.

Fair point. The only thing is, THG didn't give us a solution to the highlighted monstrosity that is reality TV. It presents it as repulsive, yes, but the story gave us no way to deal with it. Maybe in the other 2 books...?

I've only read the 1st one so far, and I was shocked at how predictable it turned out to be. From the many ecstatic reviews that I read beforehand, I was hoping for, and frankly expecting, some sort of thrilling climax. Okay, so the 100 or so pages of frantic survival were gripping. But I feel like Collins sidestepped the thing that could've made the book's end really epic- Katniss having to kill Peeta and win the games... or else.

I think the important thing about Katniss' stunt with the berries, and then both of them surviving was that it showed up the Capitol. Katniss knew from her team's urgency that she came across as a girl acting out of desperation and love that she had crossed a line with the berries. Haymitch even directly warned her that the Capitol were furious. She knew from Snow's expression at the after-show that there would be consequences. If Katniss had killed Peeta and won the Games, it would have been just like all the preceding Hunger Games that had been held.

And honestly, where was Katniss' heart in all this? Okay, she's a jerk. So's Harry, at times. But the thing is, no matter how grouchy Harry can be, he'd sacrifice himself for his friends without even thinking of it. He was willing to walk to his death surely and calmly, wasn't he? Because it meant saving the people he loved, and even some people he didn't love. I did not get that sense from either Peeta or Katniss.

Katniss' heart was with Prim. She volunteered to be in the Games to save Prim. In District 12, tribute was synonymous with corpse, she explains, as they have only ever had two Victors. Katniss was willing to die to keep her sister safe, but she also decided that she wasn't going down without a fight.

Katniss' heart was with Prim. She volunteered to be in the Games to save Prim. In District 12, tribute was synonymous with corpse, she explains, as they have only ever had two Victors. Katniss was willing to die to keep her sister safe, but she also decided that she wasn't going down without a fight.

You're right, of course; it was a smart idea on Collins' part to add Prim. I just wish she was mentioned more. I wish Katniss thoughts lingered on why she was doing it, or on how much she wished she could've seen Prim one last time... that's all. Just little things like that would have made me like Katniss a lot more, I think.

Hunger Games is one of the best book series I've ever read right after HP. My second cousin from Canada recommended it to me and when I begun reading it I couldn't put the book down. I loved the fact that pretty much everything came as a surprise...

Fair point. The only thing is, THG didn't give us a solution to the highlighted monstrosity that is reality TV. It presents it as repulsive, yes, but the story gave us no way to deal with it. Maybe in the other 2 books...?That's a good point. I don't know if there is a solution. In real life, until people tire of watching other people in 'real' situations Reality TV will persist.

I read another book series recently that reminded me of THG. Not the first book, Sharp North, but the second one Blown Away, both by Patrick Cave. The second one has an interesting Hunger Games-ish bit in it. The gist is that the governmental leaders have a game show as a way to show that genetically superior people should be the ruling class.

Similar to THG where the wealthier districts tend to win the games, vs D12 which is made up of downtrodden and hungry people. Anyway, Blown Away made me rethink what the point of the Games were in THG.

That's a good point. I don't know if there is a solution. In real life, until people tire of watching other people in 'real' situations Reality TV will persist.

Right you are! The thing that bothers is me is that so many people who watch reality TV watch it to complain about it (If you've ever read the Television Without Pity boards, you'll see what I mean). I include myself in that, because there is a stupid show that I watch, despite hating it and the people on it. Since so many people watch to snark on shows like that, ratings will be there and they will persist. It must have something to do with our human nature to watch shows we don't like:eeep:

You're right, of course; it was a smart idea on Collins' part to add Prim. I just wish she was mentioned more. I wish Katniss thoughts lingered on why she was doing it, or on how much she wished she could've seen Prim one last time... that's all. Just little things like that would have made me like Katniss a lot more, I think.

I would have liked to have seen Katniss' relationship with Prim developed more, too. However, she does think a number of times about Prim watching the Games at home, she doesn't want Prim to see her suffering if Cato gets to her.
Rue reminds her of Prim - another innocent child, so much younger than the other competitors, and too young to be part of something so horrific. She also thinks at one point, that if she is to die, Peeta's victory would benefit Prim and her mother, whereas another tribute's victory wouldn't.

Fair point. The only thing is, THG didn't give us a solution to the highlighted monstrosity that is reality TV. It presents it as repulsive, yes, but the story gave us no way to deal with it. Maybe in the other 2 books...?

The books are written from the victims' point of view, so naturally they wouldn't give us a solution. However it shows how the victims themselves deal with it and their refusal of such treatment. That is all focused on in the two other books, which I think you should give a chance to read.

Right you are! The thing that bothers is me is that so many people who watch reality TV watch it to complain about it (If you've ever read the Television Without Pity boards, you'll see what I mean). I include myself in that, because there is a stupid show that I watch, despite hating it and the people on it. Since so many people watch to snark on shows like that, ratings will be there and they will persist. It must have something to do with our human nature to watch shows we don't like

I'm pretty sure it says somewhere that people were forced to watch the Games. It wasn't exactly a matter of choice. As for the people in the Capitol, not necessarily all of them enjoyed the Games even though they watched them and were even involved in organising them; we never get to see much of the Capitol's people. Cinna is an example of someone who took part in the Games and didn't enjoy or approve of them, as well as Peeta's stylist, (don't remember her name), not to mention people who had larger role in the Games in later books.

I read Catching Fire, and I actually liked it better than the first. It definitely wasn't as exciting, and I loathe the love triangle between Peeta, Katniss, and Gale, but the characters have definitely become more likable.
Am I the only one the facepalmed at the part in the book where it was announced that Katniss had to be in the Games again?

I think Katniss going back to the Games once more was really an unexpected turn and a little disappointing because I thought it would feel repetitive. But I'm glad it turned out to be quite different from the first Games.

I'm glad you liked Catching Fire better. It's probably my favourite out of the three, though I still like both book 1 and 3 a lot. I like most of the new characters introduced in Catching Fire, mainly Finnick and Johanna. Also some of the existing characters recieved a lot of character development, such as Haymitch. After reading Catching Fire, he became one of my favourite characters.

I'm not generally fond of love triangles, but I was okay with that one. It didn't feel forced, or that it was just written for the sake of throwing some romance in the book. I think Katniss had strong reasons to like both Peeta and Gale and it worked for me.

I'm not generally fond of love triangles, but I was okay with that one. It didn't feel forced, or that it was just written for the sake of throwing some romance in the book. I think Katniss had strong reasons to like both Peeta and Gale and it worked for me.

Completely agree. I could understand her feeling torn between both guys.

I also agree with what you said about Katniss having to back into the games being an unexpected turn--as I was reading that, my mind was racing wondering what was going to happen since I knew they wouldn't have a repeat of the previous games. For me, it was an "Oh no they didn't!" moment, I couldn't believe the cruelty of making these people go back into the ring, and I figured it was going to be more treacherous the second time around.

I love 'The Hunger Games' but does anyone else think that the second book seemed very rushed and jumpy, the time in The Hunger Games seemed shorter aswell and more rushed... like Suzanne Collins wanted it out of the way... and also the ending of the last book Prim dies and they overthrow the Capitol but then it seems very rushed and the chapter explaining their lives at the end seems very rushed also... just my opinion though, if you think different please tell me! :D

I thought it was well done, and I enjoyed it very much (though it did have too much angst for my tastes, especially the first book). But I always felt like it could have been more.

I thought the whole District 13 subplot could have been handled better, and I thought there were a few areas that could have provided a better explanation or a slower pace.

But I thought the concept was excellent, and the general plot kept me wanting to find out what happened next.

I love 'The Hunger Games' but does anyone else think that the second book seemed very rushed and jumpy, the time in The Hunger Games seemed shorter aswell and more rushed... like Suzanne Collins wanted it out of the way... and also the ending of the last book Prim dies and they overthrow the Capitol but then it seems very rushed and the chapter explaining their lives at the end seems very rushed also... just my opinion though, if you think different please tell me! :D

I also got the feeling that Collins wanted to get Catching Fire done quickly, to get to the whole rebilion thing in Mockingjay - which was probably the most important part of the trilogy. It didn't make me enjoy the second book less, though. It makes sense for those Games to be faster than the previous one. After all, the participants that time have been through the Games before and many of them were not scared to kill. And the others were merely waiting for a way out of the Arena. Unlike the first time when all the participants were fighting hard for survival, even the weakest (like Rue) lasted for a relatively long time.

As for the overthrow of the Capitol being rushed, I also agree here. Unfortunately we got to see only what Katniss saw. And while that was important and crucial to the fall of the Capitol, it wasn't everything that happened. There's a reason I don't like first-person POV, :D.

:)

WOW-I really thought that there should have been some "Team Peeta" and "Team Gale" going on-everything. Actually,one of my favorite authors wrote on her blog"...but I heard that the Hunger Games movie will make it look like Mary Poppins." I love that line.

Did anyone else think that the blood bath at the end of book three was a little much? I mean, JKR certainly kills her share of characters, so it's not unusual, but in THG there were so many characters that I was expecting to see or hear from again, that just end up dead, like Cinna, or Darius and the Avox girl. And I thought that many of the deaths at the end were unnecessary for the plot, like Finnick's. (Poor Annie!)

I'm not generally fond of love triangles, but I was okay with that one. It didn't feel forced, or that it was just written for the sake of throwing some romance in the book. I think Katniss had strong reasons to like both Peeta and Gale and it worked for me.

I agree that it wasn't just about throwing in some romance - a large part of what Katniss had to work through was being free to love whom she chose - if she loved Peeta, she wanted it to be because she loved him freely, and not because the Capitol and Peeta's playing the crowd forced them into the role of lovers. It wasn't just "who is Katniss in love with" - Katniss didn't feel free to love anyone, in the romantic sense, until she could choose without any compulsion.

Did anyone else think that the blood bath at the end of book three was a little much? I mean, JKR certainly kills her share of characters, so it's not unusual, but in THG there were so many characters that I was expecting to see or hear from again, that just end up dead, like Cinna, or Darius and the Avox girl. And I thought that many of the deaths at the end were unnecessary for the plot, like Finnick's. (Poor Annie!)

Some of the deaths in Mockingjay were unexpected and harsh, but maybe that was what Collins was aiming for - making the point war is unpredictable, and the victims aren't always combatants, like Cinna and the Avox girl.

Hi.[SPOILER]My favorite part was in 'Mockingjay' when at the end of a chapter Katniss says"Peeta now see's me for who I am, and I hate him for that." From the points leading up to that what happened, my soul was a wreck. I was hurt and confused and happy all at the same time. I am not sure why I was happy.I couldn't belive Susan thought to make the mutts in book 1. I felt so bad when Rue-dog was trying to kill them.If it was Cato vs. Katniss(with Peeta dead) I would've been dying to have him kill Katniss. That is jusst creul./SPOILER]Bye

You're right, of course; it was a smart idea on Collins' part to add Prim. I just wish she was mentioned more. I wish Katniss thoughts lingered on why she was doing it, or on how much she wished she could've seen Prim one last time... that's all. Just little things like that would have made me like Katniss a lot more, I think.

I only read THG a couple of month ago... I think it was late August, early September, while I was still waiting for my Pottermore owl :lol:.
I read it in one day :blush: which means that I absolutely loved it.

I think that Collins did right with Katniss' character. She was in a life-threatening situation. You can't afford to go all emotional. Katniss thought a lot about Prim (that's how I felt it anyway), but she needed to stay focus on her goal: stay alive. So, no pity, no emotions.

Also, I just wanted to say that, for once, I find a book that I like where women FINALLY kick some butts lol. Katniss is such a strong and independant character, I love the model/example she can be for girls :agree:.

The trailer, in case you guys haven't seen it :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fye5Nwe4qeI

I finally sat down to read The Hunger Games last weekend I ended up reading all 3 of them back to back in as many days. I literally started the first page of the next book as I finished the last of the one before. I'm now half way though Catching Fire on a re-read. Thank goodness for my Kindle, as soon I realised I loved the first one I downloaded the other two so I wouldn't have to wait.

I had almost put off reading them as the subject was just so grizzly but I'm glad I read them and that Suzanne Collins didn't really linger over the details of the deaths. These books are also the first time in a long time that I have been genuinely surprised by some of the twists that were thrown at us.

Just a quick question as my husband doesn't agree I am the only one who really didn't like Gale right from the off? I'm beginning to think that I maybe reading him wrong and it has nothing to do with my love for Peeta as I had these feeling towards Gales before Peeta was introduced.

I can't wait for the film now!

I finally sat down to read The Hunger Games last weekend I ended up reading all 3 of them back to back in as many days. I literally started the first page of the next book as I finished the last of the one before. I'm now half way though Catching Fire on a re-read. Thank goodness for my Kindle, as soon I realised I loved the first one I downloaded the other two so I wouldn't have to wait.

That sounds amazing, :D. I'm thinking of picking them again.

Just a quick question as my husband doesn't agree I am the only one who really didn't like Gale right from the off? I'm beginning to think that I maybe reading him wrong and it has nothing to do with my love for Peeta as I had these feeling towards Gales before Peeta was introduced.

I was never fond of Gale myself, and that feeling grew as I progressed through the books. In Mockingjay, I was certain I didn't like him at all. I felt he was over-rebelous and sometimes unnecessarily unfriendly (his encounter with Madge, for example). The events at the end of Mockingjay didn't come across, to me, as extremely shocking, :shrug:.

@Beth83 no, you're not the only one. I never liked Gale. Didn't feel sympathy for him either when I realized he was in love with Katniss and had to see her with Peeta on television. I felt like he only thought of himself and that made me dislike him. (and I have to admit that the presence of Peeta didn't help because I fell in love with him right away)

Thank goodness for that I was beginning to think that I was being a bit heartless towards him. By the end of Mockingjay I was more than happy when he was sent off to District 2. He really wasn't what Katniss needed.

I agree about Gale. I always felt like he could take care of himself, and he didn't really need Katniss like Peeta did. I felt like he was too concentrated on the Capitol and defeating it. The most shocking thing for me was his weapons in Mockingjay. I mean, I knew he hated the Capitol, but I thought that there would be a line that the 'good guys' wouldn't cross. When he justified his weapons by saying that they were following the same rulebook that the Capitol was, it really took me aback.

I just discovered this series and like beth83 above, I read all three in like 2 weeks. I was so immersed and when I stopped reading, I was worried about the characters! I was blown away by books 1 and 2, book 3 was good but not my favorite of the three.

I am super excited for the movies...I heard there will be four movies right? Could have sworn Woody Harrelson said that in an interview...

Anyway, from what I have seen from interviews and the previews, I am not totally won over by Jennifer Lawrence. I think I like what I see in the trailer, but it is so little it is hard to tell. I have watched interviews with her and I am not feeling it...has anyone seen Winter's Bone? It seems like this is a similar movie as far as the character she is playing...does she strike you as the right choice? She seems to have the look down thought I think.

-JR

Just reread The Hunger Games Trilogy over the past couple of days...

The Hunger Games: 8.5/10
Catching Fire: 9/10
Mockingjay 7.5/10

Catching Fire is still my favorite of the series, and probably always will be. I love the twist with the Games coming back into play, and the way the arena worked, and how it all turned out... just some great reading. Love Hunger Games too, and Mockingjay was okay, but so different than the first two books. But the very short epilogue was excruciatingly bad.

Catching Fire is still my favorite of the series, and probably always will be. I love the twist with the Games coming back into play, and the way the arena worked, and how it all turned out... just some great reading.

CF is my favourite, too, :agree:. To me, the Games in this one felt much more scary and dangerous, not because of what happened in them (after all there was nothing more scary than those Mutts in the first Games, :eeep:), but because I knew that it was impossible for it to end the same way as the one before. I was certain Snow would make sure either Katniss or Peeta won't survive. The end was really unexpected and it took me more than one read to get what had happened.

Just a quick question as my husband doesn't agree I am the only one who really didn't like Gale right from the off? I'm beginning to think that I maybe reading him wrong and it has nothing to do with my love for Peeta as I had these feeling towards Gales before Peeta was introduced.
I had the same feeling. There are certain characters that I really connect with, and Gale just wasn't one of them. I never felt anything but indifference toward him when he was first introduced in The Hunger Games in the first scene, and as the books progressed he just started to annoy me. :lol: Peeta, on the other hand, I liked immediately for some reason I can't really explain. Like, as soon as his name was called at the Reaping, I thought, "I think I'm gonna like this guy." And throughout the series his character intrigued me (not to mention infatuated me :p). He just has so many layers and depth, to me at least. I feel like he is one of the only few characters in the series that is fully developed.

By the way, SOO excited for the movie! I squeed when I saw the trailer. It looks awesome! There have been a lot of movies that ruined the books, but I don't feel like this will be one of them. :clap:

I just started to read The Hunger Games, and I'm wondering what took me so long to read this wonderful book!!!!! :D I'm about half way through, and have the other two books waiting on my bookshelf. :agree:

Slowly making my way through the books (so much to do, so little time!). Just got up to the part with the berries. I kind of feel sorry for Fox-face...

The thing that made me close to tears in Mockingjay is when Buttercup came back to Katniss. And when her mom said Gale was in three, and Katniss thought that he was there to kiss just another pair of lips.That and When Peeta was calling her a mutt and throttling her.

I'm re-reading the Hunger Games in preparation for the movie next month, and I just realized that Peeta sparkles. :rolleyes:

I'm re-reading the Hunger Games in preparation for the movie next month, and I just realized that Peeta sparkles. :rolleyes:I totally took that as a Twilight dig. Because it has to do with the mind altering Tracker Jacker venom. Venom, sparkles. :shrug:

Hi I just finish the series. At first I was shocked to not find a thread, but I was looking under Sci-fi. I guess the genre is up for debate. I look forward to going back and reading this thread and joining the fandom. :)

After reading a few pages of the thread, I'm surprised a few people said Catching Fire was their favorite when it was my least favorite, and that I'm somewhat alone in rooting for Gale. Then I realized there were some presuppositions that affected my reading.


