I rarely get into new series because I tend to be very reserved about overly popular fiction (Twilight, Harry Potter, whatever), but I've been told this one's pretty good.
Thanks guys (and gals)!
[ January 14, 2012, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: Jeff C. ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
HUNGER?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Jeff...as Kwea pointed out the title is HunGer Games, not HunTer Games...I'm reading the third book right now. I got the trilogy in hardback in a boxed set for Christmas. ($31 with free shipping on Amazon.com)
The first book is awesome, the second is good, and ask me about the third next week.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've heard it really trails off at the third book, but that the first is awesome, and the second is pretty good.
Sounds a lot like my reaction to His Dark Materials. The Amber Spyglass was nigh unreadable, but I'm still glad I tackled the series.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Tangent: Yeah I never finished Amber Spyglass.
On Topic: I've heard the second two are both really middling, but most accounts confirm the first one is good. It's on my list.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
The first is good. Somehow the author managed to end nearly every chapter with a cliffhanger so I knocked it in two sleepless nights.
The second is very similar to the first plot-wise so there's a sense of "haven't we already done this?" while still being entertaining. The third was just bad. I understand the point the author was trying to make about war, but it barely resembles the storytelling style of the first two books. Its like a book from a completely different series.
I wouldn't rate it above Ender's Game. I'd probably rank it higher than the Ender's Shadows series, but that's mostly because I didn't like the subject matter of that series.
Its enjoyable. Not the revelation that you'd think based on the sales numbers. But its satisfying in the way that eating an entire pint of ice cream is satisfying. Even compared to other futuristic teen novels, its not my favorite (that honor goes to Dashner's "Maze Runner" series.) But the first book was still a very enjoyable reading experience and I'm looking forward to the movie.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Sorry about the typo.
Anyway, it sounds like only the first book is any good. That's a bit disheartening. Since that's the view, I might just read the first book and then stop, unless I really, really enjoy it.
Are there any plans to continue the series, or is the trilogy the end?
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
Anyway, it sounds like only the first book is any good. That's a bit disheartening. Since that's the view, I might just read the first book and then stop, unless I really, really enjoy it.
The good news is that the first is more than good enough on its own. It closes quite nicely and I never really felt a NEED to read the next one to "find out what happened."
I guess I'm saying, don't let others' disparaging remarks about the trilogy keep you from enjoying the first, amazing book.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
For me, they were pretty much unreadable. The author writes in present tense, and it really grated on me.
I know the idea behind using present tense to make things more immediate and exciting...but it felt put on, and forced, and too much like a gimmick. All I could do is notice the tense while I read, so I couldn't enjoy the books at all.
My daughters (19 and 14) really like them. They give me a hard time for not finishing them. I did make it through the first. I found it all right. *shrug* Of course, my bias toward the tense thing may have influenced that opinion.
I don't want to discourage you from reading the first one - my issue with the tense may be unique and say more about me than the book. Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Sorry about the typo.
If only there were some way to correct mistakes like that.
quote:Originally posted by Belle: For me, they were pretty much unreadable. The author writes in present tense, and it really grated on me.
You mentioned that last time the book came up as a topic of conversation here. I'm not a huge fan of first person narratives either, and knowing that these books use it has been enough to bump them to the bottom of my "to read" pile more than once.
I had a room mate in college who when through a phase where he would only read fiction written in the second person, or so he claimed. He was a man of many affectations.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Nice double post Jake, if only there was some way to correct mistakes like that *wink*.
I saw Winter's Bone starring Jennifer Lawrence as she's starring in the Hunger Games movie.
Her character in Winter's Bone: Has to support her siblings (partially with hunting) because her father is gone (missing vs dead in a mine explosion) and her mother is catatonic from the loss. She has to navigate dangerous, adult waters and deal with people who might help or might hurt her with little to no aid.
I can see why she got the role in the HG movie.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I didn't feel the second two were *bad*, and I actually liked a lot of the stuff they said about media, as a double-edged tool.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Nice double post Jake, if only there was some way to correct mistakes like that *wink*.
:: grin :: Duplicate deleted.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I thought the first one was great, the second OK, and the third dreadful. Just as was said above. The present tense was a little off-putting, and I thought the author had a tin ear for both romance and world-building, but the pacing and tension were perfect in the first book.
It was a really good idea that just didn't have the legs for more than one book.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I just finished them the third one last night actually. I will definitely agree that the first one was the best, but I don't quite get the hate on the third. I actually liked the third better than the second, mostly because I definitely felt the second to be a bit too repetitious of the first. But to each their own I suppose. I will agree about the present tense being a bit jarring at times.
My recommendation would be to read them if you have the time (they aren't that long. I am a pretty fast reader, but I doubt I spent more than 3 or 4 hours on any of them). They certainly won't assault the very fiber of your literary being, like Twilight has the potential to do. But you don't necessarily need to make a priority about reading them. Worth reading, yes. But they certainly are nowhere near Ender's Game level.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I've heard it really trails off at the third book, but that the first is awesome, and the second is pretty good.
Sounds a lot like my reaction to His Dark Materials. The Amber Spyglass was nigh unreadable, but I'm still glad I tackled the series.
I'm glad I'm not the only one. I mean there was always an undercurrent of anti-religiosity, but man by the end of the third book it was like I was being beaten over the head with it.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
I liked The Amber Spyglass better than The Subtle Knife, but that isn't saying a whole lot. Neither book was worth much in comparison to the first, I thought.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
I'm going to echo Dr Stranglove here and say I actually enjoyed the whole series, though I agree that the first book is the best and that I liked the third better than the second. There was a point in the second book when I was wondering what was going to happen, if anything at all, and then that changed to wondering why we were getting much the same thing as in the first book. Fortunately, you could tell there was more going on that wasn't in plain view, and that fed my interest and desire to read book three.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
I feel they perfectly acceptable trendy books - fun to have community around and discuss. There's a lot of interesting ideas floating around, but I found the execution and conclusion very unsatisfying.
Additionally, aside from the annoying overuse of present tense (I like how Tolkien uses it sparingly, like in ancient epics, to highlight, not beat you over the head with "look how immediate everything is"), there's a major disconnect for me in the narrator's voice and the conception of Katniss's character. Katniss's main emotional trait is her profound insensitivity and inability to grasp things about how other people are feeling - and yet, she consistently gives seemingly accurate descriptions of other characters' emotional maturity and states. By the third book, where she actually empathizes with another character so much that their emotional history flashes before her eyes at death, I was thoroughly unconvinced. Not to mention the amount of emotional lyricism in description. I mean, Dickens pulled a similar trick with Esther Summerson in Bleak House, but I don't think anyone can honestly say Collins is a Dickens-level writer. I think the whole series would have benefited from a tight third-person narration, rather than the forced, first-person present tense that was used.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: I liked The Amber Spyglass better than The Subtle Knife, but that isn't saying a whole lot. Neither book was worth much in comparison to the first, I thought.
I thought The Subtle Knife was just as good as The Golden Compass. There was plenty of Spyglass I enjoyed just fine as well. It's about 50% in that the whole thing just turned sour so fast.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I've heard it really trails off at the third book, but that the first is awesome, and the second is pretty good.
Sounds a lot like my reaction to His Dark Materials. The Amber Spyglass was nigh unreadable, but I'm still glad I tackled the series.
I'm glad I'm not the only one. I mean there was always an undercurrent of anti-religiosity, but man by the end of the third book it was like I was being beaten over the head with it.
A lot of times when a book takes an opposing philosophical/political/religious stand as a given reader, that reader will say "Oh I don't have any objection to reading stuff from an opposing viewpoint, it just has to be good!"
I think that, at least 50% of the time, this is BS, and just a way of excusing the fact that if a work is unapologetically opposed to their philosophy they will find it hard to enjoy.
It's sort of like saying "I can enjoy a conversation with someone who calls me an idiot every ten minutes as long as he's making good points!" And while some people enjoy conversations with KoM...
All of that is just pointless random thoughts in preamble to the fact that Amber Spyglass really is bad, even to an an atheist, and I don't think the intense anti-religiosity would improve the experience any for a theist.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [qb] I've heard it really trails off at the third book, but that the first is awesome, and the second is pretty good.
Sounds a lot like my reaction to His Dark Materials. The Amber Spyglass was nigh unreadable, but I'm still glad I tackled the series.
I'm glad I'm not the only one. I mean there was always an undercurrent of anti-religiosity, but man by the end of the third book it was like I was being beaten over the head with it.
A lot of times when a book takes an opposing philosophical/political/religious stand as a given reader, that reader will say "Oh I don't have any objection to reading stuff from an opposing viewpoint, it just has to be good!"
