Well, let’s wrap this travesty up.
So. Another thing I was hearing spoilers about was the epilogue. (I’m actually pretty good at not understanding spoilers once I’m in avoidance mode. I usually stop reading instantly, without quite processing whatever it is, so there’s enough of a chance I’m wrong that I can just forget about it. Stuff I half read spoiled me on the book 3 reveal that Snow was a member of the secret ruling class of reptilians for example. You can understand how this sort of thing makes it easy to dismiss most spoilers.)
Anyway. From various rumblings I worked out Katniss ends up having kids. Calling that unfeminist seemed unfair, though. Katniss never seemed like she didn’t want kids, she always said she didn’t want to bring them into a world with the Hunger Games. I mean, sure, I hate the little bastards, but it’s not anti-women for a woman to want kids or change her mind about wanting kids.
It took five, ten, fifteen years for me to agree. But Peeta wanted them so badly
WHAT IS ANTI-WOMEN IS HARASSING YOUR WIFE FOR FIFTEEN FUCKING YEARS TO HAVE A KID WHEN SHE DOESN’T WANT THEM WHAT THE FUCK
This book impresses to the last.
Anyway, we’re been talking about the issue of if the final childmurder games were canceled. Since the author forgot to mention it in the book itself, you’d think an epilogue would be a good time to tie up that nasty loose end.
Instead, all we get is Katniss saying in present tense that there are no more Hunger Games and the arenas have been dismantled, but this is apparently taking place more than twenty years later, so that doesn’t say anything about if they had a final game. If anything, the way she’s talking about it as if the arena dismantling was relatively recent, there’s room for quite a few last games. I can only assume the author completely missed the fact anyone could read it as a possibility. The third book has a number of confusingly worded sentences and other things that suggest the editor wasn’t doing the best job.
So. What do we have?
It’s not like the morality of the first book was good or anything, but even I’m shocked by this last one. Things just happen, and Katniss declares if it’s Good or Bad with no rhyme or reason. The complete futility of her attempt to reach Snow ahead of the army is never brought up, despite the enormous number of people she got killed in the attempt, and despite the fact the people she killed by the end of it were completely voluntary kills – she was rushing to stay ahead of the rebels.
The books have improved in terms of female characters, though that’s not saying much considering where we started. I’m still not satisfied – I don’t like that our one female president is portrayed even worse than the male ruler of the evil empire, definitely not how her cardinal sin is phrased as ambition, and absolutely not the way the book seems to think her just using the power her position gives her, that would go unremarked in any male leader, is a sign she’s overstepping her bounds and has a lust for power.
That her replacement is female is better than nothing, but only barely – she’s replaced by a woman who’s on Katniss’ cheerleading squad and is otherwise just a throwaway character. That’s a very common problem with female characters, they don’t have equals, just competitors and sycophants. (Johanna’s hostility toward Katniss and Enobaria is another example.)
The final vote has two of the three female characters voting for the evil way, and the one good woman immediately references her husband’s morals. In contrast, all the men vote against except Haymitch, who’s only voting for the games because he’s going along with whatever Katniss is planning. Beetee sure is a moral fellow for someone who was fine making weapons as vile as the capital’s.
Katniss’ mother is irrelevant, Prim isn’t even a person, and even Katniss ends as designated healer. I think the book thought that last bit was being progressive. It’s the sort of progressive where of course a woman can have a job, but we all understand she’s still responsible for the housework and cooking and childcare, because those are special, woman-only jobs.
We end with still little sign of homosexuality, though Finnick’s rapists never have their gender listed. The series seems to haltingly accept that female sexuality can exist, although it’s definitely an icky and terrible thing that good people are ashamed of or need an excuse for. I think from that and the book’s casual attitude toward it we may be meant to take it as heterosexual, and certainly all Finnick’s sexuality is aimed toward women – he flirts with Katniss and Mags kisses him before she dies. Our one exception is Boggs getting an eyeful of Finnick when he yanks his gown off, and even that was aimed at Katniss, Boggs just happened to be there. (I do find it reads more as Boggs noticing Finnick is attractive than the usual male whining about ew, naked manflesh, but then there’s Katniss staring at Johanna’s chest, which I’m quite sure wasn’t meant to allow for any possibility of interest on Katniss’ part. It seems more likely Boggs’ reaction has that potential because the author wasn’t even aware enough of the issue to realize it could be read that way.)
