blogs_blog_1702

I thought the first was pretty good, but it went downhill from there.

 

Also you are correct about Captain America.

The movie:

Best of all four works in my opinion. I did not like the writing style of the books, so the transformation into pictures did a lot to help it. The movie was very well done, and it served to present a good concept. There were some things in which it was lacking, but overall I definitely liked it. In fact, (yeah people will kill me for this) I liked it more then the Avengers movie.

The books:

Okay, these weren't so good. The first person present tense was an interesting style, and Katniss's rather clipped narrative was appealing in certain aspects. However, the first person ultimately made the series feel too closed in for me. I guess I'm too used to third person, but it was like you had one main character and a bunch of supporting characters. Overall, the series is one that cannot make my top twenty favorite books.

Only read the first book. Haven't seen the movie.

 

Once I finished the book, I wasn't really quite sure why I read it. The writing was decent, but there was no entertainment value. Reading about teenagers killing eachother is not something I enjoy, especially when there's no real theme attached. It was just brutality for the sake of brutality. I also didn't find the romantic subplot to be interesting, and couldn't really figure out why it was in there at all.

 

I did enjoy the build up to the games, though, where we got to explore what kind of world this was and who inhabits in. Too bad this was only half the book.

I thought the entire series was pretty great. I must disagree with V1P2's assessment that there is no theme attached to the work, for the series deals immensely with how the media can be used to manipulate, oppress and what have you, the audience. The entire concept of the Games, how it's seen by both the Capitol and the Districts, the fact that the romance is what got them sponsors, etc., is all about the media. This branches out to other things in latter books, and the worldbuilding and romantic subplot is further developed in them as well.

 

The books aren't masterpieces, but I found them to be very good reads. It really was an interesting world, with an interesting viewpoint dealing with a concept that is both outlandish but still not unfathomable.

 

The movie was excellent, and it's definitely one of the finest movie adaptations I've seen. Only a few things (Namely, the muttations and the fact that the romance fraud wasn't cleared at the end) were off. And I guess the shaky camera.

It's cool to hate on the books because liking them means you're an anti-hipster jumping on a bandwagon. God forbid your totally and completely original thoughts coincide with anybody else's.

 

But yeah, they're good books. Not that it's perfect (if there is such a thing) but it hits every mark it tries to, not to mention all of the ones it's supposed to. And the movie was a darn good adaptation of it. All are worth reading/watching.

 

tl;dr: You are not a unique and beautiful snowflake, now stop griping and enjoy what is actually a decent series, because we don't actually have enough of them these days.

I'm incredibly disconnected from what's popular or what's not (considering I know about one person IRL who has actually read the books) and my opinion remains the same. The thing about them that stands out is the concept. The books themselves weren't very good.

 

I'd be saying this same thing even if everyone was saying that the books were amazing.

It's cool to hate on the books because liking them means you're an anti-hipster jumping on a bandwagon. God forbid your totally and completely original thoughts coincide with anybody else's.

 

But yeah, they're good books. Not that it's perfect (if there is such a thing) but it hits every mark it tries to, not to mention all of the ones it's supposed to. And the movie was a darn good adaptation of it. All are worth reading/watching.

 

tl;dr: You are not a unique and beautiful snowflake, now stop griping and enjoy what is actually a decent series, because we don't actually have enough of them these days.

 

Oh, cool, ad hominem attacks. I sure do feel like this is a good book, now that you've told me that I'm a bad person for having an opinion.

 

Seriously, dude, that actually made me laugh. Apparently I'm not allowed to dislike the things that you like. Heaven forbid that anyone point out the flat characters, meaningless motivations, and rampant sexism on the part of the author! That might force you to acknowledge that criticism can be sincere! How dare I have refined tastes and be able to recognize toxic messages when I see them.

 

I'm not alone in disliking the books, so don't try to say that I'm just avoiding a bandwagon. One of my closest friends pointed out the sexist implications, so I read aware of them. I looked through an in-depth review to help jog my memory at times (and mostly to research some of the factual errors) and to ensure that women agreed with me about the sexist implications.