I think that, at least 50% of the time, this is BS, and just a way of excusing the fact that if a work is unapologetically opposed to their philosophy they will find it hard to enjoy. QB]
I'm sure that's true much of the time. The anti-religiosity in of itself was not what bothered me. It was more how lopsidedly black and white it was. Sorta like watching an old Chinese propagandist movie where the Imperial Japanese Armies are monsters, the Kuo Min Tan (Nationalists) are all lazy exploiters of the Chinese, practically in cahoots with the Japs, and the Chinese communists volunteers are all heroically blowing up like 5-10 Japanese soldiers with each grenade toss.
Warning Spoilers* If the story was flipped and the kids were champions of religion, while all the organizations oppressing them were a-religious, and it turns out evolution was an elaborate hoax designed by a powerful alien (now dying) to undermine religion and put us under the control of "science thought" I'd roll my eyes just as much. I certainly did when I heard the premise of the "Left Behind" series. But I guess I never agreed with that philosophy either.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Unger Games.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
The fact that this series is in present tense troubles me greatly. I've never enjoyed books that use this technique and I really don't understand why any author would choose it over past tense. It pulls me out of the story and makes the book sound like fanfiction.
Of course, that's my experience talking. Maybe this book will be different.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Hmm. I rather enjoyed The Amber Spyglass. I thought it was better than the first book.
The Subtle Knife was probably my favorite. I got some sort of Empire Strikes Back vibe off of it. Maybe it was because the second book in many trilogies tend to have less of a plot.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: The fact that this series is in present tense troubles me greatly. I've never enjoyed books that use this technique and I really don't understand why any author would choose it over past tense. It pulls me out of the story and makes the book sound like fanfiction.
Of course, that's my experience talking. Maybe this book will be different.
Neal Stephenson uses this affectation in Snow Crash, and I found it worked pretty well. It's all in the implementation.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I rarely get into new series because I tend to be very reserved about overly popular fiction (Twilight, Harry Potter, whatever), but I've been told this one's pretty good.
I would just like to say out right that I haven't actually read The Hunger Games, but I imagine the series and its popularity is similar to the Percy Jackson and the Olympians series. Light, somewhat mindless, mostly harmless young adult. I read the Percy Jackson books to see if they'd be appropriate gifts for a younger cousin of mine, and I ultimately found them be a fun fluff series.
Similarly, a friend of mine just read The Hunger Games and had a view of it similar to my view of Percy Jackson. He thought it was moderately entertaining yet unrefined and ultimately immature. However, one of my roommates read all three books in a single evening and enjoyed them quite a bit.
As with a variety of young adult franchises, I think whether or not you'll enjoy it ultimately hinges on your ability to switch your brain from literature to pop-lit. It'd be more enjoyable if you go into it expecting not to be terribly stimulated mentally or philosophically.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I'd actually say that the first Hunger Games book (I haven't read the others) was closer to The Giver than it was to Percy Jackson. Percy is light, fun fluff. Hunger Games is more visceral than fun, and it is quite a bit more serious and is a rather scathing critique on society and culture.
The only thing it has in common with Jackson is that it's popular with the tween crowd.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Well, as I said, I haven't actually read The Hunger Games. I was only reporting the experiences of some of the other people I know who've read them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Hunter Games, Thrilight, Harry Pitter, Perky Jackson, Hander's Game, Ulgies
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
The quality of the books definitely went down with each one. Even so, they were still enjoyable enough by the end to finish, if only for the sake of completion. I think I finished all three in about as many days.
Also nice was the numerous classical allusions. e.g., the name of the nation is Panem, referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses (which was made explicit in the final book because the author has a tendency to beat things to death in that one).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I rarely get into new series because I tend to be very reserved about overly popular fiction (Twilight, Harry Potter, whatever), but I've been told this one's pretty good.
I would just like to say out right that I haven't actually read The Hunger Games, but I imagine the series and its popularity is similar to the Percy Jackson and the Olympians series. Light, somewhat mindless, mostly harmless young adult. I read the Percy Jackson books to see if they'd be appropriate gifts for a younger cousin of mine, and I ultimately found them be a fun fluff series.
Similarly, a friend of mine just read The Hunger Games and had a view of it similar to my view of Percy Jackson. He thought it was moderately entertaining yet unrefined and ultimately immature. However, one of my roommates read all three books in a single evening and enjoyed them quite a bit.
As with a variety of young adult franchises, I think whether or not you'll enjoy it ultimately hinges on your ability to switch your brain from literature to pop-lit. It'd be more enjoyable if you go into it expecting not to be terribly stimulated mentally or philosophically.
There seems to be a hell of a lot more hype behind The Hunger Games than Percy Jackson. I'd only barely heard of Percy Jackson, and bought the first four books sort of on a whim because there was a sale on Amazon. I've yet to meet someone who has said "hey, have you read the Percy Jackson books? They're great!" But I've met a LOT of people who, especially knowing I read a lot, have asked me if I've read the Hunger Games, either looking for a recommendation, or urging me to read it. Several of them tend to not read a whole lot too, which means the Hunger Games has escaped the lab to a degree.
And it's not just because of the movie coming out. Percy Jackson had a movie, and it still didn't bump it as high as The Hunger Games have been in the last year. It's certainly not the next Twilight, at least I don't think it is (curious to see what IS the next Twilight), but it's bigger than the average young adult lit, I think.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, I don't get the Hunger Games fandom. It's a pretty mediocre series; even the first book isn't all that decent, and the others go downhill fast. But some people -- especially people who don't read much -- seem to love them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It's certainly not the next Twilight, at least I don't think it is (curious to see what IS the next Twilight)
You mean like The Next Twilight as in a new book that is also wildly popular, badly written, and is filled with depressingly hung up attitudes about virginity, sex, and sexuality for women? I think the next breakout hit book won't be considered New Twilight if it avoids the associative flaws of the series.
I want maybe an Anti-Twilight where, say, bella isn't a paper-thin pastiche, edward is a werewolf, nobody imprints on fetuses, and they all just have a comfortable, healthy attitude to sex that doesn't scream obvious sexual hangups and pathology on the part of the author. And is also written in english. Any takers?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: There seems to be a hell of a lot more hype behind The Hunger Games than Percy Jackson. I'd only barely heard of Percy Jackson. . . I've yet to meet someone who has said "hey, have you read the Percy Jackson books? They're great!" But I've met a LOT of people who, especially knowing I read a lot, have asked me if I've read the Hunger Games
I think that seems pretty regional. In my hometown (before I moved away to my four-year school after community college), the Percy Jackson books were a really big deal whereas The Hunger Games wasn't. Either way, I don't think their popularity really distills my point about their quality.
I also agree with Tom. Most of the people I've talked to who have really loved The Hunger Games weren't terribly well-read otherwise (EX: my girlfriend's sister read them, and she listed Are You There Vodka, It's Me Chelsea as her favorite book prior to that). Whereas a friend of mine read them after reading Catch-22 and The Similarion, and he felt that The Hunger Games was mind-numbingly dull and very poorly written.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I hadn't considered regional differences. Interesting. I sort of figured it was one of those things that transcended geography and was just big everywhere via word of mouth and the internet.
Sam -
Wildly popular, anyway. I've never read Twilight, but I've heard so much about it both critically and adoringly that I could probably recite the plot by now. It seems like Song of Ice and Fire is perhaps in the midst of being the next big thing since so many people are reading it because of the TV show, but I'm not sure that counts. Books like Harry Potter and Twilight became popular, for better or for worse, via word of mouth and a sort of grass roots build. Something will rise from the muck in the next few months or in the next year to take Twilight's place. Hopefully it'll be as good as Harry Potter or Song of Ice and Fire, but those series don't come along too often, so it'll probably be some hyped up young adult drivel.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I think it depends on age group too. I know when my younger brother was still in high school last year then Percy Jackson was more popular. But in just a year's time, The Hunger Games has supplanted it (and both series had been finished prior to that time).
And among the less literary students at my college then The Hunger Games is more popular. I think it would be safe to say (even if both series aren't exactly at the cusp of advanced writing) that Percy Jackson is probably more popular among a younger crowd because they're easier to read (irregardless of The Hunger Games's similar simplicity).
Edit:
Also, for what it's worth, I read the first Twilight novel last year at the behest of my girlfriend, and I have absolutely nothing but loathing for it. It's a sociological atrocity.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Edited the name of the topic for clarification.