I would be quite curious how the average young reader takes this – do they think Finnick was in high demand by the women because relationships are all heterosexual, do they assume he was being bought by men because that’s what men do and why it’s so scandalous, or that both are an option?
Our breaks this time have been devoted to far more extensive rewrites than normal, because the whole of this book is an abomination. So I’ll tell you what I was thinking when I assumed the third book would have a third game.
I figured the rebels would get steadily more rigid and psychotic, the obsession with getting revenge worsening with each attack by the capital. This isn’t a neat, proper war – when it ends, there are no homes and families waiting for the soldiers, just bomb craters and dead children. The seeds of this are planted early, as the rebels talk of horrors they’d endured but never of things that are immoral. The argument of using any weapon they can isn’t Gale’s obviously evil “well, they’re doing is, so why can’t we?” but “these aren’t people, it’s not the same as what they did to us”.There’s a seed of truth in there, that responding to attacks is not the same as choosing to attack, but deformed into something monstrous. Sneak it up on people, because if you start off saying the rebels are great and wonderful, Katniss and the reader will both forgive a lot, until it’s too late.
Their final win is at horrible cost to their forces. Everyone’s lost someone to capital weapons, and they want blood. It’s so horribly unfair that they should have suffered so much more than the capital, isn’t it?
Katniss is just one of many. During the period we spend with the fighting, she’s just our viewpoint into what the war looks like on the ground. She’s not vital, but that’s not the point. She’s there to show how terrible things are.
I think we can keep Katniss’ murder of Coin. Katniss blames Coin for everything wrong in the rebellion. She won’t believe that good people would act this way on their own. Coin is imposing these games, so with her dead, everything will be back to normal.
Katniss is not universally loved, and certainly not unconditionally. There are, as I’ve outlined, other ways of looking at her saving Peeta, and even the book acknowledges that if she did it out of love and not rebellion, her symbolic value would have been much reduced. Once she turns on the cause, people turn on her. And far from killing the woman whipping them into a frenzy, she’s just killed the one holding them back.
Patriarch is in control, if not in name than in practice. And he is exactly the sort of person who knows how to whip people up, how to distort facts and change opinions.
Indeed, Patriarch makes sense as the one driving her to blame Coin.
Snow, I feel, would not be captured alive. Simply on a practical level I’m not sure he could be – he’s hated so much by so many people. But it doesn’t make much sense for him either. The Hunger Games are not a way of pacifying people, nothing he does is the behavior of a person who is concerned about the survival of the human race. He would launch every nuke in their arsenal because if he can’t rule, no one will. If he has no worldbreaking weapons to fall back on, his own death would suffice.
In short – either Snow is killed by his commanders to stop him from unleashing hell, or he kills himself to deny the rebels the chance. As delicious a vengeance it might be to see Katniss murder Coin, he simply doesn’t have the knowledge to know that’s an option. He knows very little of Katniss’ mental state and certainly has no reason to think he’d get a chance to talk to Katniss before his execution.
No, Patriarch is the one around Katniss the whole time. They may both have motive, but he’s the one with the opportunity and the knowledge to convince her.
And having gotten what he wants from her, it’s time to finish off his greatest star.
The games are, of course, a marvel – and on a budget, too! No massive arena where children can walk for days without finding any edge. No. He puts them in a nice, tight maze, full of nasty traps baited with cheese and every incentive to turn on each other. Reward parachutes are doled out democratically, to whoever pleases the crowd. And all the children of the capital are put inside. (There are not, I think, very many. People of the capital would seem to live very long lives. We’re told, at least, that Caesar has been interviewing people forty years and doesn’t look like he’s aged a day. Even if we interpret that as being primarily cosmetic, it’s extremely unlikely his lifespan wasn’t improved at all. Add to that the fact there seem to be few causes of death in the capital, and that their medical prowess can certainly keep the elderly alive for quite some time, and you get a situation where children must make up an unusually small proportion of the population.)
It’s even possible these games follow different rules. Instead of telling them to kill each other, anyone who makes it through the maze can live. It’s just you won’t be able to make it without killing people. Or perhaps that’s just given as another way out. It makes for better entertainment for the kids to keep trying to explore, and it makes for better blame when it’s not like you were forcing them to kill each other really – they chose to, because they’re just monsters.
These aren’t district children, raised knowing that one day they might have to fight and die. The capital children are better fed, but even less capable. They don’t know how to survive, but they are, at least, not too proficient at killing each other. It’ll reduce the death toll a bit.
