Book Review: The Hunger Games

[tari_roo]

Title: The Hunger Games
Author: Suzanne Collins
Pages:374
Genre: sci fi, futuristic au world
What it says on the back:
Could you survive on your own, in the wild, with everyone out to make sure you don't live to see the morning? In the ruins of a place once known as North America lies the nation of Panem, a shining Capitol surrounded by twelve outlying

Comments

[saphirablue]

I'm infectious! \o/ *bounces wildly throught her flat*

[tari_roo]

Yes, yes, you are ;)

[phebemarie]

In all my years of teaching, I've never had a book turn so many students into readers as The Hunger Games. I feel such a debt of gratitude to Suzanne Collins for the series (even if the kids have mixed feelings about Mockingjay).

I'm glad you finally got around to reading them. I'd lend you one of my extra Catching Fires if we were on the same continent. ;)

[tari_roo]

Really? That's interesting. I thought for a lot of kids Harry Potter was the 'genesis' I love to read book.

I appreciate the offer of the loan, but I envision buying the kindle version very soon as it's only $5 at the moment on amazon.

[claudiapriscus]

I think the movie actually was a little bit better. It's a fun story (I read all three when I went to Florida), definitely a page turner, but the writing's a little....info dump-y. The film gets to smooth that over, because a film has to show, not tell. And there's the element of spectacle, too. There were a few times reading the book that I got kicked out of the story because my brain objected to the....um...well, political mechanics .It's like "How Not to Run An Extremely Totalitarian Government". There are many, many, many things Katniss mentions as stuff the capitol does to oppress everybody wouldn't work very well in real life to do anything other than foment rebellion. But that never occurred to me in the movie at all, because it was fast-paced and it kind of glossed over the details the author would have been better off just hand waving.

[tari_roo]

Apologies for the delay in replying.

You have piqued my curiousity. What things did you feel would not work in a real life totalitarian regime? I can't speculate on whether the lack of rebellion evidenced in book one continues in the other books (I hope it doesn't) but nonetheless, I am curious.

[claudiapriscus]

Well, the author tries to invoke bread-and-circuses, but doesn't really get how that works. Bread-and-circuses work because the biggest thing in pushing people to rebel is usually food insecurity. It's not the *only* thing, but people will tolerate a lot of things they hate if they have food. If they don't have enough to eat, people lose a lot of their fear. Which is why most totalitarian governments subject to food shortages- and even the ones that aren't- don't rub their subjects' faces in their oppression. Oh, I'm not saying it's *nice* or that it isn't absolutely clear what is going on, but look at North Korea, great example, where the state always phrases things as being to the glory of the people and the motherland. Which brings us to the circuses, which have two functions: they pacify with spectacle, give people other things to express themselves through, and serve as a reminder of the power of the state...because of their lavishness and size. But it's Big Brother- it's awful, but the awfulness can't be on the surface. It can

[tari_roo]

Ah! Ok, I agree with you mostly. As a form of oppression, or symbol of oppression the Hunger Games fail, as the twisted entertainment value they eek out of it 'must' only engender more rebellion than acutal 'oh, we have no hope of defeating you, oh evil empire' thoughts