Hunger Games: Catching Fire.

[alexandral]

I am sailing fairly quickly through "Hunger Games" trilogy, mostly because I promised myself to listen to THE WHOLE OF "Vorkosigan Saga" next and all the books are ready and I can't wait!

I feel very apologetic because I know so many of you on my friends list love the trilogy, but "Catching Fire" (the second book of the trilogy) left me not very impressed. I AM SORRY. But I must tell you the truth. :D



The first book of "Hunger Games" trilogy ("Hunger Games") had a really good idea, even though this was something that Susanne Collins can't be given the full credit for (in my opinion) because even if you take "Battle Royale" out of the equation there is also "Running Man" and "1984". This idea worked really well in the first book, but the second book (Catching Fire) feels like rehashing of the same story. Inventing the way to send Katniss and Peeta back into the Arena felt contrived and unexciting.

Plus there were a couple of points I found particular problematic:

1. Worldbuilding.
I waited for some of the more cumbersome aspects of the Hunger Games Universe to be explained in the second book but there was no explanation:

- Why do we have so many Greek/Roman names and terms? Where have they come from? This feels like pseudo-Chinese used in Firefly without any explanation as to how it has become so popular. How Greek/Latin language has become so commonly used in USA? I feel I need an explanation.

- Why in the world that seems to be highly technologically developed people are still using coal? Why are they using manual labour? Also, when technology is developed well enough the production of material goods becomes very cheap which leads to the overall increase in the quality of life. This is the law of technological development. Why not in Panem?

2. Love triangle

I have heard that "Hunger Games" is anti-Twilight. I agree to a certain degree because Katniss, in some ways, is anti-Bella (apart from the "boy magnet" quality they share).

But I must point out that the love triangle part of "catching Fire" is taken out of Twilight. Some of descriptions of Gale's hot skin being warm and sunny made me think directly back to Jacob, the hot blooded werewolf.

I think I have made my mind up about love triangles. I do not like them. All that "blah blah blah, it feels so good to be kissing Gale" and "blah blah blah, I like Peeta sleeping with me and holding me too" is just so.. not my thing at all. I want Katniss to make her mind up as soon as possible. I am getting close to becoming annoyed; this is so not my thing.

For the record, my money is still on Peeta to "get the girl" at the end.

3. I am getting a little bit tired with too many descriptions of various frocks and jewels Katniss "is made to wear against her will".

This is not a fashion magazine! Continuous lavish and loving descriptions of dresses and outfits make the author look hypocritical because she tries to criticise consumerism, in the same book. I hope to see less of descriptions of various outfits and more of character and worldbuilding development in the book 3, "Mockingjay".

Overall, after two books I rate this series 7/10, mostly because the first book was really good. I am giving the series some time and may be everything will be explained in the book 3 and the love triangle will be resolved soon.

But I definitely don't understand why so many people are so in love with this series (I would really appreciate any explanations). WHY??????????

For me, the series feel like a patchwork with the best bits taken from various sources (for example, Rue's death scene brings Ophelia painting to my mind, etc.).

PS: Somehow reading "Catching Fire" made me appreciate "Harry Potter" much more. I think Harry Potter is a much better series, especially in the worldbuilding sense. You might see me eating my hat and admitting that may be I have always been a bit unfair to "Harry Potter". :D

Comments

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

Katniss
I think your points re: the character of Katniss and the 2easy on the read" quality of the books are good ones, and can explain the popularity quite a bit, especially for someone for whom the nitty-gritty of the world building doesn't really matter much.

BTW, I LOVE KATNISS, but some little cracks developed in my love for her because her "Dog with Two Bones" love triangle story is REALLY NOT MY THING. I mean., personally I am not at all fond of people who "don't know what she/he want" and view this as a big weakness of character.


