Monday, June 25, 2012

Still Hungry: The Hunger Games (whole series)

So, a while ago I decided to jump on The Hunger Games bandwagon and I read all three books in the matter of a week--I even went and saw the movie. And I have one thing in particular to say that should sum up how I felt about the books:
I liked the movie better.

Now for those of you, like me, to whom reading is almost like a religion, the fact that I just uttered those words is akin to blasphemy. If you read the book first, it’s basically a rule that you’ll like the book better than any movie they ever make. But this was not so for me and The Hunger Games, and I’ll tell you why—they’re just not that good.
Now before you set me on fire (and not just the pretty fake kind that gets you noticed, but real fire) just let me explain. The first book I could get behind. The story was interesting, well thought out, and pretty original (though I’ve heard people complain it wasn’t the first time they’ve seen this type of story)—at least it wasn’t the same old vampire romance clinging onto the coat-tails of the Twilight craze (don’t get me started on those books). The writing was also solid--it was appropriate for the age group and though it wasn’t the best written word I’ve ever read, it certainly got the job done. There were even moments where it stood out as above average. It was definitely a page-turner and I enjoyed the strong female main character. Furthermore I thought Suzanne Collins depicted Katniss’ adolescent feelings about rebellion in a very believable way throughout all three books. She’s sort of this reluctant hero, which I found appropriate for a young adult—seriously, what teenage girl wants to be the symbol for a violent uprising pretty much before she even hits puberty. And last but not least there were some great quoatable lines--I mean, come on who hasn't read the books then told someone "May the odds be ever in your favor." So, the first book could have made its way onto my shelf but…
The second and third books are slow, repetitive, and sloppy! Now, responsibility for the letdown that was the rest of the series does not fall solely on the shoulders of the author. In one of my writing classes, my professor explained this pattern very well: most second and third books just suck. And here’s why—the author writes the first book and it’s a huge hit, it gets picked up by a publishing company and sells thousands, if not millions of copies. Then, the publishing company sees an opportunity—they push the author to finish his or her next book (or the rest of the series) as soon as possible so they can ride the high of the first book and sell another million books. The problem with this is, most authors don’t just have the next book lying around, nor can they produce legendary writing at lightning speed (though here I’d just like to give credit to J.K. Rowling for never losing her attention to detail and preemptive planning). I don’t know if this is what happened with Catching Fire and Mockingjay, but that’s certainly what it felt like. These books felt as though she had the outline set up, but she didn’t have the time to pay attention to detail or develop her ideas to the same level as the first one. And that’s a shame because I think this series could have been something I’d read over and over, but instead I read them just to be done.
Catching Fire and Mockingjay definitely had their moments—I really appreciated the author showing Coin and the other rebellion leaders as problematic leaders, perhaps worse than President Snow himself, because I feel that’s something writers may shy away from in fiction (though it’s often true in real life). I loved that the stylists and people in the capital were shown not necessarily as active "bad guys," but simply ignorant masses. And, though it made me incredibly sad, I think it was appropriate for there to be a sacrifice of a key character in the end (not going to mention names and spoil it for those who haven’t finished it—those of you who read it know who I’m talking about)--in war people die and as a writer you shouldn't save a character just because it sucks to kill them. But, in both books there were times where there was too much summary, too much waiting around, and I was just bored. As a series, these books left me unsatisfied, so I have to say that these books get the Box.
(Though, I will admit that since I bought them on my nook, I’m actually keeping them…think of that what you will).

4 comments:

  1. Definitely agree. Book one was entertaining, but from there the series became pretty underwhelming.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Plus, as a good friend of mine pointed out, Collins didn't do enough to develope the setting--I mean, I know that's not always a priority, but here she set up this whole post-apocalyptic world and then she told the whole story in first person from only ONE character's point of view. So you really never learn too many details about the society or how most people feel in districts other than district 12 and the rebellion. Maybe she could have done points of view from some of the other tributes to give more dimension. Basically there could have been this whole unique setting, but instead it seems so cookie cutter, leaning on a 1984 type crutch instead of being its own individual fictional place that readers could recognize in a line-up of post-apocalyptic worlds

    ReplyDelete
  3. Even though I'm a "Battle Royale" (Japan's "Hunger Games" from 10 years ago) superfan, I went and saw The Hunger Games movie. I was pleasantly surprised and figured I'd give the 2nd and 3rd books a chance. Well, 2 chapters into "Catching Fire" I was already bored. I just feel like the storyline is something better suited for film, and I definitely agree that the sequels seem rushed and unnecessary.

    That being said, you're the first person I've seen to actually admit that the movie is better than the books. Most fans are just like "THE BOOK IS SO MUCH BETTER OHMYGOD BLAHBLAHBLAH", so thanks for keeping it real. =P

    ReplyDelete
  4. In more recent years (since taking a film and lit class actually) I've tried my best to be fair to movie versions--I mean yeah sometimes they suck, but you also have to keep in mind that its a completely different medium. People who complain when the movie is different from the book in any way have got it all wrong. When you translate a language obviously the words have got to change--it's the same when translating books to movies. You have to learn to judge and appreciate the film version as a film and not just a subsidiary of the original book. That being said, sometimes you get a film thats a bad translation, but you should try to make sure you're actually being fair and not just holding a grudge against it just because it's not the book.

    As for The Hunger Games movie I agree, it does well as a film and I really likes some of the choices they made (especially the choice to show the Game controllers manipulating the environment--I thought it helped the message sink in. This is a world where entertainment is synonymous with complete and utter lack of regard for human life)

    ReplyDelete