And Steve, that last line of yours about Twilight made me laugh Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
It's a very serious comment. I have a prepared rant about it which periodically makes appearances if I'm discussing literature with any of my friends. I shudder to think of the sociological or social psychological impact of the Twilight novels/films which could potentially emerge in the next few years.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Please rant about twilight. Rant about its ugly psychosexual underbelly. My assassination protocols glow with a warmth that could even be considered joy when I read someone dissect the monstrosity that is Twilight's message to young girls about themselves and their sexuality.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
It's far too easy a target for such ranting these days. There's no fun in it anymore.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
A friend asked me to a movie and I said "Sure." not knowing which movie she was taking me to. Turns out it was Twilight. I have never read the books, or seen any of the other movies because when it comes down to it, the first one was boring and stupid.
Shiny virgin vamps playing baseball? ZZzzzZzzZ!
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
As popular as The Hunger Games has become, I feel compelled to read it. As a pop culture junkie, I like to try to keep myself knowledgeable of the things about which people are putting up a big fuss these days. There must be some redeeming quality because I know some high schools have already begun assigning it in class; though, that's more likely as a ploy to get students to read in the first place more so than it is a statement about the series's quality in an academic setting.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Please rant about twilight. Rant about its ugly psychosexual underbelly. My assassination protocols glow with a warmth that could even be considered joy when I read someone dissect the monstrosity that is Twilight's message to young girls about themselves and their sexuality.
I would rant about Twilight, but I'm too busy watching you sleep, threatening to kill you, and freaking out when anyone else gets close to you.
Because I love you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: It's far too easy a target for such ranting these days. There's no fun in it anymore.
Says you. Should I show you some twilight movie box office returns to get the hate rolling?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I think it depends on age group too.
I think this is more of an issue than geography. A fair number of adults I know have read and enjoyed one or more of the Hunger Games books. I cannot think of a single person over the age of 16 (probably even 14) that I know has read and enjoyed the Percy Jackson books.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Edited the name of the topic for clarification.
Formally: In accordance with rules or ritual; following a prescribed procedure. "Formally asking for his daughter's hand"; "the president formally opened the ball".
Formerly: Previously, earlier. "The angel formerly known as Lucifer".
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:I cannot think of a single person over the age of 16 (probably even 14) that I know has read and enjoyed the Percy Jackson books.
*raises hand*
However, I enjoy them while my friend the librarian LOVES them. Tried to explain once why she preferred them to Harry Potter but everyone in the room quickly stuck our fingers in our ears and started humming.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I think it depends on age group too.
I think this is more of an issue than geography. A fair number of adults I know have read and enjoyed one or more of the Hunger Games books. I cannot think of a single person over the age of 16 (probably even 14) that I know has read and enjoyed the Percy Jackson books.
My brother enjoyed them. He's in his mid-20s. But he also has a Greek mythology fascination/fetish.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I think an interest in mythology is another confounding variable in looking at this issue. There are a variety of demographics issues. It seems likely that males would prefer Percy Jackson since the protagonist as male whereas the protagonist of The Hunger Games is female. However, there are undoubtedly exceptions to this rule.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"PERCY JACKSON" said the Gods, "YOUR ADHD AND DYSLEXIA ARE ACTUALLY SUPER COOL AND YOU SHOULD FEEL TOTALLY AWESOME ABOUT THEM BECAUSE IT MEANS YOU ARE GODBORN."
"Wow, really?"
"NO, YEAH, HAHA, NO, WE CAN'T SAY THAT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE, BUT YOU GOTTA GO ALONG WITH IT BECAUSE IT'S OUR STRAIGHTFORWARD WAY TO PANDER TO TARGET READERS."
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'm not sure the Percy Jackson series is any more notorious for pandering to a young audience than any other young adult series which has risen to some variety of prominence. Besides, ADHD and dyslexia are very serious learning disorders which your comment seems to paint as being somehow a negative thing and the child's fault. There's no reason young students with learning dysfunctions shouldn't be able to find a character with which they can identify.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I haven't read the books, but there's a difference between creating a character who has some disability or other, and making those disabilities actually a Super Cool Sign Of Awesome. Miles Vorkosigan is physically different, a major handicap in his culture, and overcomes the resulting difficulties by sheer drive and ability; but it is never suggested that it is actually his difference that makes him awesome, or that he would be boringly ordinary if his bones were normal.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
The book ascribes ADHD and dyslexia as a result of a degree of god-like abilities. But they aren't super-powers or anything like that, so it doesn't suggest that having the disabilities is or isn't what makes the character "heroic."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: Besides, ADHD and dyslexia are very serious learning disorders which your comment seems to paint as being somehow a negative thing and the child's fault.
Or rather, low hanging fruit in satire of a young adult novel. Besides, children with ADHD and dyslexia are bad and should feel bad, because now life lets them know that they'll never be harry potter, they'll just be the wannabe harry potter also-rans.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I realize you're being sarcastic, but I really don't know how to respond to something like that. I may not personally be a huge fan of Percy Jackson, but I don't think a kid in that situation is going to discriminate between what character they can relate to and whether or not that character is from a high-tier young adult series or a lower one. No harm, no foul. If it helps someone else, then it's not my position to discredit it more than to just say it isn't my cup of tea.
Posted by Betwixt (Member # 12600) on :
1. Yes, it's worth giving the first book a try. 2. My sentimental attachment to anything Ender makes that impossible to answer.
I enjoyed the Hunger Games trilogy. All three. I even really liked the end of the third.
For the sake of having a valid opinion about Twilight, I read all four books. Never have I wished so desperately to have not read something. The first was idiotic, but vaguely palatable. The other three were awful awful awful. The last one made my skin crawl and was a genuine struggle to finish.
I had no such reaction to the Hunger Games books. They aren't great literature. They aren't very innovative, but they are entertaining and gripping at times. The flattest character in the Hunger Games is Mariana Trench deep in comparison to the Twilight characters.
Read Hunger Games for something quick, entertaining, and hard to put down. The present tense is a personal thing. After a couple of pages I was used to it and it didn't bother me. I recommend the first book to everyone since it's so easy to read, accessible, and fast-paced. Evidently, opinion shifts a lot about the second and third. Read the first one and only keep going if you care to stay in that world a little longer.
***spoiler that isn't really a spoiler*** The plot boils down to an amalgamation of the Minotaur myth, Ender's Game, The Truman Show, and the gladiator games--All of which I find interesting and worthy of re-visiting in different forms. *********
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I think it depends on age group too.
I think this is more of an issue than geography. A fair number of adults I know have read and enjoyed one or more of the Hunger Games books. I cannot think of a single person over the age of 16 (probably even 14) that I know has read and enjoyed the Percy Jackson books.
Define enjoyed.
I'm not going to recommend them to anyone, but I read four out of five and didn't feel like my time was stolen from me. I probably won't read them again, but I was interested to see how it ended. I feel that way about most young adult lit. I Am Number Four is another one that I read that I probably wouldn't read again, but I'm mildly curious as to where it's going, and they only take like two, maybe three hours to read the whole book, so it's an okay way to spend an afternoon if I don't have time to dig into a larger more complicated book.
Plus it's nice to know that you don't have to be any better than that to get published. I could write something of that quality in a long weekend.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I have said it before and I'll say it again: many people express the desire or even compulsion to have to finish a book even when it's become a total chore and they're not enjoying it and I just completely don't understand it. It's like being in the habit of watching tv but being unable to change channels when the show you're on isn't holding your attention, because you 'might as well get through it,' or something. Analogies fail me. If I'm not enjoying a book it's got like ten pages to get my attention back, or it gets heaped and I go find another book or maybe perhaps just get eaten by the internet forever oh god
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I have said it before and I'll say it again: many people express the desire or even compulsion to have to finish a book even when it's become a total chore and they're not enjoying it and I just completely don't understand it. It's like being in the habit of watching tv but being unable to change channels when the show you're on isn't holding your attention, because you 'might as well get through it,' or something. Analogies fail me. If I'm not enjoying a book it's got like ten pages to get my attention back, or it gets heaped and I go find another book or maybe perhaps just get eaten by the internet forever oh god
I largely agree, except for the ten pages thing. If there are multiple plot threads in a book, and some of them are extremely interesting while some seem boring, I'll slog through a good while, savoring the good ones and tolerating the boring ones in the hopes that they pay off down the road.
This has happened most times I've read a Brandon Sanderson book, where at least one character viewpoint tends not to interest me until I've gotten through a few of their chapters.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
OH RIGHT, I did that in Soon I Will Be Invincible.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I love the series. The second one is the weak link, but is still a great read.
And yeah, I read other stuff too.
I look forward to Lyrhawn's YA book, forthcoming this Tuesday.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Please rant about twilight. Rant about its ugly psychosexual underbelly. My assassination protocols glow with a warmth that could even be considered joy when I read someone dissect the monstrosity that is Twilight's message to young girls about themselves and their sexuality.