1) Since before I started or sometime shortly thereafter, I knew there would be more than just the Games but knew that ample time had to be given to it. The first one was okay but after that I was ready to move on to the rebellion. I thought Catching Fire was going to be about that. So you can imagine my dismay when Katniss barely finds out about the uprisings in 8 at the end of part 1. I was shocked when the Quell was announced, but maybe that helped me connect with Katniss more. I felt trapped into going to the arena again when what I really wanted was to read about the rebellion. Not only did I spend the whole book yelling at Katniss about the clock, wishing she'd tell Haymitch or someone, but I was surprised to find her so out of the loop and not on her way to the war until the very end of the book. My anxiousness to go to war affected how I felt about 2. Not that I didn't enjoy it, but nothing was going the way I planned. I literally LOL'd when Peeta announced Katniss was pregnant. I thought they were going to perform a wedding right there on stage, but this was a much better turn of events, and a brilliant strategy on Peeta's part to boot.

2) I rooted for Gale from the beginning, believing that friendship outlasts attraction always, that I was blind to how they were growing apart. I didn't understand until Katniss explained it in the final chapter. Looking back, I shouldn't have rooted for Gale so badly. Yes, he was there first, but it was a partnership based on the need to survive. It's sad when friendships end, but it happens and is a part of life. The Games (and the war) changed Katniss. By no fault of his own, Gale also couldn't relate to the nightmares she has. He could have sympathy but he doesn't *get* it. Throughout the series, I kept wanting Peeta to die during those times he was so close. When he came back hijacked, I thought it was Gale's big break finally. It wasn't fair of me, because Peeta has feelings too, but I kept thinking of the pain Gale went through, watching Katniss and Peeta on tv. It's bad enough to lose someone to another, but to have to witness it yourself is torture. Maybe not the same as Katniss and Peeta went through physically, but torture nonetheless. I hope Gale found love.

3) I'm ten years older than Katniss, so I tried really hard to give her grace, but I found myself frustrated and annoyed with her often. Haymitch was my favorite character though, and in many ways he's like a male version of Katniss. Then there were the times I felt disconnected from the story because she, our sole host/link to the story was out of it and unable to be a proper narrator. I felt shut out and confused of what was going on. I didn't like she never realized that she was doing exactly what her mom did when her father died.

I agree with those of you who said that the books felt rushed. Thanks to the person who said that it seems Collins told more than she showed. That put words to what was nagging me. Sometimes I felt robbed or spoiled because key events are skimmed through or summed up after the fact. That's what I miss about Jo's style - the bounty of details. The choppy style due to the first person POV (causing a painful amount of incomplete sentences) along with the repetitive nature of Katniss' episodes, bothered me, but overall I loved the series. It's not HP - nothing is - but it's the first time I've been glued to a book in a long time. I can't wait for the movie (my motivator for finally picking up the books after hearing people talk about them for years) and already have my costume picked out. I don't have plans to attend any parties and will probably just see a Saturday morning matinee, but finding any excuse to dress up is a thing of mine.

I'm re-reading the Hunger Games in preparation for the movie next month, and I just realized that Peeta sparkles. :rolleyes:
He does? :wow: :yuhup:. Totally missed that!

I think I'm going to reread the books soon, :D.



1) Since before I started or sometime shortly thereafter, I knew there would be more than just the Games but knew that ample time had to be given to it. The first one was okay but after that I was ready to move on to the rebellion. I thought Catching Fire was going to be about that. So you can imagine my dismay when Katniss barely finds out about the uprisings in 8 at the end of part 1. I was shocked when the Quell was announced, but maybe that helped me connect with Katniss more. I felt trapped into going to the arena again when what I really wanted was to read about the rebellion.

I thought the rebillion would begin in book two as well. Actually I thought it would start in book one (after Rue died), because I felt Collins wouldn't kill Peeta, and I didn't see how they could both survive. So yeah, I was really put off when the rebillion didn't start in CF. But still, it's my favourite in the series. It reveals so much about the characters than either book one or three.

Not only did I spend the whole book yelling at Katniss about the clock, wishing she'd tell Haymitch or someone, but I was surprised to find her so out of the loop and not on her way to the war until the very end of the book.
Wow, I never figured out the whole tick-tock business, myself. I was reading too fast the first time, though.

3) I'm ten years older than Katniss, so I tried really hard to give her grace, but I found myself frustrated and annoyed with her often. Haymitch was my favorite character though, and in many ways he's like a male version of Katniss.

I don't think it's the age. I'm only a few years older than her and I found her really annoying at sometimes, :whistle:. I think it was understandable most of the time, though, :).

Haymitch is one of my favourite characters, too, followed by Peeta and Finnick.

Then there were the times I felt disconnected from the story because she, our sole host/link to the story was out of it and unable to be a proper narrator. I felt shut out and confused of what was going on. I didn't like she never realized that she was doing exactly what her mom did when her father died.

I agree here as well. I felt the narration was acceptable in the first two books, but the third could have been much better, if not for the narration. It's part of the reason why I didn't like the third book; Katniss was just a symbol, she didn't play actually play an important role.

After reading a few pages of the thread, I'm surprised a few people said Catching Fire was their favorite when it was my least favorite, and that I'm somewhat alone in rooting for Gale. Then I realized there were some presuppositions that affected my reading.


2) I rooted for Gale from the beginning, believing that friendship outlasts attraction always, that I was blind to how they were growing apart. I didn't understand until Katniss explained it in the final chapter. Looking back, I shouldn't have rooted for Gale so badly. Yes, he was there first, but it was a partnership based on the need to survive. It's sad when friendships end, but it happens and is a part of life. The Games (and the war) changed Katniss. By no fault of his own, Gale also couldn't relate to the nightmares she has. He could have sympathy but he doesn't *get* it. Throughout the series, I kept wanting Peeta to die during those times he was so close. When he came back hijacked, I thought it was Gale's big break finally. It wasn't fair of me, because Peeta has feelings too, but I kept thinking of the pain Gale went through, watching Katniss and Peeta on tv. It's bad enough to lose someone to another, but to have to witness it yourself is torture. Maybe not the same as Katniss and Peeta went through physically, but torture nonetheless. I hope Gale found love.

I always supported Gale because he wasn't a part of the game. In my group of friends who've read the books nobody seems to like him apart from me. I feel he makes a much better friend/partner for Katniss than Peeta. Although Peeta had feelings for Katniss before the Games, her opinion and view of him was mostly based on what happened in the arena whilst Haymitch encouraged them to play up to the image of lovers and I just don't feel this is a healthy basis for a relationship.

I never really understood why people dislike Gale. Admittedly he can be cold and cruel at times but I always saw that as barriers he built due to his childhood, similar to Katniss. Having to watch Katniss go through the games and grow close to Peeta must have been torture. The way their relationship ended made me want to cry. I just wish they at least managed to become friends again at some point.

Wow, I never figured out the whole tick-tock business, myself. I was reading too fast the first time, though.

I didn't figure out the arena was a clock probably until Katniss did, but I knew it had significance, that he wasn't just like "ooh look at my pretty watch." I felt like he was trying to tell her something, and she had to talk to someone like Haymitch to figure out what it means. I didn't realize that she didn't realize it was a symbol of rebellion. I mean, I get that it was fashion in the Capitol, so that threw her off, but the fact he was so secretive was suspicious. I thought some sort of rebellion was going to start at midnight that night. So i was a little off, thinking it was just about the mockingjay, not the clock itself.

It felt like DH all over again, because ever since Harry opened the locket I knew it was RAB but it took the trio what felt like forever to figure it out. It was probably just a fluke both times that I had the right clues in my head at the time, that something mysterious seemed obvious to me. I thought she was going to make things worse by not telling anyone (although I was nervous every time someone died in the Quell arena, figuring that they were going to break out, and these people could've survived).


Haymitch is one of my favourite characters, too, followed by Peeta and Finnick.


Oh yeah Finnick is high up on my list, once we got to know the real him. Also Prim, what we saw of her in 13. She was starting to get fleshed out more but Katniss didn't really follow up on consulting with her more. It's as if Ginny were to stop appearing after OotP. She was growing, maturing, developing a personality beyond "little sister" and I wish we got to see more of the Prim that worked in the hospital. Peeta and Cinna are up there as well, for their subtle brilliance.


I agree here as well. I felt the narration was acceptable in the first two books, but the third could have been much better, if not for the narration. It's part of the reason why I didn't like the third book; Katniss was just a symbol, she didn't play actually play an important role.

One thing I liked about that, though, is that we got to see a wider spectrum of events. I wanted to be right there in the middle of everything, following Coin, Plutarch, Paylor, or Gale, but we got to see a lot more background with Katniss. There are plenty of books and movies out there where the main character is the willing leader of the rebellion. This was an interesting difference.

Ever since I started the series (well after chapter 4, because I read those through free sample from Google Books, but it was a few weeks before i bought the books) I had been in the mood for more dystopian stuff. I watched Planet of the Apes (2001) the other day, will do a rewatch of Equilibrium soon, and should probably borrow T2 from my friend before anymore time passes from when I watched Terminator several months ago. I got an itch for people rebelling against opression, so the lack of direct witness to this was disappointing.

Understanding my presuppositions, expectations, and knowing the outcome, I'd love to reread the trilogy with a more neutral stance. And to go cluehunting; I need a t-shirt that reads "I <3 foreshadowing."

I always supported Gale because he wasn't a part of the game. In my group of friends who've read the books nobody seems to like him apart from me. I feel he makes a much better friend/partner for Katniss than Peeta. Although Peeta had feelings for Katniss before the Games, her opinion and view of him was mostly based on what happened in the arena whilst Haymitch encouraged them to play up to the image of lovers and I just don't feel this is a healthy basis for a relationship.

I never really understood why people dislike Gale. Admittedly he can be cold and cruel at times but I always saw that as barriers he built due to his childhood, similar to Katniss. Having to watch Katniss go through the games and grow close to Peeta must have been torture. The way their relationship ended made me want to cry. I just wish they at least managed to become friends again at some point.

Yeah, totally. I chalked it up to one of those devastating effects of war. Katniss and Gale are a lot a like, and she very well could've been more like Gale. Opposites attract. On that, though, both Katniss and Peeta are mentally disturbed. You'd think they'd each need someone sane without baggage, but sure okay, them and Haymitch can have their little victor community and deal with nightmares in their own way.

In a much lighter way, it's similar to when people go to college and grow apart from their hometown friends. I hope they patched things up, but they could never be friends again, because of the jealousy or at least awkwardness between Gale and Peeta. Say Gale comes over with his wife and kids. It would be strained and uncomfortable. I think as long as each know the other is happy and safe, then they can move on without regular communication. I like to think they send Christmas cards though ;). And where did Hazelle and the kids end up? If in 12, Gale'd come round to visit once in a while. He's got a better relationship with his mom than Katniss does with hers.

After reading a few pages of the thread, I'm surprised a few people said Catching Fire was their favorite when it was my least favorite, and that I'm somewhat alone in rooting for Gale. Then I realized there were some presuppositions that affected my reading. You're not alone on either count. Catching Fire was my least favorite and I was Team Gale. I knew Gale and Katniss wouldn't end up together. No one told me, wasn't spoiled, but I could just tell from the story. I still wanted them together. She was friends with him first and if the Hunger Games never happened she probably would have ended up with him. I feel bad for him. He lost out.



2) I rooted for Gale from the beginning, believing that friendship outlasts attraction always, that I was blind to how they were growing apart. I didn't understand until Katniss explained it in the final chapter. Looking back, I shouldn't have rooted for Gale so badly. Yes, he was there first, but it was a partnership based on the need to survive. It's sad when friendships end, but it happens and is a part of life. The Games (and the war) changed Katniss. By no fault of his own, Gale also couldn't relate to the nightmares she has. He could have sympathy but he doesn't *get* it. Throughout the series, I kept wanting Peeta to die during those times he was so close. When he came back hijacked, I thought it was Gale's big break finally. It wasn't fair of me, because Peeta has feelings too, but I kept thinking of the pain Gale went through, watching Katniss and Peeta on tv. It's bad enough to lose someone to another, but to have to witness it yourself is torture. Maybe not the same as Katniss and Peeta went through physically, but torture nonetheless. I hope Gale found love. I think it was more than a partnership to survive. That's how the friendship formed, but I do believe it became more than that. The thing is, Peeta and Katniss shared something no one else can relate to. They've been through two back to back games and this craziness. I don't think Katniss feels comfortable with anyone else. It's like what Gale said about Katniss choosing whoever she thinks she can't survive without.

He does? :wow: :yuhup:. Totally missed that!

I think I'm going to reread the books soon, :D.



I thought the rebillion would begin in book two as well. Actually I thought it would start in book one (after Rue died), because I felt Collins wouldn't kill Peeta, and I didn't see how they could both survive. So yeah, I was really put off when the rebillion didn't start in CF. But still, it's my favourite in the series. It reveals so much about the characters than either book one or three.
I was surprised for the second Hunger Games to be in book 2. I had overheard two of my friends talking about the series and I heard there would be a second one, but they made it sound like it was in the third book.

I knew Gale and Katniss wouldn't end up together. No one told me, wasn't spoiled, but I could just tell from the story. I still wanted them together. She was friends with him first and if the Hunger Games never happened she probably would have ended up with him. I feel bad for him. He lost out.


I think deep down I knew but was in denial that it wouldn't work out. I think both of them were in denial as well, at least throughout Mockingjay. The whole time I was refusing to even consider Peeta a possibility, just a temporary roadblock to Gale & Katniss' happily ever after.

I felt entirely the same way about Gale. I was rooting for him from the beginning. I was very angeed that Collins just let him leave without nothing. I can understand Katniss grieving over Prim's death, but just to leave him out was heartless. Leah you're right, Gale did lose out, I hope he found someone as well. I was hoping Catching Frire would start the rebellion but we got back into the arena. :rolleyes: Re-reading the series now, I can see that Gale and Katniss wouldn't have ended up together either. I can see Katniss falling for Peeta, if that's the right word for it, like when he's brushing her hair from her forehead afte she pulls him from the mud. But I still feel for Gale. Thee qas also another Twilight similarity when Peeta says he likes to watch Katniss sleep. :rolleyes: I've also noticed Collins' writing this time around too, with all her incomplete sentences. I didn't noticeit the first time since I was so immersed in the story. :yuhup:

Oh! I got it!


It's sort of like Snape/Lily but on a different level. They were close friends but drifted apart due to his interest in the dark arts. Oh man, with Katniss alive, Gale's already off to a better start than Snape. I can't deal with another person having such a tragic story. Now i've just lost a little hope that he fell in love with someone else, but I've come to terms with Katniss/Peeta a little better (even though I'm STILL trying to figure out what was so great about James and what Lily saw in him).

That may even be enough for me to sleep at night. If not for the nightmares of mutts.

Although Peeta had feelings for Katniss before the Games, her opinion and view of him was mostly based on what happened in the arena whilst Haymitch encouraged them to play up to the image of lovers and I just don't feel this is a healthy basis for a relationship.

I don't know about that, :shrug:. In book two, Katniss was very disturbed about the fact that the Capitol was going to force them to get married. She wanted to have a choice in the matter, she didn't just accept it. Also as soon as the first Games were over, Katniss didn't hesitate much before revealing to Peeta that her feelings towards him weren't genuine and that she was only doing it for their survival. And she didn't seem very disturbed about his shock or reaction. It was later, that she started to think about him again, and I don't think it was because of Haymitch or the Capitol that time.

I never really understood why people dislike Gale. Admittedly he can be cold and cruel at times but I always saw that as barriers he built due to his childhood, similar to Katniss. Having to watch Katniss go through the games and grow close to Peeta must have been torture. The way their relationship ended made me want to cry. I just wish they at least managed to become friends again at some point.

I didn't dislike Gale in book one or two. I just didn't think he was the right person for Katniss. In book three however, I started to dislike him because of his acceptance (and possibly approval) of using violence with innocent people. Just because his father died in a very gruesome way, doesn't mean it's okay for him not to be disturbed when the same happens to other people.

Peeta and Cinna are up there as well, for their subtle brilliance.

How can I forget Cinna? :D. I liked how he was always calm around Katniss. I think with is constant moral support, he helped Katniss a lot, probably more than Haymitch did.

I think it was more than a partnership to survive. That's how the friendship formed, but I do believe it became more than that. The thing is, Peeta and Katniss shared something no one else can relate to. They've been through two back to back games and this craziness. I don't think Katniss feels comfortable with anyone else. It's like what Gale said about Katniss choosing whoever she thinks she can't survive without.

I think that's true. Actually Peeta was in Katniss' life before Gale was. It was his help, that encouraged her to fight on (and thus, meet with Gale).

I don't know, I always looked at things from Peeta's perspective. He almost always liked Katniss, and almost always (for one reason or another), she ignored him. It does make me feel (a little bit) sorry for Gale, when think how he must have felt, watching Katniss and Peeta during the Games. But I feel much more sad when I think of how Peeta actually entered the Games planning that if he survived until 22 kids were killed, he'll still have to die, so Katniss would survive. And when things worked out well, Katniss went back to ignoring him, then the Games came again and once more he wasn't planning to get out of the Arena. And when he did, Katniss went on ignoring him, (true, he was mad, but still..).
In the end, I thought if Katniss finally wanted to get with him, she might not be able to, :yuhup:.

I was surprised for the second Hunger Games to be in book 2. I had overheard two of my friends talking about the series and I heard there would be a second one, but they made it sound like it was in the third book.

I think it was a surprise for everyone, :lol:.

Thee qas also another Twilight similarity when Peeta says he likes to watch Katniss sleep. :rolleyes:

Some one around here doesn't like Peeta much, methinks, :p.

I agree here as well. I felt the narration was acceptable in the first two books, but the third could have been much better, if not for the narration. It's part of the reason why I didn't like the third book; Katniss was just a symbol, she didn't play actually play an important role.