Worlbuilding/technology

For me, the world building matters a great deal, especially in science fiction. For example, the fact that no developed technology is going to use coal is important to me. We don't use coal. I think you are right in saying that Collins used coal mining because this is something she knows, but why should I care what subject is more convenient for the author to write about? I care for world building and the use of coal doesn't fit the picture of the well-developed technologically world at all. :P

As far as technology goes, it seems like technology IS highly developed, but the advanced technology is purposefully kept from anyone who isn't part of the Capitol. So I suppose you can imagine that only the people living in the districts use the coal.

No, I can't imagine this. In the well-developed technologically world, even if the "fruits" of technology were withdrawn from the population of the districts (which is possible), the fact that more advanced machines should have been used to produce everything still remains. I mean - I can imagine the population of districts being kept in a slave-like state, but why are they still using manual labour doesn't make sense (because they could have produced more using machines).
To explain this on example: take Apple plants in China. People there are made to work 80-hour week (with overnights), their pay is a low, and they basically have no privileges whatsoever. But they don't make iPods using manual labour (or coal)!

And maybe this is all part of the Capitol's grand oppression scheme.

Well, it can be! But I need an explanation in this case, why /how, this is what the worldbulding is there for .

There are a lot of interesting themes and motifs in the book about being oneself, surveillance and performance. Plus, I've always been a fan of dystopias.

A lot of those themes are taken from something else, 1984, for example?

I think this is kind of unfair though. Ophelia commited suicide and it was via drowning and she was all alone and is offstage. Rue was impaled with a spear and dies as Katniss sings her to sleep. The only common theme is the flowers. Nothing about the way her death is portrayed is similar to what Shakespeare wrote.

For me the comparison was so obvious, I can't even. :D Ophelia's death has always been a symbolic "death of innocent bystander" which is very similar to Rue's death, in it's symbolism.

Greek/Roman references

Plus, it also helps tie into the idea of "panem et circenses"

Oh, I understand that Collins is trying to use Roman and Greek ideas and myths (Minotaur as well) , but I don't need the overuse of Greek/Roman words to "get it". Because with this overuse I immediately start thinking "why? How?". I mean - why would USA start using Roman names all over the place?

PS: Although I wrote a lot, I am mainly just trying to explain my position. But I understand your position too. :D We are just assessing this from two different perspectives - I am familiar/interested in technology, but I appreciate that not everyone is. So far, from what I gather from "Hunger Games", I would imagine Susanne Collins doesn't really know or care much for technology at all.

[embitca.livejournal.com]

Erp, sorry to get off topic, but this bugs me too much LOL

China generates a significant amount of its energy from Coal (over 68%), so in fact it does use coal to make iPods.

All those electric vehicles that carmakers are making and we're getting tax credits in the US for to encourage use --- they mostly run on coal since that is how nearly 50% of electricity in the US is generated.

Coal = Electricity. You plug something into a wall, chances are the electricity provided was generated via coal.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

Oh, that is interesting! this is where the coal might be coming from! I might be thinking from the POV of UK where the coal mining died off after 1980s and the coal might be still used in the US.

But it still doesn't explain the manual labour, nad the inconsistencies in technology/vs level of life..

[pwwwiiiggiiiexx.livejournal.com]

Because it's /Panem/ that's why. You're talking about a country that rules via suppression, poverty, and cold blooded child slaughter. Higher standards of living for the Districts mean that they have more time (so to speak since they are not preoccupied with basic survival) to think about the brutality of the Games and how they shouldn't exist at all in the first place. It leaves too much freedom and time for the people to question the Capitol's power, or more accurately, Snow's.

Actually, if you think about it, the Districts aren't mentioned to have much high-tech equipment and all that, except for what they need to produce their Districts produce. They don't have much available to them really, on a personal usage level. The Capitol is the central place where you see all the classy technology. And isn't it true that the Capitol has a much higher quality of life compared to the Districts? All the glitz, glamour and glut.

As to coal, actually I was somewhat surprised that there was no mention of nuclear power being used...