Thanks, HK-47.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Liz B: I look forward to Lyrhawn's YA book, forthcoming this Tuesday.
That sounds like a challenge.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Please rant about twilight. Rant about its ugly psychosexual underbelly. My assassination protocols glow with a warmth that could even be considered joy when I read someone dissect the monstrosity that is Twilight's message to young girls about themselves and their sexuality.
Thanks, HK-47.
You are now reading my post in hk-47's voice
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Please rant about twilight. Rant about its ugly psychosexual underbelly. My assassination protocols glow with a warmth that could even be considered joy when I read someone dissect the monstrosity that is Twilight's message to young girls about themselves and their sexuality.
Obligatory video: Buffy vs Edward Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That Buffy vs Edward remix was perfect!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I should have realized that my statement about the Jackson books would be seen as a challenge. It wasn't meant that way, and I stand by the actual intent of that post: The AVERAGE age of the Percy Jackson reader is considerably lower than that of the AVERAGE Hunger Games reader.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Liz B: I look forward to Lyrhawn's YA book, forthcoming this Tuesday.
That sounds like a challenge.
End of March is my Spring break. I'll pick up the gauntlet then. Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: That Buffy vs Edward remix was perfect!
I second that!
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I should have realized that my statement about the Jackson books would be seen as a challenge. It wasn't meant that way, and I stand by the actual intent of that post: The AVERAGE age of the Percy Jackson reader is considerably lower than that of the AVERAGE Hunger Games reader.
The Hunger Games is one of those YA books that are every bit as relevant to adults as if it were an "adult" novel. It's smart enough, and the writing isn't dumbed down. I didn't feel like I was reading a kid's book. I think the author does a little better of a job at this than the Harry Potter books did.
The Percy Jackson books, on the other hand, exhibit a writing style that is very much aimed at younger kids. It tries to be "cool", and both the language and some of the plotting can be rather annoying for adult readers. That said, both my wife and I enjoyed them moderately well. I, for one, liked them better than the Harry Potter series. To be fair, however, I was always rather tepid to Rowling's mess of a series.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:I have said it before and I'll say it again: many people express the desire or even compulsion to have to finish a book even when it's become a total chore and they're not enjoying it and I just completely don't understand it.
I've done this in the past, especially when I was trying to read outside my comfort zone. I read an entire Danielle Steele book from front to back and somehow managed to survive it. But I told myself "never again," which is why I won't touch the Twilight books with a ten foot pole.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Heinlein's "The Number of Beast" was the first book I was like, "Eff it! I don't want to continue this book." and I set it aside and it has sat on my book shelf ever since.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
To be clear, this book wasn't the first I -wanted- to put down unfinished, it was the first I -did- put down unfinished.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Heinlein's "The Number of Beast" was the first book I was like, "Eff it! I don't want to continue this book." and I set it aside and it has sat on my book shelf ever since.
That sounds familiar but I can't remember the plot. I think the last book I put down after giving it a real shot was a Halo book.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'm notorious for putting a book down and finishing it a few years later.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Heinlein's "The Number of Beast" was the first book I was like, "Eff it! I don't want to continue this book." and I set it aside and it has sat on my book shelf ever since.
That sounds familiar but I can't remember the plot. I think the last book I put down after giving it a real shot was a Halo book.
The real mystery is why you gave it a shot.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Lyrhawn said:
quote:End of March is my Spring break. I'll pick up the gauntlet then.
Awesome! I have a class of spec-fic-loving 14-year-olds who would be excited to read the manuscript.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
My Spring Break is around the same time. Maybe Lyr and I should collaborate on the novel via e-mail.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I tend to finish books that I start. Often, they don't hit their stride until late into the novel.
The first Dune book, for example, kind of sucks until about 2/3 of the way in. Also, Arthur C. Clark is like this.
Some books are rather boring to read, and the enjoyment really doesn't occur until you've finished it. You may not have enjoyed it, but you're glad to have read it. Some Hemingway and Dickens is like this for me.
In either case, you're losing a lot by putting the book down. In the end, if you didn't like it you know to avoid that author in the future.
My wife, on the other hand, will stop reading after two or three pages. She just stopped reading Slaughterhouse-Five because she "didn't like the way (Vonnegut) writes". <Facepalm>
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I've been over half of the way through the book Wicked without having made any progress for something like five years. I intend to finish it eventually, but I just seem to have literary ADHD.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, if a book is not enjoyable to read, but afterwards you're "glad you read it," I suspect that's because you feel like you've accomplished something by reading it even though you haven't. Because the literary community decreed that the book was "good" and now you can say you read it and discuss it with people.
Let's test this: How often do you experience this with a book that is not a "classic?"
Your wife has the right idea. You're wrong to facepalm her. (Man, put in that context it sounds like some sort of horrible martial arts attack, but I think you know what I meant)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I've been over half of the way through the book Wicked without having made any progress for something like five years. I intend to finish it eventually, but I just seem to have literary ADHD.
I think it was you who mentioned this before and I echoed it, but absolutely. I used to always finish books I started, but lately there are just so many I'll stop midway and give up on.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'm too busy to commit to a book I'm not actually enjoying. I usually end up reading them eventually. But if I'm going to read something for pleasure instead of work or school, then I want it to be pleasurable to me.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I thought Wicked was awful.
I try to give books fifty to one hundred pages--which I will vary based on overall length, as well as the intention of the book. Genre fiction--which is, after all, about telling a darn story--gets a bit less leeway. For literary fiction, I better be enjoying the characterization and language, since I don't expect an actual, you know, story. So--if your wife isn't enjoying Vonnegut's storytelling after a couple of pages, why on earth should she suffer through it?
If there's some sort of purpose for reading beyond my personal experience & edification--like a book club meeting, or a class discussion--then I'll press on.
But seriously. Life is short and my reading time is limited. I want to be getting a tremendous amount of entertainment and/ or pleasure out of the reading I have time for.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I was actually enjoying Wicked. I just stopped reading it for no apparent reason.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Liz B: Lyrhawn said:
quote:End of March is my Spring break. I'll pick up the gauntlet then.
Awesome! I have a class of spec-fic-loving 14-year-olds who would be excited to read the manuscript.
You're on!
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: My Spring Break is around the same time. Maybe Lyr and I should collaborate on the novel via e-mail.
Hey that'd be fun. I'm in.
If only my last name was Hammerstein!
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
And if only my last name was actually Rogers!
Edit:
I'd say I'd be willing to give collaborating on a young adult novel over break an actual chance if I thought I'd have the time. It would be really fun to do though.
Edit Again: Hell. If we could get a time extension for the project considering it's status as a collaboration instead, then I'd be more than willing to give it a go just for the sake of having done it.
[ January 18, 2012, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: SteveRogers ]
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Jake: I liked The Amber Spyglass better than The Subtle Knife, but that isn't saying a whole lot. Neither book was worth much in comparison to the first, I thought.
I thought The Subtle Knife was just as good as The Golden Compass. There was plenty of Spyglass I enjoyed just fine as well. It's about 50% in that the whole thing just turned sour so fast.
The Subtle Knife was my favorite of the books, Compass being a very close second.
Spyglass was very entertaining in the good parts but down right boring in other parts, I felt i was supposed to like it alot more than I did.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I remember the Artemis Fowl books being very popular among middle school and high school age students (despite their incredible simplicity) when I was still in school, and I even attended a book signing event with my Dad (who teaches elementary school) and found Eoin Colfer to be a genial and all-around friendly guy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: And if only my last name was actually Rogers!
Edit:
I'd say I'd be willing to give collaborating on a young adult novel over break an actual chance if I thought I'd have the time. It would be really fun to do though.
Edit Again: Hell. If we could get a time extension for the project considering it's status as a collaboration instead, then I'd be more than willing to give it a go just for the sake of having done it.
Maybe they'd allow us to use the two months before break as a pre-planning period where we spitball ideas and work out the plot, and then the actual writing has to take place in a four day period (or perhaps we can split those four days up over a length of time to adjust for schedules).
I've already got a couple of ideas.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'd be willing to give it a shot.
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
It al; comes down to targeted audience. Ender's Game, along with the Ender Quartet and the Shadow Series, are targeted, in my opinion, at intelligent young teens and older readers. On the other hand, the Percy Jackson series is targeted at mainly "layman" children. Do not get me wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed Percy Jackson and The Olympians, and Rick Riordan is a skilled storyteller. But I can see how the simplistic writing style and in-your-face pre-teen sexual themes could be quite irksome to the advanced reader.