That was pretty much the point, though. Katniss was to be preserved as the symbol of the revolution. As Haymitch told her at the end of Catcing Fire, the revolution lived as long as she, its symbol, was alive. The rebels were using Katniss as a symbol rather than a fighter, for much of Mockingjay.


Oh yeah Finnick is high up on my list, once we got to know the real him. Also Prim, what we saw of her in 13. She was starting to get fleshed out more but Katniss didn't really follow up on consulting with her more. It's as if Ginny were to stop appearing after OotP. She was growing, maturing, developing a personality beyond "little sister" and I wish we got to see more of the Prim that worked in the hospital. Peeta and Cinna are up there as well, for their subtle brilliance.

More of Prim would have been good. The expansion of her role in Mockingjay, giving Katniss advice, getting the opportunities she never would have had in District 12, makes her death all the more tragic - just when things would have been improving for her. And the story Finnick reveals in Mockingjay is just heartbreaking and shows just how despicable Snow is.


Yeah, totally. I chalked it up to one of those devastating effects of war. Katniss and Gale are a lot a like, and she very well could've been more like Gale. Opposites attract. On that, though, both Katniss and Peeta are mentally disturbed. You'd think they'd each need someone sane without baggage, but sure okay, them and Haymitch can have their little victor community and deal with nightmares in their own way.

They all had baggage. Gale was very dismissive when it came to killing and had a casual attitude towards violence and violent death. For someone like Katniss who had been forced into that situation, had seen first hand that kind of violence, had committed that kind of violence herself, and been there to see the consequences, I think that casual attitude would have been hard to accept.

In a much lighter way, it's similar to when people go to college and grow apart from their hometown friends. I hope they patched things up, but they could never be friends again, because of the jealousy or at least awkwardness between Gale and Peeta.

I think the death of Prim due to Gale's bombs might have had more to do with the uneasy relationship than jealousy. I think that they could in time become friends again, but never as close as they had been before.


I think it was more than a partnership to survive. That's how the friendship formed, but I do believe it became more than that. The thing is, Peeta and Katniss shared something no one else can relate to. They've been through two back to back games and this craziness. I don't think Katniss feels comfortable with anyone else. It's like what Gale said about Katniss choosing whoever she thinks she can't survive without.

I agree with that. I think Katniss felt that Peeta could better relate to her experiences, whereas in Mockingjay, Gale was dismissive of Katniss's feelings and her perspective coming from the two Games. He didn't understand her concern for anybody connected with the Capitol.



I can understand Katniss grieving over Prim's death, but just to leave him out was heartless.


I imagine Katniss felt that the killing of her sister was a heartless tactic. I don't know how Gale's disappointment in romance can compare.

Thee qas also another Twilight similarity when Peeta says he likes to watch Katniss sleep. :rolleyes:

:lol: Except that Peeta doesn't break into Katniss' home to watch her sleep.

It's sort of like Snape/Lily but on a different level. They were close friends but drifted apart due to his interest in the dark arts. Oh man, with Katniss alive, Gale's already off to a better start than Snape. I can't deal with another person having such a tragic story. Now i've just lost a little hope that he fell in love with someone else, but I've come to terms with Katniss/Peeta a little better (even though I'm STILL trying to figure out what was so great about James and what Lily saw in him).

I can see why Katniss wouldn't be able to be comfortable around Gale, knowing what his plans had done to Prim. Like Snape, Gale didn't care who he hurt, as long as it met his goal.Difference being that Gale did something harmful and destructive to work against an evil oppressor and Snape did something harmful and destructive to aid an evil oppressor. As for Lily/James, I think the absence of a Dark Mark was a good starting point for Lily, personally.

I don't know about that, :shrug:. In book two, Katniss was very disturbed about the fact that the Capitol was going to force them to get married. She wanted to have a choice in the matter, she didn't just accept it.

I agree. Katniss was trying to work out how she felt about her love life, whether she wanted either or none of these two guys, and simultaneously worrying about being forced into a marriage against her will. I think she reflects at one point that the choice of who to marry, or whether to marry at all, was one of the few freedoms they had in the districts. I think that made working out her feelings much more difficult.

I didn't dislike Gale in book one or two. I just didn't think he was the right person for Katniss. In book three however, I started to dislike him because of his acceptance (and possibly approval) of using violence with innocent people. Just because his father died in a very gruesome way, doesn't mean it's okay for him not to be disturbed when the same happens to other people.

Gale shows an acceptance of committing violence early on in Hunger Games when he claims that killing a person can't be much different from killing an animal. Perhaps it's a defence mechanism, but it doesn't sit well with me.

I may check this out after I see the movie. Sounds interesting. A little bit of "Battle Royale" and "The Running Man" in it.

I read this last month. It was pretty good. Much better than I expected. I'm going to buy book 2 in April. This month the new Honor Harrington novel by David Weber was released, which is a must read for me. lol...

I didn't dislike Gale in book one or two. I just didn't think he was the right person for Katniss.In book three however, I started to dislike him because of his acceptance (and possibly approval) of using violence with innocent people. Just because his father died in a very gruesome way, doesn't mean it's okay for him not to be disturbed when the same happens to other people.

I don't think Gale is violent because He enjoys it or thinks it fine, but after losing his father (an event he blames on The Capitol) and seeing Katniss in the Game he's just built up such anger against them that He sees it as the only way to make a difference and to get revenge. I'm not saying he's right here, but I always thought he saw things like a soldier and that the 'end justified the mean'.

I don't think Gale is violent because He enjoys it or thinks it fine, but after losing his father (an event he blames on The Capitol) and seeing Katniss in the Game he's just built up such anger against them that He sees it as the only way to make a difference and to get revenge. I'm not saying he's right here, but I always thought he saw things like a soldier and that the 'end justified the mean'.

I get your point. But then again, the scheme he helped devise to bring the Capitol to an end, was not directed at the Capitol itself, but at their own people, some of which were actually children, :shrug:.

I think what I don't like here is the fact that Gale (and Coin and other revolutionaries) refused to see that they were going the same way the Capitol did. They weren't indignant because the Capitol commited terrible crimes, but because they themselves, were the victims of those crimes. It's not because it was happening that they wanted to take revenge, but because it was happening to them. And naturally, if they had the chance to retaliate, they would have used it the same way the Capitol did. Which is what Coin was planning to do, if not for some of the Victors' refusal and Katniss' intervention

In other words, I think they didn't want to restore justice, they just wanted to get revenge.

I get your point. But then again, the scheme he helped devise to bring the Capitol to an end, was not directed at the Capitol itself, but at their own people, some of which were actually children, :shrug:.

I think what I don't like here is the fact that Gale (and Coin and other revolutionaries) refused to see that they were going the same way the Capitol did. They weren't indignant because the Capitol commited terrible crimes, but because they themselves, were the victims of those crimes. It's not because it was happening that they wanted to take revenge, but because it was happening to them. And naturally, if they had the chance to retaliate, they would have used it the same way the Capitol did. Which is what Coin was planning to do, if not for some of the Victors' refusal and Katniss' intervention

In other words, I think they didn't want to restore justice, they just wanted to get revenge.

I see what you mean about Coin and Gale only wanting to make a stand because they were the victims. The more I think about it and his character, I can't see Gale as being one to make a stand if he wasn't directly affected (then again the books never show Gale before his fathers death and everyone in the districts have been abused by the Capitol). I can't really think of many of the characters who made a stand against the Capitol, other than Capitol citizens, who didn't have some form of vendetta against them.

i ust started reading this series and im addicted. i love this series so much.

I'm re-reading the Hunger Games in preparation for the movie next month, and I just realized that Peeta sparkles. :rolleyes:

I totally took that as a Twilight dig. Because it has to do with the mind altering Tracker Jacker venom. Venom, sparkles. :shrug:

Just came upon that part. Peeta and the others jumped in the lake to avoid the Tracker's bites. I think it's because the water, not the venom that he sparkled, right? :hmm:.

I may check this out after I see the movie. Sounds interesting. A little bit of "Battle Royale" and "The Running Man" in it.

The books aren't as gory or as harrowing as Battle Royale and The Running Man, but they're one heck of a lot of fun. Definitely worth the read just make sure you don't miss meals or anything because you're too busy turning pages because I think i managed to lose a couple of pounds that way.

I could do with losing a few pounds anyway.

I am halfway through the book. I will post a review when I'm done. So far, I am impressed.

I could do with losing a few pounds anyway.

I am halfway through the book. I will post a review when I'm done. So far, I am impressed.

I have 30 pages left. I'm very impressed. It's such a pleasure to have a book you can't put down.

That's something I love about the series. It seems every chapter ends on a cliffhanger.

That's something I love about the series. It seems every chapter ends on a cliffhanger.

Yes - and not only the end of the chapters, either, I was biting my nails the entire time. That was some masterful suspense. I hope Catching Fire is as good!

“The Hunger Games”

The novel gets off to a good start. Collins provides the reader with all the information they need early, so the rest of the novel can focus on character development. In the first few chapters, the reader knows who all the principle characters are, their character dynamics with each other, an insight into the lead character’s mindset and personality, information on her family, a description of the world in which she lives, the rules of the Hunger Games, the process of selection, an explanation of terminology, and the oppression she is facing. There is no padding. Everything is functional and coherent.

There are problems however. It’s common in fiction to feature dictatorial governments who are so evil that they unintentionally encourage an inevitable revolution, while paradoxically trying to suppress revolution. The Capitol is utterly insane, although to be fair, that might be the point. According to the novel, North American civilisation collapsed and was replaced by a new nation called Panem, which is ruled by a wealthy capital city, and the rest of the country is divided into districts that each focus on a single industry which they supply to the Capitol. But these districts rebelled and were defeated. In punishment, the Hunger Games were created to dissuade the people of the rebellious districts to never rebel again, and the Capitol keeps most of the population on the verge of starvation and poverty.

This doesn’t make much sense to me. The Capitol seems to be putting all its eggs in one basket. What if one district provides an important industry but suffers some sort of disaster causing their industry to collapse? No backup plan appears to be in place. Is it really wise to have the districts solely focus on a single industry? Wouldn’t a diverse economy make more sense in each district? I suppose it could be seen as a safety measure. If each district only produces one thing, they can’t be a threat. It would be like each district making a different part of a gun. Each individual component is useless, but the assembled weapon (held only by the Capitol) is lethal. However if the Capitol depends on the labour of the people of the districts, wouldn’t the workers need to be fit and healthy? Surely poor and starving workers would be weak. They’d be dying of hunger and disease, which means that the labour force would be decimated. I guess it’s possible they keep the adults of working age sustained with just enough food to keep them going, and let the weak, sick and elderly die.

The games themselves seem self-defeating. As far as I can gather, the districts rebelled against the Capitol because it was oppressive and evil. So to punish the districts, the Capitol murders their children every year and forces them to watch? Rather than frightening the population into submission, it should actually cause increased hatred and a greater willingness to rebel among the population from whom it draws its victims. The rebels in such a case would likely be radicalised beyond all reason, which would place the Capitol in even further risk of being destroyed if a rebellion was successful. It also raises questions as to why the citizens of the Capitol themselves don’t object to such a vicious system and seem to have no problem watching children die every year. I can understand that the people who actively rule Panem may be ruthless but I have doubts as to whether the entire population of the Capitol feel the same way. They are described as being fashion obsessed and shallow, yet somehow despite having the intellectual capacity of the panel on “Fashion Police” they are able to organise a military and keep an entire nation under their control? That doesn’t seem logical. I guess it’s possible that whatever disaster destroyed the world may have mutated them to become insane. Then again, there are a number of characters who seem pretty normal in the Capitol like Cinna, Effie and Cesar.

I wonder why the people of the districts even bother having children, since there’s a chance they’ll be killed anyway before they reach the age of 19. It probably makes more sense to be single and focus entirely on your own survival without the need to apply for extra supplies for your family (thus increasing the risk of being reaped), or placing the burden on your child to win supplies for the rest of their family. Katniss mentions this at the end of the novel.

The novel also mentions that the Capitol is “ringed” by districts. Is that a good idea? To have the centre of an oppressive government completely surrounded by districts containing populations who hate them? Even if some of those districts were friendly, can they really be entirely trusted? What’s going to stop districts 2 and 4 for example joining together and overthrowing the Capitol? The book says that the Capitol is protected by mountains, but even so, I’d be surprised if some low level terrorism at least wasn’t a constant menace to the Panem government. The peacekeepers in particular should be routinely attacked and killed in the districts, and how exactly does one capital city manage to control the entire country? Let’s say that the coal district rebelled and got nuked by the Capitol, well that means that Panem no longer has a coal supply or workers to mine it, since the entire district is now radioactive. I question why the districts who suffer the most don’t just rebel anyway. Yes they may get killed, but that’s likely to happen anyway, either via the games or through starvation and sickness. If you are going to die, you may as well die fighting. I also presume that Panem is the only nation left on Earth since I can recall no reference to any other, though I suppose it’s possible that since the Capitol controls all media, they may block any information about the larger world getting to the people of Panem, so even if other countries were out there, the people of Panem wouldn’t know about it, or at least the rank and file citizens wouldn’t.

The dynamic between Katniss, Peeta and Gale will inevitably bring comparisons to “Twilight”, but it’s only a superficial one. The relationship between the three main characters in “The Hunger Games” is far superior. Katniss is a strong female character who is highly resourceful, compassionate, and very likable. Peeta is well developed and Gale, despite only really being featured at the start of the novel is constantly referred to throughout, which keeps him in the mind of the reader. They seem equally important to Katniss for different reasons. I have noticed online that some fans of “The Hunger Games” have been calling themselves “Team Peeta” and “Team Gale”. In my opinion, they don’t need to be doing that, unless of course it’s a parody of the “Twilight” fanbase. Haymitch serves the role of mentor very well. Although he’s usually a ginsoak, when the time comes he gets serious. Effie is only shallow on the surface, but indications are given that it’s only an act and she has depth hidden below. Cinna is a compassionate character too. I liked Cesar as well. Having characters like these are essential, because it gives the reader someone to root for. It’s also important to have an enemy as repulsive as the Capitol because it gives the reader something to root against. Too much of modern fiction IMO has unlikable “heroes” and only vaguely evil “villains”. Personally I prefer more defined roles for each. Collins provides that for the most part. The career tributes are somewhere in the middle. Not “evil” but simply ruthless because the world they inhabit has forced them be so.

I’m not the biggest fan of the names assigned to characters in this book.I like “Effie Trinket” because it just sounds flamboyant, but Katniss? Peeta? Cato? Haymitch? Primrose? Awful names. A little too whimsical for what is a rather dark novel. I also think the actual games part of the book does drag. Not greatly, but it does bog down a book which up until that point had been progressing very swiftly. I have serious doubts that the population of the Capitol would really be so enthusiastic about watching an event that lasts for weeks with large periods of the tributes doing virtually nothing. I felt Rue’s death lacked some impact, because the reader didn’t really know her that well. I figure that Rue was basically a proxy for Prim, and that Katniss’ kind treatment of her was more symbolic of a big sister protecting a younger sibling. I liked the scene where Thresh spares Katniss and I especially liked the line where Katniss feels sympathy for Rue’s killer and states how she hates those who forced them to participate in such violence, rather than being hostile to the tributes involved in the violence, since they are all victims of the same system. The relationship between Katniss and Peeta is well developed after his injury. Treating his wounds brings the two characters closer together and it works very well. I liked the story thread that they must feign romance to avoid allegations of encouraging rebellion, although hints are dropped that it may not be an act.

Overall, I did enjoy this novel and I look forward to the second and third ones. I do find the whole concept of “The Hunger Games” a little unrealistic though. I mean, seriously, a nation of people only a few steps away from crippling poverty working themselves to death to preserve a social system which provides luxury for an elite who divide the population by playing them against each other and distract them using entertainment and media? That’s not at all believ………hmm.

On second thoughts maybe it’s not so unrealistic.

I really enjoyed your review, AldebaranBlack.

“The Hunger Games”

The games themselves seem self-defeating. As far as I can gather, the districts rebelled against the Capitol because it was oppressive and evil. So to punish the districts, the Capitol murders their children every year and forces them to watch? Rather than frightening the population into submission, it should actually cause increased hatred and a greater willingness to rebel among the population from whom it draws its victims. The rebels in such a case would likely be radicalised beyond all reason, which would place the Capitol in even further risk of being destroyed if a rebellion was successful.

I think the Capitol relies on keeping their constituents hungry enough as to make them feel continuously defeated. Despair is very hard to overcome. Also, it's mentioned that the Capitol has used means to spread paranoia among the population (the jabberjays, for example), which is an effective (and used in real life oppression regimes) method of stifling the possibility of consolidation among the oppressed.

I can understand that the people who actively rule Panem may be ruthless but I have doubts as to whether the entire population of the Capitol feel the same way. They are described as being fashion obsessed and shallow, yet somehow despite having the intellectual capacity of the panel on “Fashion Police” they are able to organise a military and keep an entire nation under their control? That doesn’t seem logical.

I think the actual brains behind the whole system are not reveled in the book - the stylists, escorts, etc seem to be more of hired staff than a part of the whole establishment behind the concept of the games. And we don't really get to meet any of the Gamemakers.

I wonder why the people of the districts even bother having children, since there’s a chance they’ll be killed anyway before they reach the age of 19. It probably makes more sense to be single and focus entirely on your own survival without the need to apply for extra supplies for your family (thus increasing the risk of being reaped), or placing the burden on your child to win supplies for the rest of their family. Katniss mentions this at the end of the novel.

Maybe they don't have reliable birth control, or birth control is banned precisely because the Capitol needs the people to reproduce.

The novel also mentions that the Capitol is “ringed” by districts. Is that a good idea? To have the centre of an oppressive government completely surrounded by districts containing populations who hate them? Even if some of those districts were friendly, can they really be entirely trusted?

I think the Capitol's enormous advantage in terms of technology is a good enough protection.

What’s going to stop districts 2 and 4 for example joining together and overthrowing the Capitol?

Katniss mentions that travel between the districts is prohibited - I imagine so is communication between them.

I liked the story thread that they must feign romance to avoid allegations of encouraging rebellion, although hints are dropped that it may not be an act.