There might be the option of volunteers as well – those under a certain age are allowed in with either a map of the traps or simply some way to prevent them from triggering, and they get to hunt the children and kill them personally. Quite a crowd-pleaser.
Each book, my suggestion for the games boils down to working together, and it’s no different this time.
Katniss says no. She’s been through this twice now, once trying to save herself and once trying to save someone else. It doesn’t matter, it’s still murdering people. No more fighting each other, no more killing. It was wrong when she was forced to do it then and it’s just as wrong this time with these children. She collects everyone she finds and convinces them killing isn’t the way out of here.
I don’t think it’d be impossible.
Many of them would know each other already, so they have yet another barrier between them and killing. They shouldn’t be portrayed as more moral than the normal tributes, just that they’re looking at a situation where to get out they’ll have to kill friends. Many tributes don’t even know the other person chosen, and almost all can assume the odds are against having to kill their district partner. These children, though, know that killing strangers won’t be enough, and can tell that it won’t be long before they have to turn on people they’ve met. The road to victory is going to look even bleaker to them than usual.
They have no reason to believe there is any way out. It may not even be offered, and even if it is, they know how much the rebels hate them. The winner’s prize may be an execution, or just being left in there to die to whatever traps Patriarch cooks up. The addition of Katniss, who’s survived two games and yet obviously isn’t expected to make it out alive this time, helps the argument.
And when it comes down to it…they have no idea how to survive the arena, and Katniss does, at least a bit.
Which isn’t to say it’d be easy. They’re desperate, and neither side likes the other – Katniss does still hate them. Her initial decision to help them is because she hates the games more.
And she’s the one who caused their world to collapse and families to die. But they’re all still people. Realizing this is what that section of the book focuses on. And the longer they’re on every screen talking and helping and mourning instead of tearing each other apart for candy, the weaker the justification for this becomes. And time itself is the enemy of hot tempers.
Not that Katniss or the rest know this. They attempt to make their way out of the arena without dying. Food and water run out, they face worse and worse things as Patriarch tries to get things back on track, and they keep together despite it. Until they beat the game.
For a climatic, decisive moment, Katniss realizing that Patriarch is the mastermind behind things – he’s the one who convinced her to take out Coin for her. And revealing this is the last straw needed to turn public opinion and end the games.
As you may have gathered, I don’t much like Patriarch.
If we’re doing foils, he’ll be a better one for Snow.
In the books we see, we’re never given a reason for his defection. Given the curbstomping the capital gets, I think it makes most sense to assume he switches because he wants to go with the winners. We are, of course, told that Katniss is the one who makes that possible, while it seems he must have been part of this for more than the single year between the games. But as a high ranked member of the capital, he’d know that even if 13 can’t win a war, they’re a safe place from the capital, so it would pay to be in their good books in case he ever needed to flee. After all, he thought that the perks and special treatment of his capital life could be replaced if he was similarly important to them when he left. Considering how poisonous capital politics can be, being a double agent may be the safer option. (And if 13 did ever attempt an attack on the capital, he’d be warned.)
Let’s go a step further. Patriarch defects because with Snow in place, he can’t rise any higher. When the higher ups turn on their own, it’s rarely because they’ve discovered a conscience. It’s because there’s only so much power to go around, and the ambitious find they’d rather topple the whole system to get to the top. We don’t need to change anything much about his behavior, because that’s pretty much what’s already there. Just add in a few more hints about why he’s defecting in the first place, show him a bit more irritated with Coin imposing moderation. After all, the reader isn’t supposed to figure it out until the end.
For bonus points, have him be behind Prim’s weirdly adult behavior. He’s the one talking to her and giving her poisoned suggestions to drip in Katniss’ ear. As I said, it’s not that a kid couldn’t say things like that, just that a kid wouldn’t unless they were repeating an adult. Make him behind Boggs’ and others’ willingness to deceive Coin about what Katniss is really doing as well – because again, it’s not that Boggs couldn’t act that way, just that it should be for some reason.
So! I see we’ve had a recent turnout to displace Gemma as the clear leader. Couldn’t you guys have done this before I read half the book? On the brighter side you’ve resolved the sub issue of me wondering if I should start Gemma on a Friday when it would only be a handful of posts or do something else, I think ghost vision girl will have a bit more mileage in her. Or you may have. There’s still time for Gemma fans to rally again and take back the poll.
I am curious why people are voting as they are, in general. What sort of thing do you read these reviews for? What are you expecting here?