That said, based on the neat little black and white extremes that I just fabricated, I believe The Hunger Games fall somewhere in the middle. The audience targeted is still fairly young, but there are the more subtle themes present that keep us "hatrackers" coming back to OSC for more of his stories. Do I believe that in the hands of a writer of the caliber of OSC the series could be improved? Of course. But The Hunger Games is a solid story and a compelling tale of young love, (as cheesy as that might sound) and it is much as I could expect from the writer of the Overland Chronicles.
All in all, solid piece of literature, and worth checking out.
Happy Reading!
ZachC
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: Ender's Game, along with the Ender Quartet and the Shadow Series, are targeted, in my opinion, at intelligent young teens and older readers.
The initial intended audience (to the degree that there was one) of EG was adults. The re-branding as a YA book came about 10 years after the book was first published, and (as I understand it) was in part due to the number of high schools that had added it to their curriculum.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Yeah, if a book is not enjoyable to read, but afterwards you're "glad you read it," I suspect that's because you feel like you've accomplished something by reading it even though you haven't.
That's your problem. You assume that I haven't accomplished anything. In some instances I've gained a better understanding of history, as in the book 1776. In some instances it is a philosophical learning experience (Ovid, Divine Comedy, etc). In some instances the book gives insight into the human condition (David Copperfield, Shakespeare).
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Your wife has the right idea. You're wrong to facepalm her. (Man, put in that context it sounds like some sort of horrible martial arts attack, but I think you know what I meant)
No, my wife has taken it to the extreme. She'll only read super-pop books because she'll often put down books after only a few paragraphs or pages. She's become so conditioned, she is utterly incapable of reading anything in a different style or with any level of depth. That's the danger of being too critical.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Heinlein's "The Number of Beast" was the first book I was like, "Eff it! I don't want to continue this book." and I set it aside and it has sat on my book shelf ever since.
That sounds familiar but I can't remember the plot. I think the last book I put down after giving it a real shot was a Halo book.
The real mystery is why you gave it a shot.
Lol, yes, that's still a mystery to me, too.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Lyrhawn said:
quote:Maybe they'd allow us to use the two months before break as a pre-planning period where we spitball ideas and work out the plot, and then the actual writing has to take place in a four day period (or perhaps we can split those four days up over a length of time to adjust for schedules).
Ha! I'll ask the kids. I'm sure it'll be fine. Four days is still four days.
They are, by the way, really excited about this.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Oh! And there is a true natural deadline here...it has to be complete in time for them to read and and give feedback before the end of the school year.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Oh, wow. The pressure just heated up.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
S'ok, we're already plotting.
When does the school year end and how long do they need to read it? School year probably ends in like June. How long does it take kids to read YA-sized book? Couple weeks?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
We will aspire not to disappoint the children.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
quote:We will aspire not to disappoint the children.
Always admirable.
Our last day is June 8. But there's always a ton of nonsense going on at the end of the school year that makes actually accomplishing anything problematic.
Two weeks is about right. That's how long I give them to read book club books.
So--beginning of May is reasonable.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
What grade will be reading this?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
She said it was a class of fourteen year olds, so, 8th graders? 9th graders?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Oh, alright. Just thought it'd be good to establish an age, so we have a rough idea of what sort of content and themes would be appropriate.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Yep. Eighth grade. Spec fic book club choices enjoyed so far this year include EG, Ender's Shadow, I Am Number 4, Dr. Franklin's Island, Hunger Games (of course), Uglies, The Knife of Never Letting Go, Jurassic Park, Life As We Knew It--there are others, but that might give you an idea.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
If they read Jurassic Park, then that gives us a little breathing room so far as content goes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If they read I Am Number Four, and liked it, I don't think we'll have any problems.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
You might be putting too much faith in my writing ability. Haha.
[ January 22, 2012, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: SteveRogers ]
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
About content--parents in our area don't really get bothered by violence, just by sex and profanity and gay characters. Teen sex is ok (for some/ most) if it's offscreen, non-gratuitous, and has some sort of natural consequence. Profanity is generally no big deal except for the big bad one. And as long as it's approximately the PG-13 rules (rare and not used to mean what it actually means), I haven't had any problems. And as for gay characters--bring it on. I go to the mat for that one.
And as for quality--at this age, they really truly are ruled by plot. (Thus the love for books like I Am Number Four.) One of the things I work on with them is seeing beyond it to what makes books powerful and memorable.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I can guarantee there will be no teen sex. There might be some damns and hells, but probably nothing worse than that (though if we're writing realistic teen dialogue, it probably would have stuff worse than that), but there will probably be a reasonable amount of violence.
Out of curiosity, what do you think it is about IA#4's plot that draws them in so much? It's ridiculously easy to guess (and the thing with the dog made me want to punch the kid in the face it was so obvious). Is it just because a regular looking teen kid ends up with super cool powers, gets the girl, and gets to blow his high school up?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Everyone wants to be special...the choisen one, the one with powers...(note I never saw/read #4) and what could be a better time then in your teens when you are awkward and transitioning into adulthood and all angsty?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well I get that much, which is why every popular YA book in the last decade has been about either someone with powers, or someone caught up in supernatural events (and it is in fact a major facet of the book I'll be writing for this), but is there anything about something like IA#4 that draws them in OTHER than that? Or is that really all it takes? I'll leave out the terrible writing and assume teens simply aren't as discerning as adults, what is it about the plot itself?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Having not seen/read it it I can only guess from what I remember of the trailer...an adult group is trying to kill all the super teens...and #4 defies them and wins...so, like Hunger Games, Ender's Game, and a whole lot of others the going up against the powerful, evil authority and proving that all you need is your own skills and spirit might be a major component.
Come on and be like everyone else and defy authority and conformity!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
IA#4 was one of the very few movies where I can honestly say they really, really improved on the book. A lot of the details were changed, so I wouldn't compare the two necessarily, though of course the basics are still the same. I actually enjoyed the movie. The book was comparatively lame. I might buy the second one when it comes out on paperback anyway, just because I'm curious to see where it goes, but I'll hate myself for contributing to the success of such a mediocre series.
Still, whatever gets kids reading I guess.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
(Lyr, consider a library.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh yeah.
I spend so much time in libraries reading history books that I forget they have a fiction section.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
My guess is this (having not read it)--they are making a key developmental transition at this point when predictability is *not* a drawback or a liability. First, they don't always have the depth of genre knowledge to get when a book is derivative (witness the love they still have for Eragon)--but next, they're just past the level of fluency/ genre familiarity that makes readers want to read book after book in a predictable series. Nancy Drew, Hardy Boys, The Black Stallion, Encyclopedia Brown, Animorphs, Sweet Valley High, Goosebumps, The Clique...
Predictability makes books easier to read. And a reader who had a good experience often wants to re-create that experience. Predictability also makes a reader (or viewer) feel *smart.*
I think it's as only we become more experienced and savvy readers that we really value when an author turns tropes on their heads--or does something completely unexpected. (I truly don't think that the trainwreck that is Breaking Dawn counts as unexpected. Mockingjay does, though. And guess which finale pissed off my YA readers?)
None of this is to recommend writing predictable YA. Another one my kids love is American-Born Chinese, which has one of those awesome twists that feels like you totally should have picked up on it while being complete surprising. But it does explain why predictability isn't nearly as tiresome yet for them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Remember the goal here is mediocre literature.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
lol that's true, Stone_Wolf, but you can't blame a guy for trying. I'm cheating a little bit, in that I'm laying out the ground work somewhat before hand, so the actual writing is only done over four days, though it's actually not cheating that much, it only took me a few hours to roughly sketch out the plot last night.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'm contributing. A little. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I volunteer to edit.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If you want to get involved, that's fine with me. I think we're stretching the rules of the original challenge, but it'll make for a better result, so I think that's fine.
If you'd like to get in on the ground floor I can send you what SteveRogers and I are working on for the plot.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm in...my email is listed (my user name AT hotmail)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
On its way to you. Now we have an editor and a pair of co-writers, I think we're all set.
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
Create a forum thread and give updates on the storyline and progress.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hah, maybe for the sequel, if we actually get that far, we'll write it via crowdsourcing.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Update:
The kids are looking forward to this. One boy said he didn't think you should be allowed to plan ahead of time, but he was overruled. (Actual quote: "Shut up. This way the book will be better.") Tons of questions. Samples:
When will it be done? How will you get it to us? How long will we have to read it? Do we have to read I Am Number Four to participate? Do we have to keep reading it if it's not any good? Are we the only class doing this? How violent is it going to be? What did you tell him about how edgy it can be? Will we be able to read it on our kindles? Does this count toward our reading for class? Can we discuss it for book club?