I liked that, too - it was a clever way of making the readers wonder what they actually feel. Although I personally am convinced that Peeta is in love with Katniss and has been for a long time; and I think Katniss is definitely attracted to him but is not ready to face any feelings she might have for him, because it would further complicate a situation she has a hard time dealing with already.

Overall, I did enjoy this novel and I look forward to the second and third ones. I do find the whole concept of “The Hunger Games” a little unrealistic though. I mean, seriously, a nation of people only a few steps away from crippling poverty working themselves to death to preserve a social system which provides luxury for an elite who divide the population by playing them against each other and distract them using entertainment and media? That’s not at all believ………hmm.

On second thoughts maybe it’s not so unrealistic.

Yeah, it sounds like a very close resemblance to what my own country was like during the Socialist years, from what I've heard and learnt in school: luxury was only accessible to the political elite, travel outside of the socialist block was prohibited, and the State Security system ensured an enormous web of spies in practically all areas of life and all places in the country, so that people were never sure whom they could trust.

[QUOTE=bellatrix93;5989502] I think what I don't like here is the fact that Gale (and Coin and other revolutionaries) refused to see that they were going the same way the Capitol did. They weren't indignant because the Capitol commited terrible crimes, but because they themselves, were the victims of those crimes. It's not because it was happening that they wanted to take revenge, but because it was happening to them. And naturally, if they had the chance to retaliate, they would have used it the same way the Capitol did. Which is what Coin was planning to do, if not for some of the Victors' refusal and Katniss' intervention

In other words, I think they didn't want to restore justice, they just wanted to get revenge.

I agree that there was a measure of revenge rather than justice to the actions of Coin, and in following her, Gale and others. I agree, that Coin's plan for another Games shows that revenge was a strong motivator. There was nothing just about doing that, it would have been stooping to the level of the Capitol.

I see what you mean about Coin and Gale only wanting to make a stand because they were the victims. The more I think about it and his character, I can't see Gale as being one to make a stand if he wasn't directly affected (then again the books never show Gale before his fathers death and everyone in the districts have been abused by the Capitol). I can't really think of many of the characters who made a stand against the Capitol, other than Capitol citizens, who didn't have some form of vendetta against them.

I agree. Even if Gale's father had never been killed in the mines, he and his family would still have been suffering the oppression of the Capitol. Gale had taken the tesserae since he was twelve, so poverty had put him at an extra risk of being chosen for the Hunger Games before his father died.

But, even some of the Capitol residents had something against their leadership - Lavinia the Avox and her companion in the woods, for example, must have had some problem with the Capitol as they fled.

Just came upon that part. Peeta and the others jumped in the lake to avoid the Tracker's bites. I think it's because the water, not the venom that he sparkled, right? :hmm:.

On rereading, I noticed that Cato was sparkling, too, when he arrived after Peeta. It may well be the water - Katniss thinks Peeta is sparkling as if he's been "dipped in dew" and Cato is "sparkling wet".


This doesn’t make much sense to me. The Capitol seems to be putting all its eggs in one basket. What if one district provides an important industry but suffers some sort of disaster causing their industry to collapse? No backup plan appears to be in place. Is it really wise to have the districts solely focus on a single industry? Wouldn’t a diverse economy make more sense in each district? I suppose it could be seen as a safety measure. If each district only produces one thing, they can’t be a threat. It would be like each district making a different part of a gun. Each individual component is useless, but the assembled weapon (held only by the Capitol) is lethal.

I agree that it is a safety measure. The people in the districts are limited, skills-wise. None of them would be self-sufficient, none of them have diverse skills and training. However, the Capitol is equally dependent on the Districts and lacking in self-sufficiency. :shrug:

The games themselves seem self-defeating. As far as I can gather, the districts rebelled against the Capitol because it was oppressive and evil. So to punish the districts, the Capitol murders their children every year and forces them to watch? Rather than frightening the population into submission, it should actually cause increased hatred and a greater willingness to rebel among the population from whom it draws its victims. The rebels in such a case would likely be radicalised beyond all reason, which would place the Capitol in even further risk of being destroyed if a rebellion was successful.

The people in the districts are regularly reminded of the destruction of District 13 after the last rebellion - it's mentioned in the Mayor's speech at the Reaping. The Districts live with the knowledge that rebellion means certain death, for their entire district. They balance this against the risk of losing their children to the Games. I think the Games do increase hatred - the people hate the Games and endure them because they must. But they are unarmed, and the Games are designed to increase the sense of powerlessness - this is the intended message - that there's nothing the districts can do about the Games, and that a rebellion will bring even worse consequences. I think there's a general sense of hopelessness and helplessness in the districts, and this is strengthened by being forced to endure the Games.

It also raises questions as to why the citizens of the Capitol themselves don’t object to such a vicious system and seem to have no problem watching children die every year. I can understand that the people who actively rule Panem may be ruthless but I have doubts as to whether the entire population of the Capitol feel the same way. They are described as being fashion obsessed and shallow, yet somehow despite having the intellectual capacity of the panel on “Fashion Police” they are able to organise a military and keep an entire nation under their control? That doesn’t seem logical.

I think that the ordinary Capitol residents are not those keeping the country under an iron grip. The ordinary Capitol residents live in luxury, but they're not all politically powerful. I think that they have become distanced from reality, they're distanced from the idea of struggling to make ends meet. They can't connect with the idea that those children dying in the wilderness for their entertainment are real people, they're someone's child, someone's sibling, someone's friend. And, perhaps it's something to do with the desensitisation to violence on-screen - they can't connect with the idea that these are real deaths, there are real people left behind to grieve.

I wonder why the people of the districts even bother having children, since there’s a chance they’ll be killed anyway before they reach the age of 19. It probably makes more sense to be single and focus entirely on your own survival without the need to apply for extra supplies for your family (thus increasing the risk of being reaped), or placing the burden on your child to win supplies for the rest of their family. Katniss mentions this at the end of the novel.

Katniss also says this to Gale at the beginning - she never wants to have children. I think a part of it may be fear of seeing a child in the Games.

However, as Yoana mentioned, the people in the Districts may not have access to contraception. It's possible, as Katniss' strategy for avoiding having her own children is to never marry.
Also, in a society where the elderly, the ill and the injured are left to fend for themselves and often starve, children may be seen as a sort of security for one's later years.

The novel also mentions that the Capitol is “ringed” by districts. Is that a good idea? To have the centre of an oppressive government completely surrounded by districts containing populations who hate them? Even if some of those districts were friendly, can they really be entirely trusted?

The Capitol is separated from the Districts by the Rockies. It was mentioned somewhere in the first book as being one of the big obstacles for the rebels. They had to scale the mountains, leaving them vulnerable to aerial strikes. It's not made clear how much land survived the disasters, but the majority of Panem seems to be to the east of the Capitol.

What’s going to stop districts 2 and 4 for example joining together and overthrowing the Capitol?

There's little to no communication between the ordinary people of the districts. Katniss suspects that her conversation with Rue about life in their respective districts is being censored before being shown on air. The districts don't have a lot of opportunity to interact.
Divide and conquer works well for the Capitol. Gale says as much when complaining about them. The Games set district against district and rich against poor. The lack of communication means that an uprising would mean destruction for that one district, as it did for District 13.

The book says that the Capitol is protected by mountains, but even so, I’d be surprised if some low level terrorism at least wasn’t a constant menace to the Panem government.

The people can't get away from their districts. I imagine there's large distances between individual districts, too. District 12 doesn't seem to border on Eleven, or any other district, for example.

I question why the districts who suffer the most don’t just rebel anyway. Yes they may get killed, but that’s likely to happen anyway, either via the games or through starvation and sickness. If you are going to die, you may as well die fighting. I also presume that Panem is the only nation left on Earth since I can recall no reference to any other, though I suppose it’s possible that since the Capitol controls all media, they may block any information about the larger world getting to the people of Panem, so even if other countries were out there, the people of Panem wouldn’t know about it, or at least the rank and file citizens wouldn’t.

As the ordinary people in the districts are limited in what they know of other districts within their own country, I agree that the Capitol would keep information of other countries from them.

They seem equally important to Katniss for different reasons. I have noticed online that some fans of “The Hunger Games” have been calling themselves “Team Peeta” and “Team Gale”. In my opinion, they don’t need to be doing that, unless of course it’s a parody of the “Twilight” fanbase.

I agree. Who Katniss ends up with is not the centre, is not the be-all and end-all of the Hunger Games trilogy. There is much more going on, and the romantic side, while an element, is not the most important thing. Nor does the Hunger Games trilogy define Katniss purely by who she wants to be with. The survival element is far more important, as is the oppression by the Capitol.

I’m not the biggest fan of the names assigned to characters in this book.I like “Effie Trinket” because it just sounds flamboyant, but Katniss? Peeta? Cato? Haymitch? Primrose? Awful names. A little too whimsical for what is a rather dark novel.

I quite like the names. The names of the Capitol residents, and some of the Careers, like Cato, call to mind names of the Roman Empire, underlining the parallels to Ancient Rome in the world of Panem.
Katniss and Primrose, children of an apothecary and a woodsman, are named after plants. Peeta, a baker's son, whose name sounds like a type of bread. Rue and Thresh, from the agriculture district, have plant related names, too.
Perhaps the names are a little unusual, but I think that is a reflection of the passage of time.

I have serious doubts that the population of the Capitol would really be so enthusiastic about watching an event that lasts for weeks with large periods of the tributes doing virtually nothing.

They're not - which is why, if there have been no deaths, or not enough action, the Gamemakers introduce something to force the tributes together to fight -like the fire, the feast, or draining the water everywhere except the lake. They don't want the audience to get bored.
Plus, the people may not watch the Games all day - perhaps they watch highlights each day.

I think the Capitol relies on keeping their constituents hungry enough as to make them feel continuously defeated. Despair is very hard to overcome. Also, it's mentioned that the Capitol has used means to spread paranoia among the population (the jabberjays, for example), which is an effective (and used in real life oppression regimes) method of stifling the possibility of consolidation among the oppressed.

I agree. I think that years of suffering - generations, really, - have left the people of the Districts without hope for change or improvement.

Just put the Trilogy on hold over at my local library. Can't wait to get started in terms of reading them. It'll be sometime before I can though... there are over 200 people waiting for a copy of the first book (down from over 700, which is good).

Yes - and not only the end of the chapters, either, I was biting my nails the entire time. That was some masterful suspense. I hope Catching Fire is as good!Catching Fire was my favorite of the 3. I have one word - Finnick!


...In punishment, the Hunger Games were created to dissuade the people of the rebellious districts to never rebel again, and the Capitol keeps most of the population on the verge of starvation and poverty.Within each district there are socioeconomic classes. For example, Peeta and Katniss' mom came from the merchant class. They may not have been wealthy but they are better off than the working class. Plus Peeta was decorating those cakes for someone, so there might have even been an upper class in D12. The Mayor perhaps?

When you have a sense of being 'better off' than someone else it creates a false sense of security. So long as there is someone worse off than you, the need to rebel doesn't seem so strong.

However if the Capitol depends on the labour of the people of the districts, wouldn’t the workers need to be fit and healthy? Surely poor and starving workers would be weak. They’d be dying of hunger and disease, which means that the labour force would be decimated. I guess it’s possible they keep the adults of working age sustained with just enough food to keep them going, and let the weak, sick and elderly die. This seems to be how it is in D12 with an industry of coal, which we're not even sure the Capitol really needs. For me, it seemed like D12 was neglected because it wasn't necessary. They're like the people living in the slums that you want to just go away but you can't force them to. So you neglect them and let the fittest survive.

In some of the more 'upper class' districts like 1-4 the oppression and starvation doesn't seem as prevalent. Even D8 with it's textile production is more valued than coal. And D11 seems so vast with so many people (Katniss notes that at some point in the series that the entire eligible population couldn't possibly fit in the public square so there must be a pre-selection process) that sacrificing 2 kids isn't as obscene as when the population is smaller like in D12. Plus in D11 it is mentioned that they get more food during harvest time to keep them working longer hours.

We could get into a discussion of what a migrant farm worker's life is like in the current US vs an electronic engineer's. I'd say it's pretty comparable to Panem - the only difference in the oppression is that in the US our people are 'free' and Panem there is a dictator of a ruler.

It also raises questions as to why the citizens of the Capitol themselves don’t object to such a vicious system and seem to have no problem watching children die every year. I can understand that the people who actively rule Panem may be ruthless but I have doubts as to whether the entire population of the Capitol feel the same way. They are described as being fashion obsessed and shallow, yet somehow despite having the intellectual capacity of the panel on “Fashion Police” they are able to organise a military and keep an entire nation under their control? I think the point is that outside the Capitol the citizens aren't seen as people. Capitol citizens live their perverse lives of luxury while 'other people' provide for them. It's master and servant on a larger scale. It's 74 years of this attitude that make both sides so complacent. I mean how long did the US employ slavery as a business strategy? You could argue, why didn't the slaves just rebel? And the answer is torture and death. So in THG why don't the districts just end the madness? Because the Peacekeepers will shoot you down on the spot. When the choice is living with the bare minimum vs death, you can see how there is systematic complacency.


I question why the districts who suffer the most don’t just rebel anyway. Yes they may get killed, but that’s likely to happen anyway, either via the games or through starvation and sickness. If you are going to die, you may as well die fighting.That's what a person with resources and education thinks. In most revolutions throughout history it is not the downtrodden who engineer the revolution, it is the privileged who align themselves with the oppressed and they do it for philosophical/ethical reasons, not because they need to.

I have serious doubts that the population of the Capitol would really be so enthusiastic about watching an event that lasts for weeks with large periods of the tributes doing virtually nothing. I know someone else mentioned the Gamemakers manipulating the game so that it remains interesting, but more current and relevant is the TV show "Big Brother." It was programmed to be on TV during a scheduled time, but you were able to go online and watch the 'contestants' 24/7. It also brings to mind The Truman Show. Given enough free time, people will watch anything for hours!

“Catching Fire” and “Mockingjay”

These two novels basically form one narrative, so I’ll review them together.

President Snow threatens to murder Gale if Katniss doesn’t marry Peeta. Snow wants to subdue an internal rebellion by demonstrating to the population that Katniss and Peeta’s unity in the games was caused by love rather than dissent against the Capitol. This didn’t make much sense to me. Would it really be credible that this one girl showing affection to another tribute would be enough to trigger a revolution? Even if a rebellion was brewing for years, there are more than enough reasons for it to have already begun before Katniss even volunteered for the games. I also find it highly unlikely that a wedding would really calm the situation. Unless of course Snow is simply insane and HE is the only one who believes that it will. In any case it becomes a moot point once the rebellion begins. I do feel that by the third book, Gale and Peeta become less important. At that point, the main concern is the war between the rebelling districts and the Capitol. For me, I didn’t really care who Katniss ended up with, or even whether she, Gale and Peeta even survived, because the bigger picture is the overthrow of the Capitol.

I am somewhat puzzled about the system of law enforcement in Panem. Gale hunts a turkey in the woods and gets whipped half to death for it. If the people can’t hunt for food, then where are they supposed to get it from? The novel mentions that criminal hunting and trading is a way of life in District 12 and women have even had to prostitute themselves to survive. Again I find it totally illogical for the Capitol to use brutal methods to suppress insurrection while implementing violent and cruel policies which effectively provoke the people INTO rebelling against them. The government of Panem is completely idiotic. I’m surprised that Panem is even still standing. If they’ve been brutalising the children of the districts for 75 years via the games, and also torturing the rest of the population for the same amount of time, there should be CONSTANT rebellion and civil war in the country. The districts could have gone on strike and the Capitol, which is dependent on the districts, would collapse. If the Capitol destroyed striking districts, they'd be only bringing about their own downfall, because they'd be destroying vital industries which they need in order to survive. The Capitol supposedly rules the entire country with some planes and hovercrafts, which are easily taken down in the third book, and henchmen who once disarmed by a vengeful and aggressive population robbed of their children would be utterly helpless. There’s no reason for the population NOT to fight. Fear of the Capitol is hardly a reason. Yes the Capitol may kill the people. But they are ALREADY killing the people. So there’s nothing to lose that the people weren’t going to lose anyway.

If I was president of Panem I would certainly try a more innovative approach to avoiding a rebellion by going on TV and saying something like “Attention people of Panem. We will no longer murder your children for our entertainment. You will not be tortured for trying to hunt and feed yourself. We will also give you some of our food, because we have so much that we have to make ourselves vomit in order to eat more, so we can definitely spare some for you. Thankyou for your attention”. If the people are really THAT into the games, then it could I suppose continue using only volunteers who would gain extra perks and luxuaries for themselves and their families if they win. They could even use criminals as tributes like "The Running Man" and use those who want to be "careers" as professional stalkers. The Capitol’s reaction to rebellion is bewildering. They destroy District 12 and kill most of them people there. So does that mean that they no longer have a coal supply? Why would they need coal anyway? They seem pretty technologically advanced to have hover technology and forcefields and they can create elaborate arenas for the games, but they still need coal? It would be like the Starship Enterprise running on burning wood. If all the other districts rebelled, will the Capitol destroy them too? What’s the point in even having a country where virtually nothing exists because it’s all been destroyed? District 13 reminds me of the real world in “The Matrix”. Yes, the inhabitants are technically “free” from the oppressive system they escaped from, but it’s not that much better. The government of Panem are certainly evil, but I’m not convinced that the District 13 government would be a significant improvement. When the rebellion begins, the rebels quickly gain the upper hand. So easily that I cannot understand why a major and successful rebellion hadn’t occurred years earlier.

