It's interesting you didn't like the first half of Catching Fire, it's one of my favourite bits of the books and I prefer it to the second half where Katniss isn't a very proactive protagonist and its a bit like the same thing all over again.
In the first book there was a curiosity in us as readers to see the actual hunger games but by the end we've learnt just how awful they are. So for the first half of catching fire there's this tension of knowing that the games are to be dreaded and I thought lengthening the pre-games part was a great way to capitalise on that dread
I disagree with the pacing. The books were set to have 33 chapters (i might be wrong) and that was done by adding superfluous chapters that had only Katniss thinking. I hate those.
The world was not that brilliant. It was smarter than the normal Young-Adult fare, but it was somewhat indecisive and conflicting. And the government was one of the most stupid I have ever read about. Considering communism had a lot more material to take from, it should be better.
e.g. Commies took problematic children and trained them as peace keepers, and it could just say that it was the only thing that saved the people from the apocalypse, tovarish.
It's a fact..
@ Tom With No Numbers: I've honestly never understood why people thing Catching Fire is a rehash of The Hunger Games - the plot follows a completely different trajectory, and although I can see why you didn't think Katniss was very active, I was never bothered. I didn't like the first half because it really threw off the dramatic structure - the entire first third of the book was little more than exposition for the rest, other than some overdone romantic development. I think it caused the rest of the book to be rushed to put it out like that. I didn't feel any dread the way you did, because I didn't know the Hunger Games were going to return - there was no reason to feel any tension at all until the announcement of the Quarter Quell.
@ Th E pirate: Each book had 27 chapters, actually, other than the epilogue in Mockingjay. They were all divided into three parts, with nine chapters each. And I didn't think that felt forced at all - I didn't even notice until it was pointed out. Whenever Collins did have Katniss do nothing but think about things (which I don't remember ever taking up an entire chapter), it was productive towards either the story or her character arc.
And as for the world, again, it wasn't perfect, but it felt logical for me. I think it worked because it has the same mistakes that you'll see again and again throughout history - oppression and outright torture of citizens without the assumption that they'll revolt as strongly as they did. I don't think I quite understand your point about the communists, so that's all I'll say on the topic, unless you have more.
And then everybody died. The end.
Contradictions in world building? Where?
Leave a Comment:
Phenomenal. Simply phenomenal.
Suzanne Collins is one of the best authors I've ever come across. I didn't expect it to be this good - something so violence-oriented wasn't something I anticipated enjoying at the time I read it - but Collins pulled it off like almost no one else.
The negatives:
The positives:
I could go on and on, but you get the point. This was a phenomenal series, one that everyone should read (and everyone probably has). In particular, Mockingjay is one of the best books I've ever read, and I have no idea why so many people were disappointed in it. If you haven't read the series, you must do so immediately.