I love middle school.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
lol.
The only one of those I can answer is when it will be done. First week of April at the latest. I'm having to take a long break from the planning (though a lot of it is planned out if you want to take a sneak peak at it before the writing). But I'll have the actual writing done during my Spring Break, which I think is the third week of March. SteveRogers is pitching in too, and I believe his portion will be done the following week. Then give me and stone_wolf two days to edit it (I think they'll appreciate that too).
If you want to make the boy who complained about the planning feel better, tell him it's about half done, and I did it all in two three hour sit downs.
I have a question for them: Where'd they get kindles?! I'm in grad school and even I don't have one!
Steve was right, now I'm starting to feel the pressure. I don't want to disappoint!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
As of this posting, the prerelease screening consensus from critics is 100% fresh at rottentomatoes.
quote:Rarely does a blockbuster live up to its overheated hype, but The Hunger Games proved to be an exception.
Jennifer Lawrence is, apparently, as perfect a choice as they could have made for the lead role.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
She rocked Winter's Bone but total blarg in Xmen 1st Class. I think she does dark better then bubbly.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Coming in on this late, but personally I don't think The Hunger Games would have been nearly as breakout successful if it hadn't followed Twilight. In many ways it's the Anti-Twilight.
I've read both series. I read Twilight specifically so I could write a convincing parody and kept going out of dogged disbelief that it could keep getting worse (it did).
Where the protagonist in Twilight barely does enough to be considered a protagonist at all -- Bella is written in first-person-useless -- Katniss charges forward nonstop. She's feeding her family, she's sacrificing herself. The men in her life might save her but she does the same for them, multiple times. They're both emotionally stunted, but at least Katniss has a reason. Both have love triangle issues and neither handle theirs well, but I don't see Katniss going comatose because her boyfriend disappeared.
I think the second HG book was the weakest but it was necessary to get to the third. Personally, I'd have preferred to see one big, three-act book, but YA doesn't seem to like those 'cause, you know, kids don't read.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I've just started reading the book today. The movie doesn't come out in Spain until the middle of April, so I'm aiming to get through at least the first one novel by then (it's the translation, so it'll take me a little longer to read). So far, it's hooked me.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I tend to finish books that I start. Often, they don't hit their stride until late into the novel.
The first Dune book, for example, kind of sucks until about 2/3 of the way in. Also, Arthur C. Clark is like this.
Some books are rather boring to read, and the enjoyment really doesn't occur until you've finished it. You may not have enjoyed it, but you're glad to have read it. Some Hemingway and Dickens is like this for me.
In either case, you're losing a lot by putting the book down. In the end, if you didn't like it you know to avoid that author in the future.
My wife, on the other hand, will stop reading after two or three pages. She just stopped reading Slaughterhouse-Five because she "didn't like the way (Vonnegut) writes". <Facepalm>
Complete off-topic revisiting of a comment...
Can I mention how much I loathe whoever decided that Slaughterhouse-Five ought to be the entry into Vonnegut/the one book you have to read? Depending on temperament and taste, I'd recommend Cat's Cradle, Mother Night, and Player Piano before Slaughterhouse-Five.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Oh, and on topic:
I just finished the series yesterday. I have a different take than most (I think) of the ending. I liked the first book, and currently really like the ending of the last book.
:: mild spoiler ::
I don't consider the ending to be a particularly "happy" one at all. It may be colored by having a grandfather who lived 50+ as a PTSD sufferer.
[ March 20, 2012, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Spoilerish but written to minimize
One problem with the PTSD is ever since Lord of the Rings, that is kinda the default sad ending. There has to be a cost and a not completely happy ending so the author leaves the character damaged. This might be true before Lord of the Rings too, but its the first chronologically I can think of.
I thought at the end having Katniss witness the death she did was a bit manipulative of the writer. It was fairly far fetched for it to occur at all and then add k witnessing it and my main response was, the writer is trying to manipulate me and make me feel bad- which kinda ruins the emotion the writer was trying for. Also, I thought that if K had had the exact same response to the event she witnessed without the personal connection, it would have been a stronger story. What happened was tragic enough without that death and by including that death, in a way, it minimized just how awful what happened was. So, I would have left the ending and everything exactly the same, but left that one person alive. Let the tragedy that befell unknown people lead to the end and response because frankly, that tragedy was bad enough to justify it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I honestly found the last chapters of the third book to be chaotic and poorly written (not just accurately describing a chaotic time). In the first book, I really felt a connection to the plight of Katniss, I felt I understood the settings, the actions, etc, like I was there. The exact opposite is true for the end of the last book.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I just finished the first book last night and probably won't be continuing on.
I'm not sure I get what the fuss is about. The writing is clunky, of so-so quality. The first person present tense narrative is an interesting idea that I think sort of falls flat because the writing is just to amateurish to pull it off. But it's a good idea.
I guess my main beef is that I had the entire plot figured out in the first fifty or so pages. There was never any real mystery, and what tension or suspense she managed to come up with, like Foxface's cleverness and surprising behavior, had incredibly unsatisfying endings. Maybe it's just the problem of YA. But it needed to be at least 100 pages longer, and she needed to do SOMETHING to keep it from being so laughably predictable. I had the ending more or less figured out from the start, and as soon as they found the berries I knew exactly how it would end.
I give a lot of points for creativity and imagination. I like how complex they made Katniss (though she was really the ONLY complex character in the book), and I liked the attempts to futz with identity issues, though they were extremely clumsy in their execution. Again, maybe that's the problem with YA fic.
All in all, meh.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, I don't get the Hunger Games love, either. I think it's one of those things, like the whole "The Girl Who...." phenomena, that appeal to people who don't generally read much.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Looking at Goodreads votes I'd say that's not true.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
You can enjoy a story for reasons OTHER than not-knowing-the-plot.
I agree the writing is kinda amatuerish. But what I get from the novels that I like is the worldbuilding, and the way it looks at mass media packaging. (This is further expounded upon in the followup books from different perspectives). It's never really *brilliant* - it didn't make me thinking of something truly new - but it did get me think, and somewhat examine my role as an artist.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Hunger games is not a book for book snobs. Not syaing there's anything wrong with being a book snob, its just in that category of accessable light enough ya that I know who is going to turn their nose up at it.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
The movie is out now and so far it has an 86% on Rotten Tomatoes. Not too shabby. I'm definitely going to see it this weekend.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I get to take my 12 year old nephew to see it tomorrow night.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I want to see it...not sure if I will be able to catch it on the big screen or not...hope so.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
Disclaimer: I've never read the books. I'll probably read them (heck, I read Twilight) eventually.
I saw the movie this afternoon, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. It wasn't the best movie ever made, nor was the plot terribly surprising (as mentioned above, it was easy to see what was coming). But if I take it for what it is - a fun flick - I liked it.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
The best quality of the books was keeping you from putting them down. Even when you guessed exactly what was going to happen. I wonder if that translates well into the movie...
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
What is the movie analogue for a hard-to-put-down book?
A movie that's hard to walk out of? That's a much lower bar.
A movie that's hard to take a bathroom break during? Maybe, depending on the strength of your bladder.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Now I've seen the movie. I'm not sure if they really portrayed Katniss as well as they could have. That's the trick with first person narratives. It all happens in her head, so making it play out on screen is really hard. The actor playing Katniss did a great job. I even got a little misty at the stuff with Rue and District 11, that was a nice moment, and I didn't even mind the change they made there. I suppose it's setting something up for the future.
Now that I've thought about it more, I can see why the comparisons to Twilight are so much fun, where it seems like Twilight (which I've never read) is all about Bella's boy troubles, and almost none of the Hunger Games is REALLY about romance, at least, not from the female lead's POV. They swapped out gender roles. She's the hunter, provider who has no interest in romantic entanglements and he's the lovesick mostly useless hindrance who can't live without her. It would have been more imaginative if instead of merely swapping gender stereotypes, she'd defied them completely and made NEITHER of them conform to something, but I certainly see the appeal.
I guess I've changed my mind a little in the last day. I still don't think it's as good, perhaps, as its popularity would suggest, but it's not terrible. Maybe what bugs me most is that it has a lot of lost potential.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: What is the movie analogue for a hard-to-put-down book?
A movie that's hard to walk out of? That's a much lower bar.
A movie that's hard to take a bathroom break during? Maybe, depending on the strength of your bladder.