I agree with the point that every chapter in this series ends with a cliffhanger. Collins does an excellent job of motivating the reader to keep reading. I think a trilogy was also the right length for this series. Anything more than that would have been overkill. I do feel that some sort of prequel may be interesting though. The history of Panem could be fleshed out. It would certainly deepen “The Hunger Games” universe to know what occurred to possibly convince people that Panem was the best solution. Things must have been bad if Panem was seen as the preferred option. To the author’s credit, she does shed some light on the origin of the games towards the end of the trilogy when Coin suggests another set of games to punish the children of the Capitol. It could very well be that the Capitol wanted the same revenge on the districts that Coin wanted on the Capitol. I did find it hypocritical of Katniss to object to Gale’s plan for attacking The Nut, while voting to support Coin’s games suggestion. I also feel that Gale was written out of Katiniss’ life way too easily. I don’t feel it was sufficiently shown why Peeta would be a better choice for her than Gale.

The third book drags. There are endless military training scenes. It goes on and on. I found it to be rather boring. The assault upon the Capitol also drags greatly. I found the Capitol itself to be rather comical. It’s as if almost everything in it can kill you such as hidden landmines, monsters and flesh melting pods. The mind control of Peeta was a little silly, but it did at least give him something to do. Both Gale and Peeta are pretty thin characters, especially compared to Katniss. I have never been too keen on the “mutts”. I think they take the story into silly fantasy areas, especially the singing birds, killer monkeys, and reptile men. The existence of mutts also leads me to wonder why the Capitol simply doesn’t create genetically altered humans who would be specialised for various industries, such as mining and fishing. By breeding them to operate specialised high technology such as automated tunnelling machines or robotic fishing fleets, why would Panem even need a large number of normal human workers? In theory Panem could create specialised mutts to fight in the games. Surely that would be more entertaining to the Capitol residents that forcing ancient tributes like Maggs to compete? I liked Finnick. His storyline with Annie was endearing. For all the comparisons drawn between “The Hunger Games” and “Battle Royale”, I found that that’s only really true in the first book, which features children killing each other. After the games end, it really turns into something more akin to John Connor fighting SkyNet in the Terminator franchise, and the games themselves are rarely mentioned again. There are way too many characters in these books. I found it hard to keep track of all of them. In the film adaptations, I would expect many characters to be merged or excluded entirely.

I liked the first book. The second book wasn’t quite as good. The third book is the weakest of the three.

But overall, I recommend the trilogy. It’s bleak and twisted and I’m not sure it would hold up well to repeat readings, but well worth at least one read.

I just finished readind the series. SOme thoughts on Aldebaran Black's review...

I am somewhat puzzled about the system of law enforcement in Panem. Gale hunts a turkey in the woods and gets whipped half to death for it. If the people can’t hunt for food, then where are they supposed to get it from?

Historical and contemporary examples of authorities simply not caring that all their citizens have adequate nutrition at all, alas, abound, despite the seeming illogic. Some of your points regarding the technology I would tend to agree with; I would just say that while this series is technically science fiction, Collins is obviously not the sort of writer who cares about the technological advances in themselves. She is interested in exploring ideas about the individual, society, and government is a setting that is not our own world.

When the rebellion begins, the rebels quickly gain the upper hand. So easily that I cannot understand why a major and successful rebellion hadn’t occurred years earlier.

I think an important factor in the Capitol's control of the Districts was their isolation. Citizens of the Districts would typically live and die in their own Districts, never leaving, and never learning much beyond generalities about other districts. Thus, coordinating an uprising was extremely difficult.

I thought it was a deliberate and well-wrought irony that the Quarter Quell idea, presumably designed as a way to rid Snow of the District 12 Victors he considered a flashpoint for the rebellion, was what enabled the uprising to be better coordinated. The Victors are among the very few District citizens who regularly met one another and could exchange information and plans, in their roles as Mentors to their Districts' Tributes in the Annual Hunger Games. And suddenly telling all of them that, after all, they were going to die in the Hunger Games after all, gave any who may have remained apolitical, a huge incentive to get involved.

To the author’s credit, she does shed some light on the origin of the games towards the end of the trilogy when Coin suggests another set of games to punish the children of the Capitol. It could very well be that the Capitol wanted the same revenge on the districts that Coin wanted on the Capitol.

Somehow I thought this point was explicitly made, and earlier in the series. Maybe in Katniss's musings on the day of the Reaping in Book 1? Or maybe I just jumped to that as a conclusion from the facts we were given.

I did find it hypocritical of Katniss to object to Gale’s plan for attacking The Nut, while voting to support Coin’s games suggestion.

I did not. I do not think Katniss favored Coin's suggestion, I felt she voted for it to make Coin think the death of Prim had had the effect Katniss suspects Coin wanted. I think our final indication of what Katniss thought both of this specific suggestion, and Coin more generally, was given us when she took her opportunity to assassinate Coin rather than killing Snow herself.

I did wonder whether the new President ordered the final Hunger Games to continue, or the idea was dropped. The end of the book seemed to focus more back on Katniss's personal life in the aftermath.

I also feel that Gale was written out of Katiniss’ life way too easily. I don’t feel it was sufficiently shown why Peeta would be a better choice for her than Gale.

I thought it was shown sufficiently why (despite Gale's undoubted positive qualities) Katniss could never live with him after Prim's death. It was inconceivable to me she would choose him after that moment. There is some ambiguity as to who ordered the use of the munitions that killed her, so Gale may have had either no, or only indirect, involvement in Prim's death. However, even if it was the Capital that was responsible, the mind of the person who conceived the weapon worked the same way as Gale's, and Katniss could not deal with that.

I liked the book overall. I could see why you felt the third book dragged, but I thought it did present a lot of development of the author's ideas, and did a great job of coming to a realistic, rather than happy fantasy, ending.

It also raises questions as to why the citizens of the Capitol themselves don’t object to such a vicious system and seem to have no problem watching children die every year. I can understand that the people who actively rule Panem may be ruthless but I have doubts as to whether the entire population of the Capitol feel the same way.
I think the point is that outside the Capitol the citizens aren't seen as people. Capitol citizens live their perverse lives of luxury while 'other people' provide for them.

I haven't read the books yet (my sister is giving them to me when she finishes them) and I've only seen the movie once so I don't know if this response is entirely relevant but...

This reminds me of the Romans watching gladiator fights; It wasn't so much about objecting to people dying so much as it was the spectacle of watching the fights and not knowing who would come out as the winner in addition to the gladiators being slaves or captured foreigners who weren't considered as worth much because they weren't Roman citizens. To a certain extent the same argument can be made about ultimate fighting (is that what it's called? you know, the boxing type sport where pretty much anything goes?) where fans ravenously watch two guys totally beating the $#!T out of each other for entertainment - only that doesn't end in death. People are into really weird things when it comes to what they call entertainment. (I recall someone mentioning Big Brother :rotfl:)

This reminds me of the Romans watching gladiator fights; It wasn't so much about objecting to people dying so much as it was the spectacle of watching the fights and not knowing who would come out as the winner in addition to the gladiators being slaves or captured foreigners who weren't considered as worth much because they weren't Roman citizens.

I think also the way the Games are presented on television contributes to this. People may realize on an intellectual level that the selection of the kids is random, outside of their control, except in the case of volunteers. However, the kids (volunteers or not) are then shown training, and performing in interviews in which they express willingness and readiness to compete, for what the Capitol viewers believe are substantial rewards (fame, fortune, benefits for their District).

This reminds me of the Romans watching gladiator fights; It wasn't so much about objecting to people dying so much as it was the spectacle of watching the fights and not knowing who would come out as the winner in addition to the gladiators being slaves or captured foreigners who weren't considered as worth much because they weren't Roman citizens.

While parallels with Rome are made very obvious in the books (many of the Capitol characters even have names of historical Roman figures such as Seneca, Claudius, Caesar, etc.), I don't think the comparison makes that much sense on a psychological level, because the Roman world was completely different in terms of people's mindset and values - the concept of human rights didn't exist as we know it, along with many other modern ideas and values that make the contemporary world what we've termed "civilised." While Panem is supposed to take place in the future and judging by the District characters' actions, Katniss's internal dialogue and people's interactions, it seems like the concepts of the sanctity of human life, equality, etc. exist as a part of their mindset. On the other hand, the Capitol people seem completely unperturbed by the annual teenage deathmatch and they seem to readily embrace it as sport/entertainment.

To me, it's sort of inexplicable that the District and Capitol people seem to live in different realms when it comes to fundamental values. It strikes me as very unusual that the people in District 12 seem to be kind and compassionate to one another when they are all born and raised in the same merciless regime that routinely devalues human life and forces people to participate. I expected that there would be more theft, rape, murder, etc, instead everyone seems to help one another, even in the face of starvation. I don't know, it seems a bit unrealistic to me.

To a certain extent the same argument can be made about ultimate fighting (is that what it's called? you know, the boxing type sport where pretty much anything goes?) where fans ravenously watch two guys totally beating the $#!T out of each other for entertainment - only that doesn't end in death. People are into really weird things when it comes to what they call entertainment. (I recall someone mentioning Big Brother :rotfl:)

Yes, but watching, people know those people volunteered and even take pride in what they're doing. I think that makes a big difference.

All quotes from Arithmancer

Historical and contemporary examples of authorities simply not caring that all their citizens have adequate nutrition at all, alas, abound, despite the seeming illogic.

That's true, but if the Capitol are so terrified of rebellion that they have organised an annual culling of children, I don't understand why they would be pursuing food policies which would either kill most of the population or antagonise them into violence.

I think an important factor in the Capitol's control of the Districts was their isolation. Citizens of the Districts would typically live and die in their own Districts, never leaving, and never learning much beyond generalities about other districts. Thus, coordinating an uprising was extremely difficult.

A coordinated rebellion would be, but internal district rebellions should have been a constant problem for the Capitol, and since their default response seems to be "bomb them into oblivion", they would be cutting off their nose to spite their faces since destroying a district would also destroy the district industry.

Somehow I thought this point was explicitly made, and earlier in the series. Maybe in Katniss's musings on the day of the Reaping in Book 1? Or maybe I just jumped to that as a conclusion from the facts we were given.

There are hints for sure, but that scene with Coin made it a little clearer as to what mindset was operating at the time of the drafting of the Hunger Games concept.

I did not. I do not think Katniss favored Coin's suggestion, I felt she voted for it to make Coin think the death of Prim had had the effect Katniss suspects Coin wanted. I think our final indication of what Katniss thought both of this specific suggestion, and Coin more generally, was given us when she took her opportunity to assassinate Coin rather than killing Snow herself.

If she was going to murder Coin in plain view merely a few scenes later, I'm not sure what the point of voting yes for the 76th Games was. If she voted no, I doubt Coin would have done anything. I doubt the other characters would have permitted her to injury or kill Katniss when they've spent so much effort keeping her alive.

I did wonder whether the new President ordered the final Hunger Games to continue, or the idea was dropped. The end of the book seemed to focus more back on Katniss's personal life in the aftermath.

As far as I'm aware, the games were abolished. I think Plutarch replaced it with a singing contest ("Panem Idol" maybe?)

I thought it was shown sufficiently why (despite Gale's undoubted positive qualities) Katniss could never live with him after Prim's death. It was inconceivable to me she would choose him after that moment. There is some ambiguity as to who ordered the use of the munitions that killed her, so Gale may have had either no, or only indirect, involvement in Prim's death. However, even if it was the Capital that was responsible, the mind of the person who conceived the weapon worked the same way as Gale's, and Katniss could not deal with that.

She had no proof that Gale was responsible. It's a bit harsh to dismiss him based on such murky conclusions. In any case, I find it unrealistic that such a military tactic as the one that led to Prim's death would have been completely unknown to the highly militarised District 13 until some kid like Gale suggested it.

That's true, but if the Capitol are so terrified of rebellion that they have organised an annual culling of children, I don't understand why they would be pursuing food policies which would either kill most of the population or antagonise them into violence.

But it does not kill them, and nor is there any reason to suppose the Capitol wants it to - as you point out, they need the workers to produce the local goods. Most of them survive, grow up, have children, work in the local industry, and die. The Capitol is not literally starving them to death, it is allowing them little more than a subsistence diet. The idea behind this tactic in RL, as I understand it, is that the struggle to survive in the harsh circumstances takes up the energy and attention of people, leaving them no time for rebellions and uprisings.

I doubt the other characters would have permitted her to injury or kill Katniss when they've spent so much effort keeping her alive.

By this point I think Katniss considered the possibility Coin would act clandestinely. She believed Coin had deliberately killed Prim to manipulate her (also in secret).

She had no proof that Gale was responsible.

I did not suggest she dumped Gale because he was responsible for Prim's death. I suggested she dumped him because he was (indubitably) someone whose mind worked in the same way as whoever designed the weapon that killed Prim, and she could not live with someone like that.

All quotes from "Arithmancer"

But it does not kill them, and nor is there any reason to suppose the Capitol wants it to - as you point out, they need the workers to produce the local goods. Most of them survive, grow up, have children, work in the local industry, and die. The Capitol is not literally starving them to death, it is allowing them little more than a subsistence diet. The idea behind this tactic in RL, as I understand it, is that the struggle to survive in the harsh circumstances takes up the energy and attention of people, leaving them no time for rebellions and uprisings.

Even if it doesn't kill them, it antagonises them to the point of rebellion. Had the Capitol used some common sense and moderated their policies even slightly, the rebellion may have been avoided entirely.

By this point I think Katniss considered the possibility Coin would act clandestinely. She believed Coin had deliberately killed Prim to manipulate her (also in secret).

Even so I think if Katniss mysteriously died after voting against Coin, I'm sure the others would have been highly suspicious.

I did not suggest she dumped Gale because he was responsible for Prim's death. I suggested she dumped him because he was (indubitably) someone whose mind worked in the same way as whoever designed the weapon that killed Prim, and she could not live with someone like that.

I think that's pretty unfair if she did indeed use that logic when deciding between Peeta and Gale. His suggestion, in my opinion, was basic common sense in a war situation. I think Katniss was unrealistic to demand a clean war, particularly when fighting against such a morally bankrupt enemy. Also, if I recall correctly, she murders a Capitol woman without thinking twice in "Mockingjay", so she's hardly in a place to take the moral high ground.

Firstly, finally got the books and am on Chapter 8 of HG! Whoo!!
:clap:

While parallels with Rome are made very obvious in the books (many of the Capitol characters even have names of historical Roman figures such as Seneca, Claudius, Caesar, etc.), I don't think the comparison makes that much sense on a psychological level, because the Roman world was completely different in terms of people's mindset and values - the concept of human rights didn't exist as we know it, along with many other modern ideas and values that make the contemporary world what we've termed "civilised." While Panem is supposed to take place in the future and judging by the District characters' actions, Katniss's internal dialogue and people's interactions, it seems like the concepts of the sanctity of human life, equality, etc. exist as a part of their mindset. On the other hand, the Capitol people seem completely unperturbed by the annual teenage deathmatch and they seem to readily embrace it as sport/entertainment.

Again, prefaced my response by saying I am reading the books but have not yet finished them - I'm on chapter 8.

The parallels to Rome, though, are there and while Romans didn't have our modern sense of equality and human rights and all that, they did have levels of status that seem to at least somewhat echo the status levels given or assumed by the districts. A Roman citizen, for instance, had more "rights" than a non-citizen who had more rights than a slave. It seems like the Capitol contains the true "Citizens" who don't have to sacrifice tributes, the favored or flashy districts (what are they? 1, 2 and 4??) might be considered less than citizens but more worthy of "rights" than the grungy, ill-mannered, uncivilized districts like 11 o 12 so 1, 2 and 4 might be sort of the non-citizens and 11 and 12 would be the slaves. Am I making sense? :lol:

Gladiators in Rome were often criminals, prisoners of war or slaves, people who were less valued and who nobody really cared about in terms of whether they lived or died because they were either deemed not human, not "as good" as a citizen or deserved to be killed - and if they deserve it why not at least make their death interesting to watch? There were gladiators who volunteered to be gladiators, though. The tributes from the districts seem to almost fall into the prisoner of war category. They are sort of imprisoned in their districts, thought of as lesser beings that the Capitol citizens and sort of deserved what they got when it comes to the Hunger Games because the Capitol sees the games as retribution for the districts rising up in rebellion.

At least, this is my impression so far. We'll see if it changes after my lunch-time reading... :)

The events of the "Dark Days" are quite murky. Both sides IMO are unreliable narrators. So it's near impossible to be certain what took place.

While Panem is supposed to take place in the future and judging by the District characters' actions, Katniss's internal dialogue and people's interactions, it seems like the concepts of the sanctity of human life, equality, etc. exist as a part of their mindset. On the other hand, the Capitol people seem completely unperturbed by the annual teenage deathmatch and they seem to readily embrace it as sport/entertainment.

Honestly I just think you have a really optimistic idea of what people are actually like when they are a) scared or b) do not necessarily feel that others have the same level of humanity as them.

Finished Hunger Games and I still stand by my posts above about the Hunger Games being a sort of modern homage to Roman gladiator fights, just on a bigger scale with a more cruel intent in terms of politcal meanings.

My impression of Katniss from the movie did persist throughout my reading of the books, though. Her intermittent gushing over Cinna's costumes for her seemed out of place since she says (at least in the next book, which I'm about to finish) that she doesn't care a lick about fashion and in terms of her character and the way the character is presented, she is such the epitome of a hunter I'm a little confused by her sudden comfort level with being so flashy, so attention-drawing. It seems like she should have been going on about how uncomfortable she was being so noticable, how she's so used to blending into the forest that suddenly being the toast of the town in her flaming jumpsuit and her red dress makes her skin crawl. She could still have had the inner monologue saying how she appreciated the necessity of being so flashy in terms of winning sponsors but I thought the way she showed her appreciation to Cinna and her awe over the costumes wasn't handled with the right tone in terms of her character.

Thought for the day...

I think being the center of attention is an idea that intrigues her. But since her entire life has been staying in the shadows, out of sight...either to hunt or to avoid the Peacekeepers, it's not a concept she's comfortable with. However, since Cinna's costumes are so well planned and so groundbreaking, she can't help but be excited about them. Plus, she both likes and trusts Cinna, which I have no doubt helps raise her opinion of his work.

I think being the center of attention is an idea that intrigues her. But since her entire life has been staying in the shadows, out of sight...either to hunt or to avoid the Peacekeepers, it's not a concept she's comfortable with. However, since Cinna's costumes are so well planned and so groundbreaking, she can't help but be excited about them. Plus, she both likes and trusts Cinna, which I have no doubt helps raise her opinion of his work.