Without overhauling the story to the extent you suggest, I think things could have be improved if Suzanne Collins had decided to use Katniss’s trial as a framing device.
That’s an interesting choice, but I’m not sure why it would be an improvement. What exactly did you have in mind?
1) It would at least prevent the ending for being a complete rush job.
2) Hopefully it would shift the focus onto characters that aren’t Katniss. Of course they would be giving testimonies about Katniss, but at least we wouldn’t have to spend as much time in Katniss’s head, if that makes sense.
I doubt it. The problem is, there are no good ways of dealing with these problems, so a trial would just bring all the holes to the front. If Coin’s actions would have led the average citizen to be okay with her murder, then Katniss murdering her is unnecessary – she should have just spoken up instead of appointing herself executioner. And if Coin was acting with the will of the people, then why would they acquit her for murder?
Yeah, that’s the excerpt my friend who really loved the first two books posted on her livejournal along with a long angry rant. Is there really nothing else worth commenting on in the epilogue?
The epilogue is quite short. There is a PTSD mention in that it doesn’t go away, but it’s just your typical “ooh, look, we’ve scarred by our fight against evil isn’t this deep” sort of thing. Otherwise it’s just Katniss and some stuff about kids and how apparently nothing important has happened in twenty years. Guess setting up a new government, integrating capital citizens into the rest of society, etc all went off without a hitch.
I’m of the opinion that the epilogue only exists because Collin’s couldn’t decide what ending line to use.
Huh. You make a good case. The final chapter does a much better job of wrapping it up, but I can see someone who thinks evil dictatorships make up rhyming names for their monstrosities absolutely loving the bit about worse games to play.
Yes, having kids because Peeta pressured her was the main thing that bugged me about the epilogue, too. As of now, I do not want to have any children (for my own personal and family reasons), and I felt a bit . . . put off by all this. Really, having children is huge and life-changing, and it’s a decision that should be made by both parents. This kind of reminds me of the awful Anthony and Therese storyline in For Better or For Worse.
The other thing that bugged me about the epilogue was that hanging tree song inserted in the middle of it. It seemed rather out of place and I always thought that while it wasn’t terrible, it wasn’t that great either.
And it’s not even a situation where there isn’t another, easier way of doing it. Katniss seems to still be anxious about something bad happening, having Peeta finally convincing her they were safe enough for children would be far better than him guilting her into children and her having them despite being terrified the entire time.
Really, the hanging tree song has been out of place every time after the first. It’s obvious the author is very, very pleased with herself for it and wants to reuse it.
Wait, the meadow song was in the epilogue…
I meant to offer this before (rec seems too nice a way to put it) but if you were looking for a Let’s Read where you wanted to have a lot to work with, there’s always Graceling and Fire by Kristin Cashore. And by “Lots to work with” I mean “acclaimed books which contain a horrible Sue, really idiotic names (helooo, Po and Bitterblue) and are actually pretty shittily written”
The actual idea behind it is interesting, I just found the execution really horrible. In fact, it made me rage so hard that I got back into writing reviews just to bitch about it.
Mind linking me to this review?
I feel you, moi. Katsa had the whole Sue thing down, from the awesome killing/surviving superpower and the special eyes. What really, really buggedme was bashing all things feminine. There’s nothing wrong with getting married and/or having children!
Believe it or not, I actually liked the name Bitterblue. Thought it was cute. Then again, she was possibly the one character in the book that I came out liking.
THERE CAN BE NO COMPROMISE. EITHER WOMEN DO NOTHING BUT HAVE BABIES OR NO ONE IS ALLOWED BABIES EVER AGAIN.
“Katsa”
…wtf is with these Kat names?
Oh jeez. I read both. I wanted to poke my eyes out, but then I thought, do I really want these books to be the last thing I read?
They were painful. The thing I remember most is both of them always, ALWAYS calling kids child. Like it was their damn name or something! It could have been omitted 90% of the time.
Hm, I’ll add it into the next poll.
I am curious why people are voting as they are, in general. What sort of thing do you read these reviews for? What are you expecting here?
Mostly to hear feedback on what works and doesn’t work in a novel. I like seeing literature scrutinized very closely. They say a picture’s worth a thousand words, but you could also say the same of the stuff that’s written between the lines of most fiction.
I’ve been picking books that I’ve enjoyed because even though I consider them to be good books, they’re not perfect and there’s volumes that they say that I’m probably not getting.