A movie in which you forget to breathe until the end. Unfortunately none of the movies that have this quality made it to the testing on human subjects phase.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Liz B: Update:
The kids are looking forward to this. One boy said he didn't think you should be allowed to plan ahead of time, but he was overruled. (Actual quote: "Shut up. This way the book will be better.") Tons of questions. Samples:
When will it be done? How will you get it to us? How long will we have to read it? Do we have to read I Am Number Four to participate? Do we have to keep reading it if it's not any good? Are we the only class doing this? How violent is it going to be? What did you tell him about how edgy it can be? Will we be able to read it on our kindles? Does this count toward our reading for class? Can we discuss it for book club?
I love middle school.
Update of my own:
Writing has commenced.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I just went and saw the Hunger Games and I quite enjoyed it, except for one part:
The love triangle.
As I understand it, this part works much better in the books, but in the movie it's sort of reminiscent of Twilight (the guy "back home" even looks a bit like Edward). It really disappointed me that they did this, because the main character is an awesome character with a lot of depth, but the love story ruined it for me. Did anyone else feel that way?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought it was actually rather downplayed in the movie. It DOES work much better in the books, because you can see Katniss' conflicted feelings over the two of them. But even then, it seems like she could probably do without them both if she had to, though, she certainly seems to lean toward Gale.
In the movie, the love angle with Peeta is pretty much downplayed in general, I thought. They didn't spend nearly enough time on the cave scenes or anything after it for me to believe they were genuinely in-love, which made the scenes where Gale was watching them make out on TV sort of fell flat to me. The love aspect, despite actually being integral to their survival, didn't seem all that important or believable in the movie.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
I thought the love triangle was probably the most overplayed and badly done part of the books, but I guess that's just the Y part of the YA. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I just went and saw the Hunger Games and I quite enjoyed it, except for one part:
The love triangle.
With you until that last line. What bothered *me* was this is a serious game, and bets are placed on the contestants. How in the hell would anybody place bets on anybody when their sponsors can send them stuff, and a body of people with computers actively try to kill them off?
I mean that's all I could think about when they started the fire to try and flush her away from the border. They are launching fireballs at her, and if she dodges the wrong way, she's flat out dead. She's running at a dead sprint for several minutes, and when she collapses by some rocks they fire another fireball right at her. Then, after that whole thing has just concluded, before she can even stop to catch her breath, "LOL here's that team of five people that we know have been roaming together, now that we've shuffled you to them, they can kill you without a fuss! Hope nobody put any bets on Katniss, who by the way we ranked 11, so I'm sure the odds were high in the first place."
And then a few days later, "Ha, random monster dogs we can summon at any place! Lets hope none of the computer people are on the take, because they pretty much decide these contests."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:How in the hell would anybody place bets on anybody when their sponsors can send them stuff, and a body of people with computers actively try to kill them off?
People bet on things in the real world that are totally random (and a guaranteed long run loss); betting on something involving significant skill where underdogs frequently pull out amazing feats is a slam dunk betting extravaganza.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Yeah, actually, now that you mention it, it's a bit strange to have a room full of people who can kill anyone at any time for any reason and it's totally fine. Seems like it would hurt the objectivity of the game and the rules.
The movie would probably have been better if the conflict had more to do with the dynamics of the fighters, rather than the interference of the guys in the white room. The main character gets injured from the fire, after all, and it is a huge hinderence to her. I'd have rather seen her get hurt from a fight with someone.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I just went and saw the Hunger Games and I quite enjoyed it, except for one part:
The love triangle.
With you until that last line. What bothered *me* was this is a serious game, and bets are placed on the contestants. How in the hell would anybody place bets on anybody when their sponsors can send them stuff, and a body of people with computers actively try to kill them off?
I mean that's all I could think about when they started the fire to try and flush her away from the border. They are launching fireballs at her, and if she dodges the wrong way, she's flat out dead. She's running at a dead sprint for several minutes, and when she collapses by some rocks they fire another fireball right at her. Then, after that whole thing has just concluded, before she can even stop to catch her breath, "LOL here's that team of five people that we know have been roaming together, now that we've shuffled you to them, they can kill you without a fuss! Hope nobody put any bets on Katniss, who by the way we ranked 11, so I'm sure the odds were high in the first place."
And then a few days later, "Ha, random monster dogs we can summon at any place! Lets hope none of the computer people are on the take, because they pretty much decide these contests."
Not to quibble with your quibbling, but A) if the stylists are forbidden to bet, then anyone with any power is surely forbidden as well, and B) the technology used in the movie is must more precise than that in the film. In the book, it describes using the traps to cause enough chaos to keep things interesting, not to target specific participants. I agree that the change makes the betting in the film much less realistic.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Let's not forget that, so far as I could tell in the books, 'disposable income' (and resources, time, etc.) are one of the names of the game. The games themselves, openly no less, serve no purpose other than to flaunt the Capitol's power over the districts, alongside carefully keeping them divided and conquered. Rampant, open public betting by the elite and everyone else would be encouraged.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Yeah, there's really no objectivity. A couple of my coworkers and I were trying to explain the Hunger Games trailer to someone who hasn't read the books. They were confused as to why the guy was saying "Happy Hunger Games." Was it a holiday? Was it a sport? It is more like the Olympics or more like the Superbowl?
But its nothing so lofty. Its reality entertainment at its most despicable. It reminds of of that stupid reality show a few years where viewers voted on who was going to get married.
As for the love triangle, it WAS beaten to death in the books. But as an idea, it works. I especially liked Lyr's comment that Katniss could probably do without either of them. The poor girl has this loyalty to Gale, her oldest friend and the person taking care of her family while she's fighting for her life, and then there's Peeta who is her best shot for making it back alive and she has no idea if he's being genuine or playing the game. And she's freaking Katniss who would probably prefer to sneak by on her own skill and sheer stubbornness, even if it would end up getting her killed. I like the idea of that tension between independence, loyalty, and having to rely on someone else.
But yeah, that didn't happen in the movie and its my biggest complaint. I think Jennifer Lawrence did, however, completely rock what they gave her to work with. I could feel her prickly attitude rolling right off the screen.
And just real quick because I can't find my copy of the book, did the whole "two tributes can come out alive if they're from the same district" thing happen in the book at the same time in happened in the movie? Cause it felt really early and kind of out of left field in the movie?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:How in the hell would anybody place bets on anybody when their sponsors can send them stuff, and a body of people with computers actively try to kill them off?
People bet on things in the real world that are totally random (and a guaranteed long run loss); betting on something involving significant skill where underdogs frequently pull out amazing feats is a slam dunk betting extravaganza.
I haven't read the book, so I'm sure there's explanation I just haven't got, also, perhaps seeing a new game play out once makes it hard to grasp, whereas if you had seen a few the name of the game becomes more apparent.
It's not so much the loss of money I'm surprised at, or the randomness, it's the seeming *non-randomness* of the officials actually forcing the game to pan out a certain way. The rules are modified on a whim, the board is modified on a whim, it's not left to the contestants to play it out while being officiated over, it's officials deciding who lives with little more criteria than what would be more interesting to them.
I mean granted in a football match, an official decides to book a player and hands out a red card taking a player out of the match and leaving one team a player short the rest of the match. And in the Colosseum beasts would be let out (though most of the time they couldn't get them to fight the gladiators) creating a random element. But in this game sponsors can send you seemingly anything small enough to fit in those containers, and the officials, essentially are trying to murder contestants.
People might still bet on that, but coming into it the first time, my gut instinct is you would have people extremely pissed and feeling cheated out of their money after a game like this.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:What bothered *me* was this is a serious game, and bets are placed on the contestants. How in the hell would anybody place bets on anybody when their sponsors can send them stuff, and a body of people with computers actively try to kill them off?
Which bets are you taking about that are bothering you? People bet on reality tv, even when it is as arguably scripted. Not that the point of the hunger games is to create a sport for betting, mind you. It's got a much different established social purpose.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Third-best opening weekend of all times. We're definitely getting the sequels. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My nephew (a big fan of the books) really loved it. I liked it a lot. The shaky cam was annoying but the casting was great. I am not usually a Woody Harrelson fan but he was perfect in this and Donald Sutherland was exactly right as President Snow. We didn't see much of her but I loved Paula Malcomson conveyed the sense of the mother without having to say anything. It will be interesting to see more of her later. The only exception was Peeta. He did a fine job, I just don't find him appealing which is probably nothing to do with him.
I thought a couple of the changes they made really set up the next movies very well.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:People might still bet on that, but coming into it the first time, my gut instinct is you would have people extremely pissed and feeling cheated out of their money after a game like this.
I think you don't have much connection with the mind of a gambler Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:People might still bet on that, but coming into it the first time, my gut instinct is you would have people extremely pissed and feeling cheated out of their money after a game like this.