It still seems strange to me. If I were used to being in the shadows and out of sight, even if I loved the dresses someone made for me I'd be uncomfortable wearing them myself, especially in front of thousands of people on a nationally broadcast TV show. Her inner monologue never seemed to reconcile this for me.

I also don't know if I agree with your statement that being the center of attention is an idea that intrigues her. Why? Does she ever say "hmm, I wonder what it would be like to be in the games? To receive all that glory and fame and be in the spotlight?" No. She hopes to god she's never picked and only volunteers to save her sister, not so that she can live out any kind of celebrity fantasies she's been secretly harboring. She seems reluctant at best about playing to the crowd in the Capitol before her games and only does it because she knows that she needs them on her side so she can win and return to Prim and District 12. Based on the character that had been presented up to this point she should have expressed (through inner monologue) more reluctance to wear such flashy costumes not girlish gushing about how stunning they are and what a genius Cinna was. I'm not suggesting that she couldn't have liked them or thought they were beautiful but the gushing seemed completely out of character to me and seems like something that should have taken place in an inner monologue and her dialogue with Cinna should have at leasted expressed her reservations about being so visible, so unique, so stunning. If she had expressed reservations and then sucked it up and told herself that she had to put the dress on for Prim I wouldn't have had a problem with it.

I guess this has to do, on a larger scale, with my feelings about Katniss from the next two books (I'm starting part II of Mockingjay today at lunch) and with the writing style of the author. Katniss seems like a very uneven character, or at least she's written very unevenly. One moment she's totally self-centered and the next she's the picture of selflessness. She vacillates between either constantly sticking her foot in her mouth or spouting off speeches worthy of Shakespeare, there's no in between. There's no learning curve. She either sucks at something completely and utterly or she's absolutely brilliant at it. :shrug:

When Finnick appears in the movies, they better cast him well. He's my favourite character in the novels. A lot of the humour of the book revolves around him. I love the part in the Tick Tock arena where he and Katniss put their faces really close to Peeta's face when they wake him up, and the scene in the hospital where Katniss has to remind him to wear clothes.

:lol:

It still seems strange to me. If I were used to being in the shadows and out of sight, even if I loved the dresses someone made for me I'd be uncomfortable wearing them myself, especially in front of thousands of people on a nationally broadcast TV show. Her inner monologue never seemed to reconcile this for me.

I also don't know if I agree with your statement that being the center of attention is an idea that intrigues her. Why? Does she ever say "hmm, I wonder what it would be like to be in the games? To receive all that glory and fame and be in the spotlight?" No. She hopes to god she's never picked and only volunteers to save her sister, not so that she can live out any kind of celebrity fantasies she's been secretly harboring. She seems reluctant at best about playing to the crowd in the Capitol before her games and only does it because she knows that she needs them on her side so she can win and return to Prim and District 12. Based on the character that had been presented up to this point she should have expressed (through inner monologue) more reluctance to wear such flashy costumes not girlish gushing about how stunning they are and what a genius Cinna was. I'm not suggesting that she couldn't have liked them or thought they were beautiful but the gushing seemed completely out of character to me and seems like something that should have taken place in an inner monologue and her dialogue with Cinna should have at leasted expressed her reservations about being so visible, so unique, so stunning. If she had expressed reservations and then sucked it up and told herself that she had to put the dress on for Prim I wouldn't have had a problem with it.

I guess this has to do, on a larger scale, with my feelings about Katniss from the next two books (I'm starting part II of Mockingjay today at lunch) and with the writing style of the author. Katniss seems like a very uneven character, or at least she's written very unevenly. One moment she's totally self-centered and the next she's the picture of selflessness. She vacillates between either constantly sticking her foot in her mouth or spouting off speeches worthy of Shakespeare, there's no in between. There's no learning curve. She either sucks at something completely and utterly or she's absolutely brilliant at it. :shrug:

To my knowledge, it's never stated in the books that she likes being the center of attention. But it's how I imagined her character to be. Nobody in their right minds (save the careers) would actually want to go to the arena. But I imagined that when she did go, and when she became the girl on fire, some part of her found that she liked the attention. That's not to say she sought attention, or went out of her way to find it. But when she was the center of attention for a good reason (like in Cinna's clothes) she found she didn't hate it.

At least that's my own rationalization of it. I fully admit I may be completely wrong.

To my knowledge, it's never stated in the books that she likes being the center of attention. But it's how I imagined her character to be. Nobody in their right minds (save the careers) would actually want to go to the arena. But I imagined that when she did go, and when she became the girl on fire, some part of her found that she liked the attention. That's not to say she sought attention, or went out of her way to find it. But when she was the center of attention for a good reason (like in Cinna's clothes) she found she didn't hate it.

At least that's my own rationalization of it. I fully admit I may be completely wrong.

We've all got our own interpretations, that's what makes it fun to talk about. :) (I don't think either of us is wrong in our views of the books, we just see things differently)

I never got the impression that she liked being the center of attention. In fact, I got the impression that she resented the fact that the Capitol was using the Tributes like they were, as examples, telling the districts that they have all the power and they aren't going to be shy about wielding it. Gale is much much more vocal about this and Katniss doesn't really see the need to dwell on such topics at the beginning of the book but I thought that by the time she and Peeta had reached the Capitol and were beginning their training that she was already disillusioned about the whole deal, already disgusted with the Capitol and their blatant excesses when so many in the districts have so little.

Spoilers for Mockingjay:
Not only in Hunger Games but especially in Mockingjay I very much got the impression that Katniss didn't want to be the center of attention. She kept running away and hiding in mechanical rooms, behind pipes and generally wanted to be left alone and didn't want to be apart of the resistance. She didn't want to be the mockingjay; she didn't think she could be. But then she goes off to... was it district 11 where that hospital was? Awkwardly walks around, has an epiphany about how she needs to be the Mockingjay, is overcome by Shakesperean inspiration and spouts off "the perfect rallying speech" before going back to 13 and being swallowed up by her PTSD again.

The only time she used her "celebrity" to get things was when she got 13 to allow her and Gale out into the woods to hunt and that was very much not a center of attention type move. It was a "let's get the hell out of here" kind of move. She keeps thinking that she and Gale should have made a run for it back before she became a tribute and that's not something someone with a desire to be in the center of attention thinks.

The other issue I have with Hunger Games (and the two following books) is that we're meant to sympathize with Katniss for being a tribute, for sacrificing herself for her sister, etc. but I never really did. She was never the underdog, she was always the favorite. She got the highest score in training, Peeta's mother commented that there might finally be another winner from 12 in reference to her... Peeta was a much more sympathetic character and by the time the games were underway I, frankly, would rather have had Peeta win and Katniss die
Although by the end of Mockingjay I was fed up with Katniss, annoyed by Peeta and frustrated that Gale was being a whiny jerk and just wanted everyone to die. :p

I'm with you on Peeta. I thought he was easily the most sympathetic character (and my favorite).

I'm with you on Peeta. I thought he was easily the most sympathetic character (and my favorite).

I think he's the most sympathetic character in the books, no doubt, but by half-way through HG I got so sick of him whining and going on about how in love with Katniss he was that I wanted her to leave him in that cave and let him die. :p

That whole book is full of whiny characters for me. I liked Gale's character the best even though he was barely in HG. He was proactive, he had strong convictions regarding the Capitol that he was willing to stand behind and he was the least whiny. :D Until Mockingjay, anyway, then he got just as bad as everyone else.

I don't like Gale at all. He spends most of his page time pouting like a child and doing things out of spite and pride. I have very little patience for pride in general. I find Katniss annoying for the same reason. They seem so self-absorbed.

I don't like Gale at all. He spends most of his page time pouting like a child and doing things out of spite and pride. I have very little patience for pride in general. I find Katniss annoying for the same reason. They seem so self-absorbed.

Well, okay, if you want to get really specific, I liked Gale the best because he was the least objectionably whiny, self-absorbed and generally annoying but that's only because he had such a tiny tiny role in HG :lol: When you get more of his character in Catching Fire and Mockingjay he becomes just as bad, I admit.

If you want to branch out into other character besides Katniss, Peeta and Gale then I like Haymitch - he's a drunk, yes, he's abrassive, yes, but he's also unapologetic and a pretty straight-talker and seems at least somewhat interested in helping Katniss and Peeta. I liked him because he could needle Katniss and get a rise out of her which is fun to do with people you don't really like and I never really liked Katniss all that much. :) I also, for some inexplicable reason, like Effie. She was a pretty simply character and really only seemed there to keep everyone on schedule but she had a kind of naiivete about her that was kind of charming.

I always wanted to know more about President Snow. Just as I didn't like Katniss very much and ended up finding all the "heros" of the story annoying, I had a lot of apathy toward President Snow; he never seemed properly menacing as the grand villain of the series as Voldemort felt truly evil and the grand villain of Harry Potter. President Snow never achieved that same level of forboding for me, he always seemed like a sillhouette in a window that people would point to from a distance and say "that's who you're supposed to be afraid of" and I kept wondering why. What had he done that was so bad? What was his reason for wanting power besides just wanting to be powerful? Which I don't buy as a good motivator for a villain, even Voldemort had psychology that the readers could point to and say "This is why he's doing the things he's doing, this is what makes him so dangerous, this is why we fear him" but we never got that with Snow.

If you want to branch out into other character besides Katniss, Peeta and Gale then I like Haymitch - he's a drunk, yes, he's abrassive, yes, but he's also unapologetic and a pretty straight-talker and seems at least somewhat interested in helping Katniss and Peeta. I liked him because he could needle Katniss and get a rise out of her which is fun to do with people you don't really like and I never really liked Katniss all that much. :) I also, for some inexplicable reason, like Effie. She was a pretty simply character and really only seemed there to keep everyone on schedule but she had a kind of naiivete about her that was kind of charming.

It bugged me how every character was ultimately shows to be a big softie at heart. There's basically only one villain, 100% bad, and the rest are all good people. Their worst trait is being out of touch (for the Capitol people). It's like the author couldn't bring herself to make any of the characters unlikable.

It bugged me how every character was ultimately shows to be a big softie at heart. There's basically only one villain, 100% bad, and the rest are all good people. Their worst trait is being out of touch (for the Capitol people). It's like the author couldn't bring herself to make any of the characters unlikable.

It's a common thing for writers to become too attached to their characters and like them too much to really put them through the ringer or make them bad in any way.

I kind of disagree a little bit about only having one true baddy while everyone else was "good" - every resident of the Capitol in HG is presented as shallow and vain, uninterested in the suffering of those who live in the districts, so much so that they are perfectly willing to take two children from each district every year and happily watch and cheer while they get bludgeoned to death. It's only later (Catching Fire and Mockingjay) when these characters are softened into what we're supposed to believe are actually good people at heart. IMO, this transition wasn't done very well. You also have some characters in Mockingjay who are of questionable intent:
The president of district 13 is sort of made out to be just as bad as President Snow.

For me, it wasn't really a question of everyone being presented as good while there was only one really evil-to-the-core bad guy, it was that all the characters presented were really shallow.

President Snow was never, for me, a really successful villain or adversary for Katniss; he never came off as exceptionally evil, he more came off as slightly annoyed that he couldn't manage this girl from district 12 very well. I never saw him as a threat like I, as a reader, was supposed to and the only kind of forboding thing about him was:
the idea that the inside of his mouth is covered with open sores that will never heal but I never thought that was used to great effect in the books other than as a reason for the lingering smell of blood to be in the air whenever he was around.

Peeta was a very one-note character to me because all he wanted was to love and protected Katniss, a girl he never even talked to before they were selected as tributes and I'm sorry but I have a huge issue with someone falling in love with someone else when they have never even had a conversation. At most, for me, Peeta could have had a big crush on her but to say that he loved her based on absolutely nothing is too much.

Haymitch might have been the deepest character though he is presented as a pretty shallow character in HG. His character deepens throughout the series as you learn more about him, his past and how he ended up the way he did. I can't think of any other character who gets this kind of development in the triology.

It's only later (Catching Fire and Mockingjay) when these characters are softened into what we're supposed to believe are actually good people at heart. IMO, this transition wasn't done very well.

Yes, that was my issue with it, I probably didn't word it very well.

I never saw him as a threat like I, as a reader, was supposed to and the only kind of forboding thing about him was:
the idea that the inside of his mouth is covered with open sores that will never heal but I never thought that was used to great effect in the books other than as a reason for the lingering smell of blood to be in the air whenever he was around.

I was really disappointed with that. I think I audibly exclaimed "Really?" when I read the explanation.

Peeta was a very one-note character to me because all he wanted was to love and protected Katniss, a girl he never even talked to before they were selected as tributes and I'm sorry but I have a huge issue with someone falling in love with someone else when they have never even had a conversation. At most, for me, Peeta could have had a big crush on her but to say that he loved her based on absolutely nothing is too much.

Well, they're teenagers. I was absolutely convinced I was deeply in love with a boy in my school which I've said "Hi" to once. It's not unusual for a teenager to believe himself in love when it's merely a crush. That the reader is supposed to buy it though really is kind of a stretch.

Haymitch might have been the deepest character though he is presented as a pretty shallow character in HG. His character deepens throughout the series as you learn more about him, his past and how he ended up the way he did. I can't think of any other character who gets this kind of development in the triology.

You may be right here, but I really don't care about Haymitch. Sometimes when Katniss talks to more than one person at a time, I have to go back and reread who said what because they all blend in my head, Haymitch included.

I was really disappointed with that. I think I audibly exclaimed "Really?" when I read the explanation.

That concept for Snow was interesting and it is a very creepy thing but without understand his character and his motivations more it just felt like "Let's give him this, that and the other and that'll make him scary enough to be the villain of the story!" No, that's not enough. Voldemort's physcial appearance was striking and creepy but you understood it in context of his motivations, his link to Slytherin house and his Slytherin ancestory. He didn't look snake-like simply to give the reader a creepy image, it tied back to his character. Snow was never given the same amount of respect as a character to me.

Well, they're teenagers. I was absolutely convinced I was deeply in love with a boy in my school which I've said "Hi" to once. It's not unusual for a teenager to believe himself in love when it's merely a crush. That the reader is supposed to buy it though really is kind of a stretch.

I get what you're saying and it's a somewhat reasonable explanation but at the same time if you're majorly crushing on someone and then get to spend hours and hours with that person seeing them in every light, from every angle under every circumstance your feelings often change about that person simply due to the fact that they turn out to not be as fantastic as you thought they'd be. There's also the fact that you can crush on someone for months or years at a time and because they never return your feelings your own start to fade. I find it somewhat amazing that Peeta's crush never faded after, what? Four years? As a teenager? Wow.

The longest crush I had on a boy lasted probably 6 months - I never talked to him but he was nice, smart, funny, cute, athletic and I was wild about him but because there was no progression in the (imaginary) relationship my feelings faded. Maybe I'm unusual. The other crush I can think of lasted at least two years but I was in on and off contact with the object of my affections (we were friends through a mutual acquaintence) so there was a sort of development of the relationship, returning on flirtations that kept the crush going for as long as it did. Peeta never had this, they never talked, they didn't interact, they didn't share friends. And not only did they never talk or interact, once they were thrown together as tribute Katniss was patently horrible to Peeta, treated him badly, ran hot and cold on him, physically attacked him and only when Katniss realized that she could use ther supposed love to manipulate her position in the Games did she start playing along and giving Peeta hope.

You may be right here, but I really don't care about Haymitch. Sometimes when Katniss talks to more than one person at a time, I have to go back and reread who said what because they all blend in my head, Haymitch included.

Yeah, that's an issue with the writing. The author didn't give her characters unique voices so that when you don't add the tags to the lines you start being unable to follow the conversations. JKR did this really well, with the trio, especially, and with the major characters as well (Dumbledore, Snape, McGonagall, Hagrid, etc). Ron "sounded" different that Hermione so that when DH rolls around and Harry has just been dragged from the icy lake by an unknown figure, when that figure says "Are you mental?" you don't need the tag line telling you it's Ron, you know it's him simply by the words he says. The Hunger Games did not have clearly defined characters like this.

I get what you're saying and it's a somewhat reasonable explanation but at the same time if you're majorly crushing on someone and then get to spend hours and hours with that person seeing them in every light, from every angle under every circumstance your feelings often change about that person simply due to the fact that they turn out to not be as fantastic as you thought they'd be. There's also the fact that you can crush on someone for months or years at a time and because they never return your feelings your own start to fade. I find it somewhat amazing that Peeta's crush never faded after, what? Four years? As a teenager? Wow.

Oh, I can imagine it. That crush I mentioned that I had in high school lasted 3 full years, and the last year I didn't even see the boy, because he changed schools. I'm embarrassed to remember that now, but alas, it did happen. I suppose this is why it's not hard for me to believe Peeta silently "loved" Katniss for years.

Yeah, that's an issue with the writing. The author didn't give her characters unique voices so that when you don't add the tags to the lines you start being unable to follow the conversations. JKR did this really well, with the trio, especially, and with the major characters as well (Dumbledore, Snape, McGonagall, Hagrid, etc). Ron "sounded" different that Hermione so that when DH rolls around and Harry has just been dragged from the icy lake by an unknown figure, when that figure says "Are you mental?" you don't need the tag line telling you it's Ron, you know it's him simply by the words he says. The Hunger Games did not have clearly defined characters like this.

I completely agree. I think the strongest suit of the Hunger Games trilogy is the concept and plot, and the latter only up to a point, too. It's intriguing, at least to me, to read about a reality which in many aspects is like ours, but a handful of details here and there (Capitol fashions, technology capabilities, weaponry, transportation means, etc.) mark it out as peculiar and serve as sufficient "foreignisation" of the setting to make it captivating. Characterisation though is very poorly executed, in my opinion.

Oh, I can imagine it. That crush I mentioned that I had in high school lasted 3 full years, and the last year I didn't even see the boy, because he changed schools. I'm embarrassed to remember that now, but alas, it did happen. I suppose this is why it's not hard for me to believe Peeta silently "loved" Katniss for years.