I’m not sure I hate broadly enough. The Hunger Games happened to be pretty focused on areas that I have opinions on (nature, fictional societies, violence). Well, we’ll see I guess.
I personally just want to hear your thoughts on a book. You know how scrutinize them, notice problems, and convey them in a way that makes sense. I guess I’m just looking for whatever you feel you can work with.
I voted for Gemma (among other things) but I won’t be disappointed if you choose something else. If you can’t work with it, you can’t work with it. I thought it was a good series anyways. I figured you just caught something in it I didn’t.
I’ll probably do Gemma later anyway. I already read a large section, and it looks like it’d be easy at least.
As a young reader, it never occurred to me that the people buying Finnick weren’t a mix of men and women. If you’re curious.
I figured it was mostly men myself. But I’m not all that young, so it’s not surprising.
Yes, I’ve always assumed that. And I’m a young reader, too.
My two (12,17) both assumed men and women. For Finnick and the others, they instantly leaped there. Not even a debate to them, because if they have no choice – being forced be harmed by both sexes is no worse than a single sex. Plus they both know the history and society markers of Rome — when people named Plutarch actually lived and wrote.
Stuff I half read spoiled me on the book 3 reveal that Snow was a member of the secret ruling class of reptilians for example.
…huh. Maybe we read the same spoilers, because I’ve been imagining Snow with a lizard’s head the whole time but could never for the life of me figure out why.
I’m reading these reviews because you scrutinize things in interesting ways that wouldn’t have occurred to me. I picked the books I actually know and enjoy, because you’d probably have pretty illuminating insights about them that I never thought about.
You think too highly of me, I mostly have insights on my own sphere of interest, which apparently is a bit different than most’s.
I like seeing what you have to say about a world, characters, and if things are interacting in a reasonable way. There not things I think about or realize because I’m more of a “if the story is engaging, go with it” kind of person.
Your reviews have actually encouraged me to slow down and think about what’s going on while I read other stories as well.
I actually read pretty fast myself. I generally have to reread to actually absorb much of what happens.
I’m an average young person and I interpreted that it was probably both men and women who were raping Finnick.
That storyline would be awesome. Sounds like you’re not going to (and indeed, it would be a huge project to undertake), but I would so love it if you wrote that as a fanfic. :/
Anyway, I’ve enjoyed reading your opinions on this series, and I’ve found it very helpful from a writing perspective. So thanks very much for doing this.
Oh, and if it’s not too much trouble… may I ask your opinion on the concept of this book: http://www.amazon.com/Unwind-Neal-Shusterman/dp/1416912053/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316211121&sr=8-1
I personally thought the book was horrible. The basic message I got from it was: Having an opinion (any opinion whatsoever; the summary makes the book seem like a pro-life metaphor, but both sides are portrayed as deranged and equally so) on abortion automatically makes you idiotic and evil, because opinions lead to bad things like wars, and wars lead to horrible things like compromises, which are bad because compromises make things worse than they were in the first place. It was just… one of the worst things I’ve ever read. >_> I don’t need to read a Let’s Read from you to know that, which is why I didn’t suggest it. Plus I wouldn’t wish this book on anyone.
But I don’t know very much about wars in general. So I would like to know your opinion on the book’s background story. Basically, pro-lifers and pro-choicers started to hate each other so much that they started attacking each other in the streets, which eventually led to the second civil war, with the Pro-choice army going against the Pro-choice army. Then someone said, “Hey guys, I have an idea! Let’s have a compromise so we can be pro-life AND pro-choice: abortion will be illegal, but it WILL be legal to give your children to the government to be harvested for organs.” Both sides were too sick of fighting to think straight anymore, and they were so blinded by hatred that they weren’t even thinking of their causes, so they said yes and this became not only legal but common practice.
Does this scenario sound realitic to you?
You know, it is actually not that farfetched to posit a second civil war between moderates and the theocratic right. I can even see the theocrats framing it as a pro-choice vs. pro-life war, but to the moderates it would be a war about subduing the crazy guerrilla warriors and/or secessionists undermining the country’s stability.
That compromise is completely ridiculous, though.
Thanks for your input. Explaining it like that makes it sound a bit less farfetched. (I wasn’t sure WHY the idea seemed so strange to me, because I know that there are “pro-lifers” who bomb abortion clinics with people inside and stuff like that. But the idea of a “Pro-life Army” just sounded funny.)
(The compromise was not even the most ridiculous part.)