 

Apparently, if anything, I'm just hating the book to be cool and fit in.

 

In fact, I'd wager that it misses the mark constantly.

 

SPOILERS FOLLOW

 

Now, as for why I dislike The Hunger Games so strongly:

- Collins should have researched a lot more about malnutrition, goats, pigs, oppressive regimes, and economics. The book contains such glaring errors that we are shown (as opposed to being told) that Districts 11 and 12 are quite well-fed. I should make it clear that I'm no expert in much of anything the book touches on, but I occasionally Google'd suspect facts and about 90% of them were wrong.

 

- The writing is shaky. Part of this is due to the style and the audience, but a lot of paragraphs and sentences could have used a little reworking.

 

- Tell, tell, tell. What Collins tells us often contradicts what she shows us. Katniss is not starving--she's doing well! Research would have helped remedy some of this problem.

 

- The economy and government make no sense. Collins should have thought through the implications of what she wrote. She implies that the Games should be a unifying force. Further, Katniss should not have the same market for her animals that she is said to.

 

- The characterization ranges from offensive to unremarkable. The protagonist is not particularly unlike Katharina of The Taming of the Shrew--a masculine woman who needs to be tamed by her significant other. She makes nearly no decisions for herself. Effie Trinket is hated for basically no reason. Every other character has such basic, meaningless motivations that they aren't even worth getting into. (The exception is Haymitch, who is sympathetic and had a lot of potential to have more development and a real struggle with alcoholism.)

 

- As a continuation of the above point, Katniss never really makes big decisions. Fire forces her to move; werewolves come out of nowhere. I actually can't think of a single time when she "weigh survival against humanity," as the blurb on the back of the book boast.

 

- Collins reinforces a lot of gender roles that are truly problematic. She implies that there can only be one decent woman at a time, as though they are perpetually in a competition to ascend a hierarchy (and this is prior to the games). A woman's physical appearance can tell you a lot about her character. "Fake" beautiful women (like Effie with her wig) are bad; the old "greasy" woman lies about what's in her soup; pregnant women symbolize helplessness; and a pretty girl is worth sympathy. Men are very active, moving along the plot. Katniss's father is practically canonized, while mothers are despicable. Katniss is one of the few characters who doesn't fail in this regard, but even then she only pulls a C grade, for the reasoning above.

 

- The romance seems mostly exploitative, yet that's treated as though it's perfectly acceptable. (Apparently Katniss marries Peeta eventually or something.)

 

- The only way for us to actually care about anyone is, apparently, to make them into the underdogs. Us vs. them, country vs. city, and other ways of dividing characters are the central themes of the book. They appear time and time again, and only when there are adversaries can we be expected to hear anything sympathetic about anyone.

 

- By the way, if Katniss dislikes someone, they deserve it. Careers are terrible people--full stop--, Effie is a bad person for no real reason, and so on. This just cements the young person's mentality that states that someone being bullied deserves it, and there is no universe in which that should be taught to children.

 

All in all, yeah, The Hunger Games is more or less decent if you avoid thinking while reading, but I'd never recommend this book to even a member of its target audience. It's implications are truly toxic. None--literally none--of these issues are excusable for any reason, so don't tell me not to think about and review YA lit deeply.

 

I don't just find the hype misplaced. I actually find this book to be offensive, poorly written, poorly researched, and boring in its own right.

I don't often use heavy sarcasm on BZP... but when I do, people take it to heart [/Dos Equis guy].

 

Obviously my points don't really stand up because they're amusingly self-defeating.

 

But your own view hits to the core of my argument; when you're that affronted by a book, you've just made it your mission to be personally offended. I don't expect everybody to love everything (I'm pretty sure I've said that exact same thing many times over in this place, which makes it a point to fight about the pettiest of the petty squabbles) but when you describe a book as "toxic" you've just lost perspective.

 

When you have a Twilight fanfic that can get developed into a best-selling trilogy, there's a lot worse you could be focusing that aggravation towards.

 

And according to you, "researching" equals "reading" a book, which is just another reason why I love this blog entry that I made many a year ago.