I guess I'm most surprised that Peeta's supposed great love for Katniss persisted despite the fact that she was a complete ***** to him during training, physically attacked him once he professed his love and then completely ignored him in the game until it suited her own whims to join up with him in order to win. Perhaps this just comes down to my naturally suspicious nature (I'm always wondering what people's motives are) and Peeta's naiivete.

I completely agree. I think the strongest suit of the Hunger Games trilogy is the concept and plot, and the latter only up to a point, too. It's intriguing, at least to me, to read about a reality which in many aspects is like ours, but a handful of details here and there (Capitol fashions, technology capabilities, weaponry, transportation means, etc.) mark it out as peculiar and serve as sufficient "foreignisation" of the setting to make it captivating. Characterisation though is very poorly executed, in my opinion.

Yes, the concept is the strongest thing about the trilogy for me too. The writing is pretty basic and I didn't like the weird present-tense used for Katniss which is some kind of present-progressive or present-continuous tense: "I walk down the road" instead of the present-perfect form "I walked down the road"; I kept tripping over this throughout all three books because it was so weird, the characters are underdeveloped and blend together, the plot is interesting but there are major issues with it for me, namely that Katniss is sort of the superwoman of the games, the immediate stand out, the one to beat and (no surprise at all) she's the winner. Okay, technically Peeta won, too, but he never would have won without Katniss whereas she could easily have won without Peeta so I consider her the real winner and Peeta the lucky sidekick who was dragged along for the ride.

I suppose the issue I have with the plot and characterisation is that I never felt like Katniss was in much jeopardy. I was always reasonably confident she would be able to get herself out of any situation she found herself in so I was, consequently, more interested in how Peeta would fair in the games because he's the real wild card. He came in with no skills, little chance of winning, a low pre-game score, probably not very much fan support whereas Katniss is The Girl On Fire, inexplicably and unexplainably charmed the crowd into liking her, had tons of skills to bring into the games, got the best pre-game score of that year...

I would have liked to have seen either of two things happen: If Katniss was meant to be the creme of the crop that year, I wanted the end of the Games to come down to a situation where she is mortally wounded and you really do believe that she is about to die, to not become the winner OR I would have made Katniss the underdog in every way, give her a pre-game score of one, give her the worst costume ever for district 12, make her the absolute worst public speaker (which she kind of is anyway hence my "inexplicable and unexplainable) comment earlier) or make her come off like she's trying to be the best public speaker and it's coming off completely false - basically make her the last person in the world that would win the games that year. This would affect Peeta, too, since he would have to become a legitimate threat to her life in the games, he would have to have more skills, more fan support--

OH OH!!! Best idea EVER!! So make Katniss the underdog like I said above and make Peeta some sort of massive success in the games, sort of like Cato; he's strong, powerful, the other tributes fear him, etc. etc. but maybe more of a surprise success but he still is inexplicably in love with Katniss. THEN at the end of the story, since Katniss has all these skills that keep her alive, she makes it to the end only to get mortally wounded and it's her and Peeta left. Somewhere along the way the same "two tributes can win" rule must be involked so that at the end when it's just Peeta and Katniss the rule can be revolked just like it is in the book. So Peeta, being madly in love with Katniss and feeling that since she volunteered to save her sister and her family is in such a worse situation than his, decides out of love for her to eat the poison berries before Katniss dies, basically committing suicide so that she can live, be the winner, go home to her family and provide for them since she's the only one who can (Peeta would have to be in the dark about Gale somewhat). So just like in the book, at the last second, just as Peeta is about to eat the berries, it's announced that they both win and Katniss is whisked away to an infirmary where she is healed up and she forever feels indebted to Peeta for saving her life.

This negates the premises for the next books where Katniss becomes the Girl on Fire but I can still imagine sequals based on this premise where she becomes the figure head over Peeta, where over the course of the second book he begins failing in his attempts to rally support and Katniss, though reluctant to get involved, becomes more and more passionate about the cause and consequently gains more and more confidence until she overtakes Peeta in popularity and status. This would go a long way in fixing the problems I had with the next two books, anyway.

Man, with this an my desired rewrites for Twlight I should really get working on some great fanfic! :lol:

Man, with this an my desired rewrites for Twlight I should really get working on some great fanfic! :lol:

The author of "Fifty Shades...." apparently had the same thought.



As for President Snow and his evilness or lack thereof, the character he reminds me of is the Architect from "The Matrix". For Snow, it's about the preservation of this system that he's reigned over for decades. At times, he comes across as being less like the president of a country and more like a person operating a well oiled machine. Any threat to how the machine runs, and he destroys it. His weakness IMO comes from taking the wrong steps to deal with a problem. Instead of moderation, he pursues more extreme actions, which eventually causes the system to fail.

The author of "Fifty Shades...." apparently had the same thought.

That's exactly what I was going to say. I say go for it, Goddess_Clio. You seem to be quite perceptive and knowledgeable about the way writing fiction works. I really enjoy this discussion.

That's exactly what I was going to say. I say go for it, Goddess_Clio. You seem to be quite perceptive and knowledgeable about the way writing fiction works. I really enjoy this discussion.

Thanks, but I'm lazy and I hold a full-time job so sadly epic fanfic is very unlikely, no matter how great an idea it is :(

If anyone else wants to run with the outline I posted go for it!

I've just finished reading Mockingjay, and I have to say, I loved it. I just love this whole series anyway because of how it's written.

I always saw Snow as an evil dictator in many ways because of how he operates. He may not have characteristics like Voldemort that show you why he's evil, but you can still tell he's evil in his actions. Finnick's story pretty much sums up, to me, how evil Snow has been and the atrocities he's committed throughout his reign.

I was shocked though that:

Katniss killed Coin in that manner. I can understand her motive for it, but it was just such a turn of events that I had to reread that part to understand what just happened.

I really liked the ending as well. As for Gale, I never really hated him until Mockingjay and his motives for killing people. It just didn't sit right with me and I agreed with Katniss about a lot of his plans. I think the reason I prefer Katniss with Peeta is that he knows what she's been through having been a tribute himself. He knows what has gone on and what it's like to deal with death. Gale has no concept of that and doesn't understand why Katniss objects to his plans. Peeta is on a similar wavelength with Katniss, and that's why I prefer them together rather than Gale and Katniss. Then again, when the series started, I never thought of either guy as a potential love interest.

That whole book is full of whiny characters for me. I liked Gale's character the best even though he was barely in HG. He was proactive, he had strong convictions regarding the Capitol that he was willing to stand behind and he was the least whiny. :D Until Mockingjay, anyway, then he got just as bad as everyone else.

When I think of "whiny," I don't think of kids who witness starvation on a normal day and who witness - or even participate in - a government-mandated bloodbath on Hunger Games days. :evil: When I think of "whiny," I think of coddled middle class kids who have a sense of entitlement.

For me, the District 12 kids we get to know are damaged people - damaged well before their lives are ever sucked up into the government-mandated bloodbath. They have authentic issues. Gale and Katniss have lost fathers and have personally faced starvation. All of them have to submit to the reaping. The question of whether to let oneself love another person and have children - or whether to cut oneself off from love - is a serious question (not just a teenage angsty question), given the world that they have been born into. It's not the "whine" of some entitled brat.

Also, I think Katniss rather clearly suffers from PTSD after her first Hunger Games. Throughout the trilogy, she also experiences periods of depression - possibly even the psychotic form of depression - among other physical and psychological problems.

I always wanted to know more about President Snow. Just as I didn't like Katniss very much and ended up finding all the "heros" of the story annoying, I had a lot of apathy toward President Snow; he never seemed properly menacing as the grand villain of the series as Voldemort felt truly evil and the grand villain of Harry Potter. President Snow never achieved that same level of forboding for me, he always seemed like a sillhouette in a window that people would point to from a distance and say "that's who you're supposed to be afraid of" and I kept wondering why. What had he done that was so bad? What was his reason for wanting power besides just wanting to be powerful? Which I don't buy as a good motivator for a villain, even Voldemort had psychology that the readers could point to and say "This is why he's doing the things he's doing, this is what makes him so dangerous, this is why we fear him" but we never got that with Snow.

Snow IMO is a product of the Capitol who has embraced - with both hands - the Capitol's decadence, depravity, and desire for absolute power. So I think the more salient question is how did the Capitol become what it has become? I just don't think there's much more to Snow beyond that. He's basically like the emperors from the decadent period of Rome. This is what he knows how to do, and he does it very well.

It bugged me how every character was ultimately shows to be a big softie at heart. There's basically only one villain, 100% bad, and the rest are all good people. Their worst trait is being out of touch (for the Capitol people). It's like the author couldn't bring herself to make any of the characters unlikable.

Ummm… I don't see that at all.
Coin - the leader of the "good guys" - is arguably worse than Snow, and District 13 is just as scary as the Capitol.

Johanna is never a softy. An ally, yes, but not a softy. Brutus is never a softy. Enobaria is never a softy. And really, Gale is ultimately not a softy. Gale is quite willing to commit atrocities. There are hints that possibly at the very very very very very end, Haymitch may be becoming human again. But he's not a softy the last time we see him. He's just someone who is fighting on the right side.
For me, it wasn't really a question of everyone being presented as good while there was only one really evil-to-the-core bad guy, it was that all the characters presented were really shallow.

These are the first-person perceptions of a traumatized teenage girl. I'm not sure how much depth she's supposed to ascribe to other characters and be true to her first-person voice.

Peeta was a very one-note character to me because all he wanted was to love and protected Katniss, a girl he never even talked to before they were selected as tributes and I'm sorry but I have a huge issue with someone falling in love with someone else when they have never even had a conversation. At most, for me, Peeta could have had a big crush on her but to say that he loved her based on absolutely nothing is too much.

That seems totally realistic to me. This is how a lot of teen "love" operates. Also, the puppy-love element gets tested in the fire. What comes out of the Hunger Games is a much more personal, much more real, and much deeper bond.

Also, for much of Mockingjay, he's not exactly working to protect Katniss. ;)

Haymitch might have been the deepest character though he is presented as a pretty shallow character in HG. His character deepens throughout the series as you learn more about him, his past and how he ended up the way he did. I can't think of any other character who gets this kind of development in the triology.

I think there's a difference between "shallow" and developing the character patiently. Collins has a backstory that she wants to reveal in the other books of the trilogy. But I thought it was clear from the first book that there was a serious backstory behind Haymitch's behavior. Also, I don't assume that a character who is drunk all the time is shallow. In fact, I kind of assume the opposite.

There's also the fact that you can crush on someone for months or years at a time and because they never return your feelings your own start to fade. I find it somewhat amazing that Peeta's crush never faded after, what? Four years? As a teenager? Wow.

How many girls his age are there in District 12? And how many of those girls are the daughter of the woman that his father wanted to marry?

Frankly, I don't think we can superimpose our own pampered culture's expectations of what teenagers are like onto these kids. These are not 21st century (or even 20th century!) American teenagers. These are kids from the distant future, when the population is so small that war can mean the end of humanity. And these are kids from the poorest, and probably the smallest, District in that world. There is also a sense that Panem is all that the human race has left.

The author of "Fifty Shades...." apparently had the same thought.

As for President Snow and his evilness or lack thereof, the character he reminds me of is the Architect from "The Matrix". For Snow, it's about the preservation of this system that he's reigned over for decades. At times, he comes across as being less like the president of a country and more like a person operating a well oiled machine. Any threat to how the machine runs, and he destroys it. His weakness IMO comes from taking the wrong steps to deal with a problem. Instead of moderation, he pursues more extreme actions, which eventually causes the system to fail.

I can see this interpretation. :tu:

I've just finished reading Mockingjay, and I have to say, I loved it. I just love this whole series anyway because of how it's written.

Me too. :)

I always saw Snow as an evil dictator in many ways because of how he operates. He may not have characteristics like Voldemort that show you why he's evil, but you can still tell he's evil in his actions. Finnick's story pretty much sums up, to me, how evil Snow has been and the atrocities he's committed throughout his reign.

Exactly. It was his choices that I found terrifying.

And Snow gives me the creeps far worse than Voldemort ever did. Snow actually makes my skin crawl… because he's just so human. I've seen enough ruthless dictators in my lifetime to know that there are plenty of people like him running countries. Snow is just a little too real for comfort. Voldemort never scared me like that because he is so far removed from anything truly human that he's just not all that "real."

I was shocked though that:

Katniss killed Coin in that manner. I can understand her motive for it, but it was just such a turn of events that I had to reread that part to understand what just happened.

Oh, I totally saw that one coming! In fact, when Gale brought only one arrow, I thought it was because they were afraid Katniss might kill Coin as well as Snow if she had the arrows to do it with! When Snow's mouth started hemorrhaging at the execution, I definitely thought Katniss was going to consider him already a dead man and take her shot at Coin.

What took me completely by surprise was Prim's death. I remember having to go back and read that again a couple of times to make sure that what I thought happened really did happen. And it was upsetting at the time - not just because of Prim but because I kept thinking that the trap looked remarkably like one of Gale's traps. When Snow gave his explanation to Katniss, I didn't want to believe him; but like Katniss, I knew deep down that he was telling the truth.

It was Coin who not only authorized the trap… but who intentionally sent Prim in there to become one of its victims. So no, it didn't surprise me that Katniss worked it out and decided to kill Coin.
I really liked the ending as well. As for Gale, I never really hated him until Mockingjay and his motives for killing people. It just didn't sit right with me and I agreed with Katniss about a lot of his plans. I think the reason I prefer Katniss with Peeta is that he knows what she's been through having been a tribute himself. He knows what has gone on and what it's like to deal with death. Gale has no concept of that and doesn't understand why Katniss objects to his plans. Peeta is on a similar wavelength with Katniss, and that's why I prefer them together rather than Gale and Katniss. Then again, when the series started, I never thought of either guy as a potential love interest.

I agree with you about Gale, but I never managed to hate him. Given his background, I just didn't find it surprising that he became as ruthless as he did. Sad, but not surprising.

I'm not much of a shipper, but I knew at the end of The Hunger Games ...
that it would be Katniss and Peeta. They had been through an experience together that Gale would never be able to understand.

Oh, I totally saw that one coming! In fact, when Gale brought only one arrow, I thought it was because they were afraid Katniss might kill Coin as well as Snow if she had the arrows to do it with! When Snow's mouth started hemorrhaging at the execution, I definitely thought Katniss was going to consider him already a dead man and take her shot at Coin.

What took me completely by surprise was Prim's death. I remember having to go back and read that again a couple of times to make sure that what I thought happened really did happen. And it was upsetting at the time - not just because of Prim but because I kept thinking that the trap looked remarkably like one of Gale's traps. When Snow gave his explanation to Katniss, I didn't want to believe him; but like Katniss, I knew deep down that he was telling the truth.

It was Coin who not only authorized the trap… but who intentionally sent Prim in there to become one of its victims. So no, it didn't surprise me that Katniss worked it out and decided to kill Coin.


I agree with you about Gale, but I never managed to hate him. Given his background, I just didn't find it surprising that he became as ruthless as he did. Sad, but not surprising.

I'm not much of a shipper, but I knew at the end of The Hunger Games ...
that it would be Katniss and Peeta. They had been through an experience together that Gale would never be able to understand.

I agree with you.
spoilers for the ending of Mockingjay:
Coin was very evil. She was even scarier to me than Snow, because she was supposedly on the "good side" but in reality, she was just planning to replace one corrupt government with another. It reminded me a little of Dolores Umbridge, someone who appeared to be on the good side, but was really as evil as the bad guys were. So I wasn't surprised at what Katniss did. In fact, I would have been very disappointed if Katniss hadn't made that choice.

Once Katniss found out the circumstances of what happened to Prim, I knew that it would end whatever chance she had to continue her friendship with Gale. Katniss and Peeta not only shared a unique experience, but they shared the same view of their world. Katniss and Peeta were two damaged people, but they also had proven to each other that they would always be there for them. It was really a nice ending to the story.

When I think of "whiny," I don't think of kids who witness starvation on a normal day and who witness - or even participate in - a government-mandated bloodbath on Hunger Games days. :evil: When I think of "whiny," I think of coddled middle class kids who have a sense of entitlement.

For me, the District 12 kids we get to know are damaged people - damaged well before their lives are ever sucked up into the government-mandated bloodbath. They have authentic issues. Gale and Katniss have lost fathers and have personally faced starvation. All of them have to submit to the reaping. The question of whether to let oneself love another person and have children - or whether to cut oneself off from love - is a serious question (not just a teenage angsty question), given the world that they have been born into. It's not the "whine" of some entitled brat.

Also, I think Katniss rather clearly suffers from PTSD after her first Hunger Games. Throughout the trilogy, she also experiences periods of depression - possibly even the psychotic form of depression - among other physical and psychological problems.

Well, I only read the books once each and it's coming up on months since I finished Mockingjay so specifics of the plot of Hunger Games have left me but I maintain that the characters came off whiny to me. Yes, they are not the same social circumstances as we are today, their world is very different and much more traumatic on a day to day basis and yes Katniss, Peeta et al were put in a very intense, dangerous situation but the repeated impression I got from all the characters was that they were whiny. Just a personal opinion.

These are the first-person perceptions of a traumatized teenage girl. I'm not sure how much depth she's supposed to ascribe to other characters and be true to her first-person voice.

You can still have well developed characters in a first-person narration. I mean, look at The Great Gatsby for god's sake, every character in that book is masterfully developed and Nick, the narrator, is the least developed character of any of them!

Another good book to look at with an almost completely self-absorbed character is the John Cleaver series by Dan Wells which I'm reading right now. The main character is a sociopath and is only interested in servicing his own needs and desires or attempting to prevent himself from servicing those needs or desires and yet the development of the other characters doesn't suffer because of the first person narrator's selfishness.

A first person narrator does not mean that the author can ignore the development of her other important characters.

That seems totally realistic to me. This is how a lot of teen "love" operates. Also, the puppy-love element gets tested in the fire. What comes out of the Hunger Games is a much more personal, much more real, and much deeper bond.