Yeah, from your description it sounds less like the thing that makes some amount of sense and more like a thing where people are just spontaneously organizing into armies, which is not how wars work. Did the book even mention what role the federal government and various state governments and the god damn US military took in all this? Because those are not institutions that are just going to dissolve into the chaos.
Shusterman often has interesting ideas, but finds ways to make them annoying at the same time. It’s hard to explain. And his characters are often blander then white rice.
Like the skinjacker trilogy. He came up with an interesting afterlife in the first book, but then started to add explanations, scenarios, and rules to the world that just screwed it up completely.
Yep, that’s pretty dumb. I mean, you can end fighting bu saying, “Hey, what if we do something you both hate!?”, but only by getting both sides to join forces to exterminate you.
As a pro-abortion person myself, I also find the idea prolifers would ever get tired of killing nonfetuses implausible.
…you’re objecting not on the grounds that it makes your side look evil and stupid, but on the grounds that it doesn’t make the other side look evil and stupid enough?
I’m pretty sure that was a joke. Sometimes something is so patently ridiculous, it’s not even worth seriously explaining why it’s wrong. The pro-choice philosophy being compatible with forcing women to endure unwanted pregnancies and raise the resulting children all the way to adolescence and the implication that pro-choicers would want parents to have the right to kill their *teenage* children are two of those things.
Well I was joking, but kind of.
I mean, this really seems terribly weighted toward the prolifers. See, people usually have a set of related beliefs. Most people who are pro-life are people who also are:
Pro-war
Pro-death penalty
Anti-health care
Pro-child beating
Pro-blowing up clinics full of people.
They also tend to insist it’s murder to pull the plug on someone who’s braindead.
(There is a minority of people who actually support life and aren’t shooting doctors, but for the same reason those people also aren’t going to get into an armed conflict against the pro-choice people in general.)
Meanwhile, pro-choice people are generally very concerned with the welfare of everything but fetuses and the braindead. They tend to support things like health care and laws against child abuse.
So while you could make a very extremely caricature of the pro-lifers and say they’d be fine with cutting kids up for the organs as long as none of the organs die (as this would be technically consistent with the idea someone is “alive” so long as some of their organs are still alive, even if the brain isn’t), but there’s nothing at all connected to the pro-choice belief, which is that women shouldn’t be forced to act as incubators so as long as the fetus is dependent on them for life they can decide to continue that or not, not that women can kill any kid of theirs for fun or profit. The idea pro-choice people are just in favor of killing kids in general and they don’t care at what point it happens so long as we hit our child murder quota for the week is a pro-life talking point that has no connection in reality.
I realize I am oh-so-late to the discussion, but, god, this. How was that even a compromise? Pro-choice isn’t pro-dead kids. They aren’t going to say, oh, alright, so I just have to give birth to the kid, raise it, and THEN I hand it off, cool. Any sane pro-choicer would just keep the kid. And no, storking does not count as part of the compromise.
I feel like the author chose to completely misunderstand one of the two positions he based his whole premise on, and I’m annoyed that no major reviews seem to have called him out on it.
I was baffled when Patriarch didn’t turn out to be evil or betray the revolution in some way. He’s never shown to have any revolutionary sympathies or concern for how the Capital mistreats its people. He’s just…there.
I am curious why people are voting as they are, in general. What sort of thing do you read these reviews for? What are you expecting here?
Initially, it was just because I was relieved to find someone who also thought the books were terrible. You reviews are also really informative on both writing and research, and I’ve been able to apply some of what you’ve talked about to my own writing. Thanks!
The oddest part is the book brings up that he’s a gamemaker and generally acts like he doesn’t care about anyone. Then suddenly at the end it’s all forgotten. Maybe it was a dropped plot thread.
I though she’d never agree to have kids if they went through with that last HG with the Capitol kids.
My only addition to your rewrite — have Gale die and Finnick live. The whole time Gale has been the one more focused on the revolution and helping it succeed, and he’s sure been more active in protecting the districts than Katniss has (WHO helped the refugees from Twelve?)
So I say that in the final climax, Snow is preparing to launch all of the nukes at the districts in one last taking-you-with-me moment! (Why didn’t he do this before? Who knows.) There’s heavy fighting in the streets around his mansion and/or bunker. Gale is given the choice between saving Katniss, who’s in trouble, or stopping Snow from launching the nukes. Gale goes for Snow and they blow each other up. End of love triangle. His death heralds the end of Katniss using killing to solve her problems, as seen in your rendition of the final Games above.
