The Hunger Games is too similar to Battle Royale

Thanks for your comments, everyone. From what you've said, I don't think it's really my thing. I love dystopias, but it doesn't sound like The Hunger Games explores either a complex or novel dystopia. Being easy to read isn't a draw for me either, and I think there are young adult novels which stand well on their own, without the caveat of "good for a YA novel".

@Yuan

I think you should at least give it a try, their are serious flaws, but it is worth the time spent reading it if nothing else.

Yuan here is a sporking of it.

It's very nitpicky at first, so I'd reccomend reading more than one entry, but if the criticisms they have resonate with you, don't read it. If you're like wtf-who-cares, you should be fine. If you're more of "well, I would have never noticed that without you pointing it out, but you make a valid point..." read for a few more chapters, and then make a decision.

edited 26th Mar '12 6:09:53 AM by MrAHR

It's a good sporking. I found it more entertaining than the books.

I enjoyed it greatly, but I know some won't, so I try to have a post that applies to all sorts of people, not just the ones who share my opinions.

I liked the book, but I also enjoyed the sporking.

On the subject on the two movies: read it and rejoice. (Don't think my local Walmart is going to stock it but....)

I picked up a copy from Best Buy.

Having just seen the movie, I found the sporking entertaining. The movie's not bad, really; reasonably well produced, with mostly decent acting and all that. I'd give it a cautious recommend. Still, the setting is full of glaring implausibility and seems designed for a morality fable rather than for any kind of realism. Is the premise for the Games any better in the books, or not? That's the least excusable part, I felt; second after that was the fact that the president of the whole place seemed to have such a personal interest in how it turned out. I'd have expected a nation that has resorted to bloody circus to have more of them, and for them to matter less.

@Morven

What exactly was it about the games (technology non withstanding) did you find implausible? All things considered humanity has done a lot worse.

Not that the Games themselves feel unlikely. It's the setup where it's The Most Important Thing That Happens In This Place that feels forced.

The idea that a society might be messed up enough to draft young people to fight to the death for televised entertainment isn't really shocking. I'd have just expected it to be one of many such things, and to be on the same level as e.g. most reality TV, for instance. And for it to be invested with such political meaning, that also feels "off".

@Mor

I assume that similar things ARE shown and happen but the games themselves are like the Olympics or the Super Bowl, annual and huge, but with other less entertaining or less awesome stuff in between.

Katniss obviously wouldn't be clued into this since she hardly ever watches TV, when it's not mandatory.

It's certainly possible. I just got the World Invented To Justify Plot vibe from the whole thing.

Morven: I believe it was a show of power. District 13 rebelled and got destroyed, so now they do it to quell rebellions. Or at least, that's what the book claims. Seems a bit odd to me, but hey.

Question from all those who've read further, do the later books get better? I'm not sure about them considering how mediocre I found the Hunger Games. If Katniss gets more tolerable I might to try them out, cause that girl just came off as bananas to me.

edited 26th Mar '12 3:31:06 PM by SoloWingPixy

Fans usually hate Catching Fire, but like Mockingjay.

They get much better as time goes on.

NO. NO THEY DON'T.

I mean, I liked the first one. If you didn't like the first one, please, do not bother with the next two.

I didn't much like the first one, and felt that the next two where a major improvement. The first one is really the weakest book.

edited 26th Mar '12 5:50:14 PM by LMage

The next one fell into all the classic traps of a sequel. And the third one...there were things I liked, but there were things I disliked just as much.

Agree to disagree?

@Psycho

Eh, sure.

Yeah, like I said, the common assertion is that second fails, but third gets better. But if you already dislike Katniss as a character fundamentally, I don't know if you'll enjoy the sequels (going back to the original question)

Wasn't expecting that many replies so soon, so thanks so much.

Yeah I really didn't care for Katniss, so perhaps I'll pass on the latter two books for now.

edited 26th Mar '12 6:06:07 PM by SoloWingPixy

The quality is consistent over all the novels.

The second may be a little harder to read because for some reason it does almost exactly the same thing as the first.

And the last one only manages to be climactic by invoking (almost) Anyone Can Die and not doing exactly the same thing again.

I can't say how much enjoyment you personally will get out of them though. I didn't find the ending to be something worthwhile, and that's a factor too for many.

edited 26th Mar '12 6:09:50 PM by UltimatelySubjective

This is the way it went for me.

Hunger Games: Fun read. Haven't read the sporking, but I know there are serious problems. Still, I liked it.

Catching Fire: Weak. Can't remember much about it.

Mockingjay: Prose was hard to follow, ending pissed me off.