Katniss is SO not a Mary Sue, and I feel like you haven’t even read the books to say that. She has clear flaws, she is by no means perfect. Even in the books the people that love her don’t say she is flawless. I’m totally with Septima. I’ve read the first twilight book. This is nothing remotely like it. Have you forgotten Katniss feeds her family by hunting, even picking up the pieces when her family falls apart?
I don’t think Katniss is a Mary Sue either - she’s not perfect, and she’s not good at everything - she’s just doing her thing, and that happens to be the right thing at the right time.
I really enjoyed this trilogy, too, and I’m looking forward to the movies. I hope they don’t ruin them - we’ll see.
I’m very curious about this also. Less so for the first one, it’s a pretty straight-forward story, typical YA dystopia. I’m very much looking forward to it, and can’t imagine that they would feel the need to change much of it.
But half-way through Catching Fire, things get pretty dark for YA. I’m thinking the bits with Peeta (trying not to spoil) and basically the whole second half of MockingJay. That’s pretty heavy stuff for a YA-girl-audience feature film, and I’m really not sure they’re up to showing all that straight up.
And if they don’t, then the whole underlying theme of the series is lost, IMO. I’m very very curious about this.
Maybe I’m being too pessimistic, and they’ll actually have the balls to run all three films the way the books are, but I’m really not expecting it.
ETA - Also, it pisses me right off when people compare this to Twilight. Twilight made me want to gouge my eyes out. Hunger Games is actually a good, relevant, important social message wrapped into a decently-written YA trilogy.
Then you’re probably just the right age to really enjoy the Hunger Games.
I’ll also recommend Ender’s Game, which isn’t related, but is another excellent read for someone in their early teens.
What is the significance of “hunger” in the title? Are the games held for charity?
She’s not really good at MOST things actually. She is way more lucky than good 99% of the time, it’s one of the things I liked about the books actually.
I liked the books a lot. They are fun and fast, and I liked them in exactly the same way I liked Ender’s Game so I like iamthewalrus’s recommendation. *Twilight *was unreadable, and though the books are superficially similar to Battle Royal and The Running Man, they really aren’t the same thing at all, particularly not after the first book.
They are very well worth reading.
Heads up! The movie is at 100% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes with 16 reviews so far, many of them are glowing. So anyone interested has a few more days to read it before you see it.
As a fan of a books the fact that this will apparently be good is like a boulder off my shoulders, because a bad adaptation would have just broken my heart.
The Games are held for entertainment, in order to punish and subdue the provinces (known as ‘Districts’) and keep them subordinate and obedient to the Capitol. Outside the Capitol, most citizens of this future dystopia are starving to death slowly. The Hunger Games are a fight to the death. The winner of the Hunger Games earns a. their life, b. extra rations for their district.
This is true, but I think it is called Hunger Games in the book because many contestants starve to death. It is not just a Battle Royale, the arenas differ each year, but each requires pretty significant survival skills merely to endure. This means finding your own food and water which many fail to do.
It’s been a while but my recollection does not match yours, that “many” contestants expire from hunger. Many are indeed weakened from hunger – hunger imposed by the Capitol (hint hint) – but most contestants are killed by other contestants, lethal traps set by the Gamemakers, or natural hazard (snakebite, etc). It is stated that on average half of the contestants kill each other right away at the Cornucopia. There was one specific Games where the winner simply starved to death slower than the others, but then there were also games where most people died of thirst or exposure, and they don’t call it The Weather Games.
In fact, Katniss makes it a point that after one hunger games, where the majority of contestants just died due to exposure the gamekeepers won’t allow that to happen again, as it was really boring.
For a YA book, there are pretty dark and grim depictions of death and violence.
Also, every time a woman uses a female character as the protagonist, said character will be called a Mary Sue. A Mary Sue is an insert of the author living in a perfect fantasy, where everything ultimately goes his/her way. Unless S. Collins actually likes the idea of hunting and killing teenagers under threat of death, you should try to tell Katniss apart from that Twilight chick.
I have a hard time grasping the notion of a ruling overclass forcing children into a fight to the death for entertainment. Change it up a bit, and I can accept it: Make the rulers a different species, or at least a different race, so they don’t regard the competitors as “human”. Make the competitors adults, or volunteers. Do it in secret, for the entertainment of a handful of sickos, instead of broadcasting it. Make it not for entertainment at all, but the only way to combat some grave external threat. Any of that would work. But as described in the book, it sounds like the exact opposite of a way to suppress rebellion by the districts-- No matter how good the rulers’ tech is, the folks they’re oppressing are going to rebel against them instantly for trying to pull that.
EDIT: I’m basing this on what I’ve heard, as I haven’t actually read the books. If I have any misconceptions, of course those who have should correct me.
Additionally, every child is entered in the drawing once per year that they are eligible. They may take additional spots in the drawing in order to draw a years ration of flour, oil, and other basic foodstuffs for a single person.
Those who are impoverished and use the lottery to provide for their family, like Katniss, therefore, have a better chance of being drawn than those who are well off (and indebted to the government), like Peeta.
I’d never heard of it till I saw an add for the movie last week. The wife was stunned that I’d never heard of it.
I mean, I’d at least heard of other young adult books and films. I’d heard of Twilight some where and knew it was about vampires that could be in the sun (!).
But Hunger Games is completely new to me and by her reaction I must be completely deaf to pop culture to have missed it.
As I said in a different thread, I think the first book works really well as a PARABLE of class and media culture. It manages to sustain the fantasy because the focus is almost entirely on the main characters and the events of the games, without delving into the rationale behind the games or the logistics of the society.
Unfortunately, the second and third books do go there. And as an adult reader I found myself having a harder and harder time suspending my disbelief, the more I learned about Panem. The world of the Hunger Games really doesn’t make any sense either politically or economically, and when the narrative moves away from Katniss’s personal story to the broader story of the revolution, the wheels start coming off.
Never heard of the gladiatorial games?
Or public executions (which, in their heyday, involved plenty of children convicted of minor crimes?
Mayan sacrifices?
People can develop a taste for bloodsports, and people can get used to just about anything. Humans have a remarkable capacity for putting up with other people being killed by their governments.
I think it helps to think of it as more like a myth or a parable than as hard SF. Think Athenian youths sacrificed to the Minotaur. That said, I didn’t think it was that implausible–she’s clearly making a lot of connections to the Roman Empire and ‘bread and circuses.’
I had heard of it, but didn’t know anything about it until recently and I was quite surprised to hear that it is actually fairly violent and the deaths of many teenagers. Of course so does the Harry Potter series.
I haven’t read the books yet (though based on this thread, I think I will), but I could see this scenario working in the aftermath of a catastrophic war where people would consider losing two young people per town or district in a lengthy individual combat perferable to losing even more in a large scale combat.