I sort of like Finnick’s death, or would if only the book payed attention to it. It’s completely pointless and it’s completely Katniss’ fault, and isn’t that a good lesson about treating revenge as the most important thing?
Gale dying would have been good as well, though, particularly if we keep the fact he’s behind a lot of the ruthless/cruel inventions. It makes him harder to demonize and dismiss, makes his legacy more complex.
I agree about Finnick’s death. There is suppose to be survivor’s guilt in this story, or at least people say they saw it. Every time Katniss had irrational guilt, like the bombing of 12, I felt it was out of lack of understanding. I really saw no guilt from her. Finnick’s death shouldn’t even fall in to survivor’s guilt, it should be real guilt. Even mentioning Annie having a baby, there is no twinge of pain that the baby is fatherless due to her actions. I thought Katniss didn’t like owing people? She owes that baby a father. I thought Prim’s death was maybe punishment for Katniss’s revenge. Katniss can’t keep a thought in her head for more than 3 seconds and never reflects or is introspective. This is what drove me nuts about the series, especially one for YA. It used to be books pointed out flaws in young people and corrects them or at least teaches you the person is wrong. Usually an anti-hero is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons but you know they are the wrong reasons. However, Katniss was doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason but the book told us she was right.
I think the author was trying to write literature but the book was a nightmarish mess. You might have addressed this but what do you think the author was trying to say with the series? (Other than writing a love triangle aimed at 14 yo’s is a gold mine that guarantees a movie deal.)
Secondly, if you don’t mind me asking, what books do you actually like?
I’m not convinced the books are really saying anything beyond the obvious. I know she got the idea as a reality show/Iraq War fusion, but she doesn’t seem to have given any thought to the meaning of either of them. So – killing kids for entertainment bad, dictators bad, food good, make babies.
Most of what I read is fanfic and has been ever since I first realized it existed and that there were stories for free whenever I wanted them. As to books, I like A Song of Ice and Fire, Golden Compass was good even if the trilogy as a whole ended up having a lot of issues, Sabriel and the rest of that series was great.
I also read a lot of comics, though I don’t know if you’d be interested in any of those.
Thanks for responding. With how much people love these books, I kept thinking I was missing the deeper meaning and the premise really demanded one. Even Katniss’s character amounted to, well, nothing despite potential to say a lot. I was waiting for the moment when Katniss’s trauma would paralyze her. That her bow reminded her of the people she killed and she couldn’t lift it. As soon as any situation turned potentially violent, Katniss goes running in bow drawn. Scratch that, she even went seeking violent situations. For YA, I couldn’t believe that the plot got resolved with more killing. Your “violence solves all problems” actually works well as the Hunger Games’s meaning.
I was worried I was missing out on a higher class of literature. Ok, reading the Hunger Games I am but anyway… I was curious about what you read because I am not sure how many books could stand up to this level of scrutiny. Though, Mockingjay might be the worst book I have ever read. I have never really been exposed to comics but I do have some adult male friends who read them, love graphic novels, and collect the toys. Oh wait, I might be in trouble for using the word toys.
I think a lot of readers who love the books see what the premise demands and all the potential that it had and project what they know SHOULD be there all over what actually is. There was this one post going around my dash about how Katniss is a patriarchy-smasher who reaps vengeance for being used and abused and having her agency stripped from her repeatedly by “powerful men” first in the Capitol and then in the rebellion. And I just sat there scratching my head because, um, the head of the rebellion is a WOMAN who is painted in fairly misogynistic strokes. Plus, you know, Katniss’s whole deep-seated hatred of other females who aren’t tiny and adorable.
‘Patriarchy-smasher who reaps vengeance’ – I read a different book with a waffling lifeless pawn recklessly obsessed with revenge.
I have to admit when I heard the idea of the book, I was very interested but ultimately disappointed. I see the whole series as ironic. Collins fed the beast of a youth-loving, superficial, voyeuristic culture that often romanticizes violence and topped it off with juvenile love. She only dealt with her critique superficially. It isn’t feminist just because the female is the hunter and the male is the baker.
There’s also how much Katniss loves those powerful men using her. Cinna? Bestest. Announcer guy? Nicest. Patriarch? Totally on her side, totally.
I find few things more frustrating than arguing with people like that, because I generally agree that the story they’re talking about is a great one.
I don’t really expect books to be perfect. There are some books that are generally good all around, and others that will do some particular thing so well I don’t care how badly the rest of it’s done, and some I like or dislike based on my tastes rather than anything objective.