I think you don't have much connection with the mind of a gambler
Not currently, but I've certainly gambled. Black Jack, Big Two, Roulette, etc. Certainly not regularly.
Were you gambling, would you bet on those games?
edit: "Those games" being Hunger Games.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
The love triangle was definitely down played, but any more focus on it would've been annoying.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Also
No Country movie > No Country book.
They're both great, though.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yeah, I don't get the Hunger Games love, either. I think it's one of those things, like the whole "The Girl Who...." phenomena, that appeal to people who don't generally read much.
Way to be judgmental Tom!
For the record, I read a whole lot, and I really really like The Hunger Games.
(Could never get into The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo though.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I enjoyed them and I read at least 60 books last year. I think they have some flaws, but still enjoyable.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I'm reading the first book now (about 70 pages in) and while I find the first person present tense a little weird, the world-building and characters are mostly fun enough to hold my interest. I'll probably get through all three books before the end of April, unless I find something more interesting.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've thought about the first book a lot more since I read it, and while I still have my issues with it, I'm starting to appreciate the themes it addresses.
The most obvious scene is simply spectacle. The Hunger Games are the Reality TV of Panem. It's a commentary on how dehumanizing these events can often be, and how society descends into a "bread and circuses" like atmosphere.
There's also a sort of rural vs. urban, core vs. periphery, celebration of the common man theme going on here. Collins might not necessarily being doing social commentary with this section today (though I don't know how you escape the class elements there), but she's certainly saying something about the nobility of the rural, ascetic and the avaricious hedonism of the urban elite. Katniss' utter disdain for them, and the way its written to have us identify with Katniss thus make us hate them as well. It's a little subtle in the book, though less so in the movie.
On another note, there's an internet kerfuffle over casting at the moment. Lots of people are pissed that the casting director made Rue black. Frankly, I'd be more insulted by the fact that the rioting agricultural district was entirely black. Nicely playing on racial stereotypes there. I thought the girl who played Rue was delightful. I didn't even remember that she was supposed to be blonde.
I think it also raises an interesting question I've been toying with in the book I'm writing over the next couple days. I was thinking about making of the main characters black, but I'm conflicted on which to do it with. There are three sort of archetypes for my main characters, though they all also get major plot points over the course of the broader story. One of them is incredibly intelligent but a little socially awkward. She's very invested in her own intelligence but will later find that her knowledge is magically bestowed, which causes a bit of an identity crisis when she asks herself what she is without her brains. There's a male character who's a bit of a joker, witty, not the best at school, but with a dark past. He finds out he's the descendent of some pretty terrible people and wrestles with what he perceives as some dark side demons. I was thinking about making one of them the black character, but no matter what I do, I feel like I'm coming up against racial stereotypes and politics that automatically change the character. Make the wisecrackin' boy with ancestry issues and anger problems the black kid and he's a negative stereotype. Make the brainy girl with insecurity issues the black kid and she's either a stereotype or looks like I'm intentionally trying to defy a stereotype. So I'm not sure how to deal with that other than to just leave them all white, but I was hoping I could defy the all-white cast that tends to make up YA pop fiction.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Lyrhawn, Rue's not meant to be blonde - in the book she's described as having 'dark brown skin' with brown hair and eyes. Suzanne Collins has confirmed both she and Thresh were written to be African-American. (African-Panemian, I guess.)
This tumblr is pretty excellent (language warning) - both at calling people out and at the actual content of the book. Hunger Games Tweets (You have to go through to page 3 or so to get to the tweets and responses). Or an article here.
A lot of people are arguing that the racial make up of district 11 is also very intentional - overtones of slavery, obviously. Not so much a racial stereotype as a deliberate reference.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure it works for me. Or rather, I'm not sure what she's trying to say by it as commentary on today's culture.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Where did this whole "Rue is not black" thing come from?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd never even heard about it until I read an article about upset fans. I don't even remember her being described in the book.
I also can't imagine getting that pissed about the skin tone of a peripheral character.
Posted by J-Put (Member # 11752) on :
I think the single line that establishes her race was overwhelmed by the many lines about the resemblance to Prim, who was described as blonde.
Posted by jpgray (Member # 12776) on :
quote:Originally posted by J-Put: I think the single line that establishes her race was overwhelmed by the many lines about the resemblance to Prim, who was described as blonde.
Yeah, that's why I was surprised that the actress casted for the role is black. I don't have any problem with it and I think she did a great job with role. I think I pictured the character as being white while I was reading the books because of the constant references to her being similar to Prim.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I thought of her as black the whole time.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's so silly. I can't believe people were making such an uproar over it. People should at least check the book before they jump to such a racist conclusion like that.
This reminds me of when they changed Nick Fury to a black guy in the comics, then cast Samuel L. Jackson in the role for the films. Who cares what color someone's skin is, so long as they can portray the character? Regardless, this wasn't even the case with Rue, apparently, since her character was already black before the movie.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Interesting how Hollywood views racial casting in purely economic terms. Also interesting how the casting director says that if a fan is pissed about hair color, there might have been something wrong with the storytelling. And I guess if they're getting to those sorts of petty complaints, he might be onto something.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Liz B: Update:
The kids are looking forward to this. One boy said he didn't think you should be allowed to plan ahead of time, but he was overruled. (Actual quote: "Shut up. This way the book will be better.") Tons of questions. Samples:
When will it be done? How will you get it to us? How long will we have to read it? Do we have to read I Am Number Four to participate? Do we have to keep reading it if it's not any good? Are we the only class doing this? How violent is it going to be? What did you tell him about how edgy it can be? Will we be able to read it on our kindles? Does this count toward our reading for class? Can we discuss it for book club?
I love middle school.
Update of my own:
Writing has commenced.
Awesome! I have been offline for a while, so I missed this announcement...the kids are still interested, and they asked about it just yesterday.
So what's the status?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm a little surprised to see the books described as amateurish. They struck me as having several deft touches. The first person narrative (and yeah, I know, for book snobs first person narrative is almost always bad) was the perfect choice for telling this story and hitting the themes. Along with this, there was a fair bit of subtlety I saw worked into the writing that I thought showed a good deal of skill.
I think it sort of fell apart in the last book during the assault on the capitol because of the insistence that "This is going to be like a Third Hunger Games!" with the bizarre defense plans and flow of the action, but overall, I thought it was pretty well done.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In hindsight, I think the plot and subtext were well done. I also didn't mind the first person narrative. I found I never really got used to the present tense, but maybe that's just me.
It was the actual writing that bugged me though. I mean it was better than Christopher Paolini, but not particularly impressive. Adjusted for scale, as a YA Fiction book, I guess, maybe it was pretty decent? But for writing in general? Meh.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I read through them pretty quickly, but I honestly didn't notice any problems with the writing. When I thought about it at all, I thought it was suited for Katniss's character. So, for me, it was immersive. If you can think of any specific examples, I'd be interested to read them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd have to look at it again. I also zipped through the first one pretty fast. I might revisit it after this semester is over to take another look.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
There is of course the issue of population scale. Since Star Trek visited worlds every week with populations of about 15--all living in the one city in that whole world, the idea of population scale seems to be a non-issue.
Katliss comes from one of 12 (13?) territories in North America. Only 1 child from each territory is chosen for the games. Her territory is Appalachia. Her territory, from reading the book and looking at the movie, consists of maybe 200 people. No, there were 50 to 100 kids being chosen, so we'll say 1000 people in the whole territory. It has two small towns, or two halves of 1 small town. "the Crease" where the miners live and the rest of the district where craftsmen live and work.
That is 12000 people in the entire continent.
Of course the Capital shows more than that viewing the parades. The Capital looks large, so there may be a million people in the Capital, supported by only 1000 or so people in each district?
I became confused trying to figure that out.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I thought district 12 was just a tiny one while some of the other districts might be huge.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I got the impression from the book that the districts were all huge and covered the entire former America. But there had to be more than just a little village mining coal. She described 12 as covering all of Appalachia, didn't she?
I just sort of assumed that there were more towns dotted throughout the district, but I guess that doesn't make sense considering the Reaping among other things.
Still seems kind of odd.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
You have to keep in mind that this is the future, after the flooding, fires, and other various disasters have destroyed the landscapes. There wasn't just a rebellion, but a couple of wars and diseases, so a lot of people are dead. When you think about it like that, it sort of makes sense.
Anyway, it wasn't the first person narrative that jarred me so much as the present tense aspect of it. You just don't see any books that use that combination very often. It's just....different.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
In Catching Fire, Katniss is surprised at how huge District 11 is compared to District 12. She thinks that they must have rounds to the reapings.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
In the beginning of Mockingjay District 12 is established as having a population of around 8,000.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)