But we're talking fiction, not reality, and in fiction reasons for character actions need to be given so that readers understand character motivations. For me there was no reason given for Peeta to be completely, utterly and desperately in love with Katniss to the point where he is basically forfeiting his life so she can return to her family - all for a girl he's never spent any time with, never talked to and only had one meaningful exchange (of bread) like three or four years before the story even takes place. Unless Peeta is shown to have an obsessive personality in which case that bread exchange years before caused him to fixate on Katniss but he's not shown as obsessive.

In contrast, Gale and Katniss are more believable as a couple to me because they have an existing friendship, we're told what the basis for that friendship was and how it was developed over the years of hunting together, they are shown working together and talking about personal things together... I'm not saying that they should or should not have been the canon couple of the books but based on what the reader is given of Katniss's realtionship with Gale and her "relationship" with Peeta there doesn't seem to be any reasons given for Peeta's love at the start of the games, no believable explanations.

Also, for much of Mockingjay, he's not exactly working to protect Katniss. ;)

Yeah, don't get me started on Mockingjay. :no:

I think there's a difference between "shallow" and developing the character patiently. Collins has a backstory that she wants to reveal in the other books of the trilogy. But I thought it was clear from the first book that there was a serious backstory behind Haymitch's behavior. Also, I don't assume that a character who is drunk all the time is shallow. In fact, I kind of assume the opposite.

I wasn't making the assumption that because he was drunk all the time he was shallow, I was stating that Haymitch was probably the best developed character of the series and that his apparent shallowness in HG led to him having one of the better character arcs. Even in HG he undergoes a lot of growth, being challenged by Katniss and finding her something of an equal to him which cases him to try and clean up his act so that she can have a fighting chance of winning; as far as we know (or as far as I recall) this is the first time Haymitch has really been induced into action that like for a tribute because all the previous tributes have been so lackluster, so doomed to failure that they weren't worth putting a whole lot of effort into. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

How many girls his age are there in District 12? And how many of those girls are the daughter of the woman that his father wanted to marry?

So you're saying that Peeta's only attraction to Katniss was because his father wanted to marry her mother? :hmm:

And Snow gives me the creeps far worse than Voldemort ever did. Snow actually makes my skin crawl… because he's just so human. I've seen enough ruthless dictators in my lifetime to know that there are plenty of people like him running countries. Snow is just a little too real for comfort. Voldemort never scared me like that because he is so far removed from anything truly human that he's just not all that "real."

I feel like I understand Voldemort more as a character, though. I agree that he never really scared me because he was unnatural and removed from humanity enough to make him slightly unbelievable but Snow, for me, never conjured up any more terror than Voldemort did, in fact I found him even less scary than Coin whose motivations (being the president of an isolated, quasi-militant district with huge motivations for revenge on the Captiol) are more spelled out than this supposedly "understood" status quo/Architect leader who is just a vague threat looming out there.

Oh, I totally saw that one coming! In fact, when Gale brought only one arrow, I thought it was because they were afraid Katniss might kill Coin as well as Snow if she had the arrows to do it with! When Snow's mouth started hemorrhaging at the execution, I definitely thought Katniss was going to consider him already a dead man and take her shot at Coin.

What took me completely by surprise was Prim's death. I remember having to go back and read that again a couple of times to make sure that what I thought happened really did happen. And it was upsetting at the time - not just because of Prim but because I kept thinking that the trap looked remarkably like one of Gale's traps. When Snow gave his explanation to Katniss, I didn't want to believe him; but like Katniss, I knew deep down that he was telling the truth.

It was Coin who not only authorized the trap… but who intentionally sent Prim in there to become one of its victims. So no, it didn't surprise me that Katniss worked it out and decided to kill Coin.

I really hated that ending. To me it felt like Frodo and Sam were climbing the sides of Mount Doom and then - BAM - they're back in Hobbiton where everything is hunky dory. There wasn't enough resolution to it, it felt like another book was warrented, or another chapter showing the aftermath of such an action.

I'm not much of a shipper, but I knew at the end of The Hunger Games ...
that it would be Katniss and Peeta. They had been through an experience together that Gale would never be able to understand.

That was a no-brainer as much as it's a no-brainer that Jacob never stood a chance against Edward.

I agree with you.
spoilers for the ending of Mockingjay:
Coin was very evil. She was even scarier to me than Snow, because she was supposedly on the "good side" but in reality, she was just planning to replace one corrupt government with another. It reminded me a little of Dolores Umbridge, someone who appeared to be on the good side, but was really as evil as the bad guys were. So I wasn't surprised at what Katniss did. In fact, I would have been very disappointed if Katniss hadn't made that choice.

Once Katniss found out the circumstances of what happened to Prim, I knew that it would end whatever chance she had to continue her friendship with Gale. Katniss and Peeta not only shared a unique experience, but they shared the same view of their world. Katniss and Peeta were two damaged people, but they also had proven to each other that they would always be there for them. It was really a nice ending to the story.


I think Umbridge is a good analogy. I also think that Katniss' decision to assassinate Coin possibly saved humanity from a perpetual cycle of oppression-revolution-oppression-revolution, with today's revolutionaries becoming tomorrow's oppressors.

I thought the choice Coin gave the victors was horrific. I wasn't quite sure I understood what she was saying because Beetee, Peeta, and Annie voted against it. But if the choice was to execute all the citizens of the Capitol or to conduct a final Hunger Games, then Katniss made the right choice… and then saw to it that the final Hunger Games would never be carried out when she killed Coin.

I wondered, in fact, if her calculations involved convincing Coin that they were on the same side so that she could potentially dispatch Coin without Coin having any suspicions of that outcome.

I agree about the impossibility of a relationship with Gale after what happened to Prim. I'm not sure that Gale knew that his weapon was going to be used against his own side (though I do think he was perfectly fine with using it on Capitol children, since we are told earlier that part of his hunting tactic is to attack the young first in order to lure the adults into a larger, more lethal trap). BUT regardless of what Gale knew, I don't think he could live with being friends with Katniss after that.

Ironically, Katniss seems to be open to the possibility when she sits on their rock and wonders if he will come. But I think Gale goes to District 2 because he can't face it… and (I hope) because District 2 is where he committed his first major atrocity. So perhaps there's an atonement motive involved (OR perhaps he's the boot in the face of the former Capitol allies, but I hope not, and I don't think that's how President Paylor would operate).

Yes, they are not the same social circumstances as we are today, their world is very different and much more traumatic on a day to day basis and yes Katniss, Peeta et al were put in a very intense, dangerous situation but the repeated impression I got from all the characters was that they were whiny. Just a personal opinion.

I think we're dealing with a difference in connotation. For me, "whiny" connotes complaining about trivialities. For example: Dudley Dursley in PS/SS when he doesn't get enough presents on his birthday, or Dudley when his family leaves home to escape the letters and he can't watch all his favorite television shows. That's what "whiny" connotes to me.

The kids in The Hunger Games have no trivialities to complain about. Everything that upsets them is a life or death matter… including the issues involving love. Love is dangerous and can get them killed. Love is dangerous and can result in bearing children who are then fed to the government's death machine.

I'm not saying that they do not complain. But they are not complaining about trivialities. "Whining," according to my connotation for the word, is the domain of Capitol citizens… such as the prep team complaining that they don't get invited to all the best parties.

You can still have well developed characters in a first-person narration. I mean, look at The Great Gatsby for god's sake, every character in that book is masterfully developed and Nick, the narrator, is the least developed character of any of them!

…..

A first person narrator does not mean that the author can ignore the development of her other important characters.

The author can devise a first-person narration in any way that makes sense for the story. Katniss is a first-person narrator who is telling the story in the present tense. We see what she sees as she sees it. We know what she knows as she knows it.

In addition, Katniss is not an introspective person and is not deeply interested in the interior lives of other characters. This is not IMO a flaw of characterization. It is, I think, a realistic portrait of how this character understands the world.

Katniss is actually well-developed enough that people who enjoy Meyers-Briggs typology can easily "type" her as a classic ISTP:


ISTP (Introverted Sensing Thinking Perceiving)

This means that her dominant cognitive function is introverted thinking (Ti - analyzing data), while her secondary function is extroverted sensing (Se - i.e., being in the "now" of the physical environment). Ti-dominant types (ISTP and INTP) are completely out to sea when it comes to understanding their own emotions or the emotions of other people. And their secondary function (Se) makes them not incredibly interested in digging more deeply into things. In addition, her inferior function - the one she's worst at - is extroverted feeling (Fe - the cognitive function oriented toward other people).

Basically, she's not the sort of person who's going to be pondering what motivates other people, unless their motivation impacts her survival right now, right here, in this moment.

Nick Carraway is not that kind of narrator. He's not narrating in the present tense. He's older, he's from a well-to-do background, and he's had time to ruminate about his experience and piece everything together. He has the leisure (and the personality) to care about what makes other people tick. And of course, The Great Gatsby is a great work of literature. I don't think The Hunger Games is making a pretense of being anything more than a pretty good piece of YA fiction.

But we're talking fiction, not reality, and in fiction reasons for character actions need to be given so that readers understand character motivations.

I believe I am fairly well acquainted with the inner workings of fiction. :lol: And historically, reasons for the actions of all characters do not need to be given in all pieces of fiction.

The individual work of fiction needs to conform to its own inner sense of logic, but fiction does not operate according to a single template IMO. Some fiction is driven more by character. Some fiction is driven more by plot. Some fiction is highly experimental.

For example, Douglas Adams writes plot-driven fiction that could care less about the inner lives of the characters. His work is much more interested in coming up with clever and bizarre scenarios for the characters to encounter.

Because of Henry James (and later the Bloomsbury writers, James Joyce, and William Faulkner) - all of whom wrote great fiction that privileged the inner workings of the character's consciousness - we often have this contemporary assumption that all fiction must offer considerable character insight. But postmodern fiction does not necessarily operate in that way (how much interiority and insight are you going to find in something like The Crying of Lot 49?). And neither does a considerable amount of 18th and 19th century fiction.

For me there was no reason given for Peeta to be completely, utterly and desperately in love with Katniss to the point where he is basically forfeiting his life so she can return to her family - all for a girl he's never spent any time with, never talked to and only had one meaningful exchange (of bread) like three or four years before the story even takes place. Unless Peeta is shown to have an obsessive personality in which case that bread exchange years before caused him to fixate on Katniss but he's not shown as obsessive.

One word: ENFP. :lol: Anyway, it made complete sense to me, given who Peeta is (and the fact that he's a teen male and therefore less emotionally mature than a female his age).

Basically, Peeta's an idealist (a point that's borne out throughout the trilogy), and his initial feelings for Katniss are an idealized view of who she is. And because he's an idealist, he's willing to lay down his life for her. BUT as the plot develops, we discover that this protectiveness is not actually an abnormal dynamic for District partners in the Games (until the later stages, when the number of players decreases). The unusual part comes from his deeper feelings for her.

In addition, Peeta never regards himself as the potential victor of the Hunger Games. He believes from the moment his name is announced that he is going to die. But he does believe that Katniss is a potential victor. She has already demonstrated that she is a survivor, and she's got great skill with the bow. Given his feelings for her, and his resignation to the inevitability of his own death in the Games, it makes logical sense, I think, that he would work to protect her.

At any rate, Peeta is not going to act as either of us thinks we would act if we were in his circumstances because he's not either one of us. :lol:

But I think that the way he does act is perfectly logical within the framework of his character.

I wasn't making the assumption that because he was drunk all the time he was shallow, I was stating that Haymitch was probably the best developed character of the series and that his apparent shallowness in HG led to him having one of the better character arcs. Even in HG he undergoes a lot of growth, being challenged by Katniss and finding her something of an equal to him which cases him to try and clean up his act so that she can have a fighting chance of winning; as far as we know (or as far as I recall) this is the first time Haymitch has really been induced into action that like for a tribute because all the previous tributes have been so lackluster, so doomed to failure that they weren't worth putting a whole lot of effort into. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Okay. I think I may have misunderstood what you were saying. So were you saying that what you regarded as Haymitch's initial shallowness was actually a strength of his character arc?

I personally never thought his character was shallow. I thought from the start that his character had a deep internal agony that he was trying to kill with alcohol. The assumed internal agony I thought hinted at a depth of character that had not yet been revealed.

So you're saying that Peeta's only attraction to Katniss was because his father wanted to marry her mother? :hmm:

No, I did not say that at all. I indicated that there is a limited pool to choose from, and I mentioned Peeta's father because he specifically pointed Katniss out to Peeta. He drew Peeta's attention to Katniss, in other words. But Peeta took it from there.

I really hated that ending. To me it felt like Frodo and Sam were climbing the sides of Mount Doom and then - BAM - they're back in Hobbiton where everything is hunky dory. There wasn't enough resolution to it, it felt like another book was warrented, or another chapter showing the aftermath of such an action.

It didn't play that way for me at all. Katniss is practically catatonic for months. Slowly… VERY slowly… she starts to come back to life. It takes 15 years before she is willing to have children. So I just don't see how all this is hunky dory. This IMO is intense pain… but pain that the characters learn to grow through by just putting one foot in front of the other and going through the motions until life starts to make sense again, and they can begin to live with what they've gone through.

Oh, and btw... Frodo is never hunky dory after he returns to Hobbiton. This is why he leaves for the Undying Lands.

I have read through the trilogy twice - one does catch up things that one misssed, or didn't see the significance of, the first time. I can't help liking Gale, despite his "fighting fire with fire" attitude. Coin I couldn't stand from the get-go and I was so pleased at what Katniss did. It was the only way to avoid replacing a tyrannical regime with another just as bad. The way District 13 was run was pretty much totalitarian too.

I was devastated at Prim's death. So Coin knowingly sent her, but I wonder whether Gale knew? Would he have done that to Katniss? He also liked Prim himself, like she was his little sister too.

Among the secondary or tertiary characters, my favourites are Cinna and Boggs. Cinna is really extraordinary, Boggs is one heck of a commander. I liked it when he tackled Coin about sending Peeta to join the group going after Snow, and when he transfered control of the Holo to Katniss.

I'm not sure Gale knew that his weapons were being used in that manner, but if he'd known that Prim was sent deliberately and put in danger, I'm sure he would've felt differently about the whole thing. He does feel guilty about it, and I think that's why he leaves for District 2. He can't face Katniss after Prim is killed like that.

And I agree about Boggs. I really liked him a lot.

I liked the Hunger Games trilogy, especially when I first read it. My favorite book was Catching Fire (book two) because it introduced some of my favorite new characters (Finnick) and it was interesting to see Katniss and Peeta go back into the arena. The first time they were part of the Games and went in the arena, in book one, it was, in some ways, new to them and to the reader. But by the second time both Katniss, and the reader, and an idea of what they were into and it made it interesting to see how they'd get through it again.
My least favorite book was Mockingjay (book three). I didn't like the way the series ended. It was so gloomy, much more than the first two books had been (but I guess it was supposed to be). I really began to dislike Katniss's character. I also didn't like Peeta much in this book b/c he had changed so much after his torture. I didn't like Gale either because of his attitude on war/fighting and stuff (although it wasn't surprising; I'd kind of expected him to be a bit like that based on the stuff he said in books one and two). Prim's death was shocking but suprisingly I wasn't as sad as I though I would be. My least favorite part of that book was the epilogue; it was strange. My favorite part was when Katniss killed Coin!

Yes, the epilogue was kind of anticlimactic. I didn't like it much either.

I wonder how Gale is faring in peacetime? :hmm:

He's probably not doing so good.

I liked how it ended because it wasn't all happily ever after. It showed that both Katniss and Peeta still have burdens to bear because of their time in the arena. You can't get over stuff like that so easily, and I like how Collins showed that.

[About Gale]He's probably not doing so good.
What makes you say that? Just curious. :hmm:

I liked how it ended because it wasn't all happily ever after. It showed that both Katniss and Peeta still have burdens to bear because of their time in the arena. You can't get over stuff like that so easily, and I like how Collins showed that.
I like the song that Katniss sings to her children, about being safe in "the place where I love you" - I think it's beautiful.

I just think that Gale has a lot of regrets, and he knows that Katniss will always think it was his weapons that killed Prim in that fashion. I just can't see him going on and living life the way he wants it without regrets. I'm sure Katniss has regrets as well.

I just think that Gale has a lot of regrets, and he knows that Katniss will always think it was his weapons that killed Prim in that fashion. I just can't see him going on and living life the way he wants it without regrets. I'm sure Katniss has regrets as well.

I agree with you very much. I feel that their time in the Arena, and the fact that many people have died for them, will stick to them forever.

I think I missed something (I was rushing the last book, so I didn't fully understand the ending), because I don't remember Katniss ever confronting Gale, or Gale ever admitting to it (however, I knew Katniss thought that it was Gale's fault Prim died). Is that why Gale never came back to Katniss while Peeta did?

I liked how it ended because it wasn't all happily ever after. It showed that both Katniss and Peeta still have burdens to bear because of their time in the arena. You can't get over stuff like that so easily, and I like how Collins showed that.

I agree there, too. It showed how hard their life was, and how they will never really be able to get over the fact that they were in the Arena, watching kids die.

I seem to remember Katniss asking Gale if it was his bomb there at the end, and he said he didn't know, wan't sure. But I may be mistaken.

You're right, Katniss and Peeta, having been in the arena and having had people die for them, have a lot in common, that Gale doesn't share, can never share. I think Gale knows this, and also knows that if he ever got back with Katniss (which was unlikely), that bomb that killed Prim would always be there between them or hovering over their heads. Gale thought he was right, fighting fire with fire, and discovered that it was a very very dangerous fight. That it could be a heart-breaking one.

This said, I believe that in time he may find a little peace of mind, or at least come to terms with what he's done. They're still all so young. But I may be optimistic, because I can't help liking Gale and feeling sorry for him.

I think the best thing that the Mockingjay did was to kill Coin. She's no better than Snow. That notion of having Hunger Games for Capitol children to end the war... *shudder*