There are some really great comics, but the vast majority are absolutely terrible. If you decide to look into them, download download download, you want to be sure you know what you’re getting before giving anyone your money.
I was curious how high a standard you have. Your reasons for liking or disliking a book are in the realm of normal.
Came here through a TV tropes link and have been reading all of the reviews. I must admit, I do like the books, especially in comparison to some more saccharine YA fiction I read as a stupid child. I know I noticed some niggling details and holes, though, and appreciate a critical look at them (especially as a writer myself). Also, your version of the ending sounds much, much better.
I would so, so love to see you do a review of something Lackey wrote. You’d have so much to work with. The Last Herald Mage books, for example. There’s plenty of worldbuilding in the novels, but, uh, it’s not without fault.
Hm, that’s an idea.
I was never much into her books, though, and my understanding is they’re largely considered to have not aged well in the social aspect. Are there other major worldbuilding flaws as well?
They haven’t really, I guess. I haven’t read any of her books in years, so the fond distance that a lack of memory provides glosses over a lot, but I remember being mostly okay with the worldbuilding for Valdemar. It does exist a weird, improbable state of having the trappings of a generic medieval fantasy with modern morals superimposed. My main issue was with the characterization, though, and the improbable events she threw at her Sues.
I guess my main point is, I wouldn’t recommend it as something to take seriously.
After all this I’m surprised you never mentioned her god-awful website:
http://www.suzannecollinsbooks.com/
You can’t even purchase her books from there.
Katniss’ assassination of Alma Coin was extremely upsetting for me to read for some reason. (Maybe it was my early adolescent memories of the JFK assassination. I don’t know.) Like you I didn’t like seeing the only female leader being presented as just as bad as Snow, if not worse.
The book is weakened by having only one POV character, Katniss. Since Katniss isn’t much interested in such topics as, how was Panem governed once Paylor was elected, we don’t know anything about that. It’s as if the whole rebellion was in vain. If Paylor is the real alternative to Snow, then there should be some chapters developing her character, even though Katniss won’t be around to witness them.
It’s really disturbing because Katniss is so empty. The problem isn’t really that she’s the only POV character, it’s that the handling of her POV is so awful. People have defended it by saying it’s PTSD and stuff, but the narration never properly embraces that – even as it writes her as disconnected and unreliable, we’re left with no choice but to take her at her word. She murders Coin because..why? Because of the games being continued, even though Coin says that the average person wants even more blood and this is the least horrible thing she can do? Because the bomb thing was just immoral, when Gale thought it up and everyone else thought it was a great idea? Because of what a known liar who hates her and has nothing to lose claimed was secretly going on? And the ultimate resolution seems to be halfway admitting that this wasn’t actually right – Katniss doesn’t have a trial where she defends herself by telling people the truth, because there doesn’t seem to be any. Yet we’re still expected to take it as heroic and just.
It wouldn’t have been hard to just have Katniss be interested in this stuff. Not only is her ignorance structurally bad, but it doesn’t even make sense for her not to care. This is her life.
Katniss was able to tell us about 13 enough that we know they’re actually pretty self-sacrificing even if all she can do is whine about it, and she does see the one bad thing of beating and imprisoning people for stealing bread. She could have seen 13 not living up to their ideals, could have seen them treating 12 as second-class cannonfodder who only get the worst food and justifying it as 12 not being as useful to the war effort as the 13 districters who were better trained. She could have heard Coin and the rest of the war council planning how they’d make the rest of the districts take the brunt of the war and then sweep in – could even have heard them saying they wanted to make sure things were devastated so there’d be no resistance to them taking over if they have to be so evil. She could have spent more time with the actual war effort instead of summaries and endless TV filming, getting to know Paylor and others. And she could have been present at her own trial, to lay out what she thought justified her actions. She could have said that Coin was lying about the games being called for, that she was trying to impose more death over the wishes of the population for peace. The story could easily have been told as a single POV without a problem. It’s only because the book spends all its time removing Katniss in the first place that there’s a need for other POVs, and other POVs wouldn’t fix the fact removing her is terrible writing.
I would just like to applaud you for your let’s read of these books, your patience is inspirational. You hit every nail on the head. Awesome job!
Are you going to do the movie(s)?
Only if we can gather enough funds to support the project.
There is also resistance from Farla against playing Katniss, but she is too good at hating everything to cast her as someone else.
/Jest
Eventually.