 

Anybody who has told me that they don't like the book hasn't been able to articulate a real reason for it; the standard response of "take a chill pill and actually read it" can't work, but it should.

 

Even if, taking your point at it's most accepting (the "avoid thinking while reading") is to be taken as okay, that's fine. Books are entertainment, just as movies and music are. I've made this point somewhere in the Hunger Games topic, but I don't go to blockbusters expecting them to make me think like art house movies, and I don't watch political dramas expecting them to have large explosions (sometimes they do, but that's okay). Same with books; what you're reading doesn't have to make you think on deep, complex emotional levels which I'm sure you possess. If you can't read a book for fun, then you probably shouldn't be reading these types of books in the first place.

 

Again, dat blog entry. I'm far too laid-back to defend myself more than once, and it wouldn't even matter if I did. Like the book, don't like the book, no skin off my back. Have fun with your serious books about poverty and gender roles and stuff. I'm going to watch Batman.

Oh, dear, this is exactly what I was afraid of. You've fallen into the trap that so many inevitably do--that all criticism is misplaced because OMG JUST READ FOR FUN or DONT READ STUFF YOU DONT LIKE. Come on, man. I thought that you could be better than that. That class of argument is so founded in ad hominem attacks (i.e., hating this just means that you try to hate it, presumably due to having nothing else in your life) that it's clear that it's worthless.

I don't try to be offended, and I suppose that I don't even have much reason to be (being male). But, when a book for kids is blatantly sexist, classist, and otherwise promoting of discrimination, there's a problem. I don't know how that isn't the case, especially because of the target audience. I also don't know how I'm supposed to take sexism lying down, as if it's not toxic. The fact is, it always is. Honestly, that's not even close to opinion. (As a little mental exercise, I'd replace "sexism" with "racism." See if you can tell me not to take issue with a racist book.)

Also, 50 Shades of Grey isn't written for kids, and I haven't read it, so there's really no reason for me to take issue with it.

And according to you, "researching" equals "reading" a book, which is just another reason why I love this blog entry that I made many a year ago.

Wait what? I never implied that to research one must read a book. I literally only used Google for my research.

No one expected The Hunger Games to be deep or anything of the sort. Even I didn't! (And I'm apparently Mr. Art House. ) It fails to engage me mentally, but that's not even close to my point. The issue is that it's offensive and sexist. Only by ignoring the basic implications of the book can one avoid seeing the basic issues. That's what I'm saying--not that a book shouldn't be fun, but that it's bad and harmful unless one totally shuts off one's brain.

Perhaps I read more actively than you do, thinking about implications and such. Nobody would be concerned if a respected critic called out a book (say, 50SoG), so you shouldn't interpret my criticisms as fundamentally flawed in motivation. That's simply ridiculous to the highest degree.

(FTR, part of the reason I wrote so much was because I had another blog entry about this, and I offered up the post as my explanation that had been asked for.)

So my apparent lack of a desire to argue means I should be "better than that"? What kind of circular logic does that lend itself to? You yourself fall into a number of different fallacies that you're accusing me of, but I'm generally too lazy/nice (the former is more apt but the latter makes one sound like a less awful person) to point them out, because an argument based around deconstructing the opponents is precisely what you say you're trying to avoid.

 

My general life philosophy is "chillax". Unless someone has actually rejected your romantic advances based on some warped view of the novel, or the author has personally written you a spiteful letter, there's nary a reason to get one's underwear in a twist. I'll refer back to that blog entry; the internet is a wholly selfish experience because of how disconnected it is, and we all suffer from that inflated sense of importance. If we have differing opinions, there can't be common ground, in my experience, there can only be a truce based on the futility of the conflict. You may, of course, disagree, as is your right, but there's your positive feedback loop.

 

If I'm going to say anything, it's that I think (look, there's our tricky friend Personal Opinion) you're taking the book a bit too seriously, and that your criticisms of sexism and gender roles are rooted in something else besides the book. If in ten years I see a girl legitimately saying "well I'm doing /X sexist thing/ because Katniss would do it" I'll pen you a full apology.

Replied to BioGio's points here. And guys, please try to keep the discussion civil.