The Hunger Games

[roflmao]

If I were to criticize the series for inconsistency, my biggest complaint (and this complaint can be directed towards a lot of sci-fi) is the scale. How big is Panem? The book mentions District 12 being a population of 8 thousand. District 11 seems to be similar, and both are in abject poverty. Unless the first districts or the capitol are ginormous, we seem to be talking about a small and poor country.

If the country is small, then an oppressive dictator can effectively rule it in North Korea style. But, if the country is small, where did they get the manpower and manufacturing capacity to produce such amazing technology present in the capitol? Producing a single pencil requires economic input from all over the world. Such high tech only becomes remotely feasible if you factor in global trade, but if globalization is present, surely some people would try to escape Panem and leave for a more sane country? But there is no mention of any other countries or immigration or any sort of global politics. Panem exists in a vaccum.

But this is all standard sci-fi inconsistencies. If you sat down to analyze every great work of sci-fi literature you would find more holes than in swiss cheese.

[Bonnet]

So Bonnet, which book is the 2nd quote from, and which book the 3rd quote?
I'm assuming the first quote is from Harry Potter. Which I will never ever read (complete lack of interest).

The quotes are from Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, and The Great Gatsby.

[mlai]

Okay guys, you know I'd never read the books now. But I'll reply to you for discussion's sake.

@ Starfisher:
I understand that perfect realism is impossible. Maybe Tom Clancy pulls it off, I dunno.
However, in this case we're talking about perfectly simple knowledge, minimal research. For example, only the protag knows how to pick blackberries and dandelions? Everyone else would rather starve? This level of Mary Sue logic is teen fanfic level of writing. It's just too substandard to ignore.
I think a writer should choose to write YA because he identifies with that age group, and wants to speak their issues. Not because he's such a bad writer he needs to find the most gullible audience.

@ Saunders:
I still think just because a review is not written in an objective style, that doesn't mean it's inaccurate or has nothing of value to say. You may not think she's funny, or you may not appreciate that style of reviewing, but what about the content?
Maybe your contention is that the review is just a list of nitpicks, and not an overview of the plot structure and characterization? But the list of nitpicks shows you exactly what's wrong with the setting setup and the characterizations. She doesn't organize it for you in essay format, but it's all right there.

@ Kirjava:
It's not that Kat's opinion of Effie cannot be opinionated, but that even the author's omniscient narrative regarding Effie is opinionated. Effie is being portrayed negatively by the author (not the characters) before she even did anything bad. Just being there doesn't count, because she could be forced just like the peasants.

@ Bonnet:
Holy **** I need to read The Great Gatsby.

[Buguba]

The above is an example of why I feel this blogger is pretty astute, and not just flaming inaccurately for the hell of it.

Having the ability to point out a common plot device in children's literature has never been a sign of intellect. The fact that he doesn't seem to realize that these sort of plot devices are used explicitly for the purpose of guiding young readers is a sign of the opposite.

That said, I don't know why you're so up in arms about it. It's not a bad book. It's a fairly good book, but it's not a re-iteration of Les Misérables. Having read a lot of children's lit (including HP, Twilight, and Hunger Games), it's unfortunate that people worship some of these series like the Bible. However, that doesn't invalidate their status as fun books to read, or the author's ability to paint a creative, complex world. Twilight, for example, was a fun book to read. It wasn't ever meant to be "great" literature, and the fact that people made it out to be that way was disappointing. It was still a fun book to read though.

[Ira Aduro]

I suspect that they will not match up with Song of Ice and Fire, which I am currently re-reading.

Almost done with book two of that series. A large swath of current writing out there won't stand up to Martin's writing. That said, I read The Hunger Games between books 1 and 2 of SOI&F and it was a nice "refresher". Martin makes long books with complex people and some great literary flair. His books are aimed at mostly adults. Collins' makes short books with interesting if not overly complex characters and keeps her writing style short and to the point (for the most part) because she is writing for audiences with a shorter attention span.

@mlai - Does the reviewer say Katniss is a Mary Sue? I can't access that review at work, sadly, well maybe for the better, but if the reviewer claims she is a Mary Sue I'm really really interested in why.

[Starfisher]

The stuff mentioned in the review would immediately turn me off the books. If you actually know something about something, reading an incorrect or nonsensical account in fiction breaks suspension of disbelief unless the fiction has already constructed or implies a good reason for the discontinuity. An electric fence to protect against hungry predators makes no fucking sense, especially against the predators listed. Pedantry is relative; if you actually know how a smidgen about goat farming, it's not pedantic to find a poor fictional account wanting. If I were to write a book that relied heavily on dairy farming to set the scene, Vaarok would be incapable of enjoying it because I'd get so much wrong that he'd never be able to suspend disbelief.

But that's the whole point of target audience. If I'm writing a book for American teenagers, you don't need to create a realistically plausible scenario, you just need to produce one which is plausible to them. The vast majority of suburban/urban American teenagers are not going to realize that the electric animal fences and the lottery system in the books make no sense, because they don't have any actual experience with the outdoors and because they never thought about economics or read anything about third world countries. Plus, it's got some punk kid who hates authority and is cool. Fucking mint right there.

It's subjective. If you're a dick who likes to nitpick things, YA fiction is not for you, almost by definition. If you're good at glossing over stuff in order to enjoy a story, or if you just don't know enough about the setting elements being used to be turned off, then it's great.

Random anecdote: There's this show called Outsourced, about some guy in America who gets sent over to India to manage a call center. I actually work with a team in India and have been there twice now. Watching the show was painful, because it never quite felt right. Now, if the extent of your experience with India is Apu from the Simpsons and Slumdog Millionaire, I'm sure it's hilarious. Or maybe if you actually worked in an Indian office like the one they portray, it's great. But for me, it clashes with my experience and so it's very hard to enjoy. This will be true of all entertainment for all people, kind of like how some people who went through various wars find video games based on them to be appalling. Experience is relative, and it plays a huge role in how much you enjoy a particular piece of media.

[mlai]

Edit: I got about 1/15th through that review you linked and by gods, roflmao was right. The author is a pedant of the highest degree. "WTF y u no specify which type of bear u mean! Also srsly bears r omnivores not carnivores!!!"

Dude now it's you taking things out of context. The blogger was remarking how ridiculous it was for Katniss to say that the dangerous creatures out in the woods are cougars, bears, and wild dogs. It's something a city-dweller who did zero research would write. Wild dogs yes, the other 2 not remotely in the same league as wild dogs. She then went on to explain exactly why. The 2 sentences you isolated and then turned into 133t-speak were part of a paragraph.

Having the ability to point out a common plot device in children's literature has never been a sign of intellect. The fact that he doesn't seem to realize that these sort of plot devices are used explicitly for the purpose of guiding young readers is a sign of the opposite.

When I was a "young adult" (junior high school counts, yes?), I didn't need these "plot guides" to appreciate the novels I read. These writing crutches would only give the YAs bad habits if they ever grow up to become writers who wants to create believable characters. Perhaps we should expect more of our YAs.

And Buguba, you found Twilight fun to read, so I think we have irreconcilable differences of opinion anyways.

@mlai - Does the reviewer say Katniss is a Mary Sue? I can't access that review at work, sadly, well maybe for the better, but if the reviewer claims she is a Mary Sue I'm really really interested in why.

Her honest opinion of Katniss is that she's a decent enough protag character. But she feels the author's writing style is Mary Sue-ish, meaning 3rd-person descriptions of Katniss is given preferential treatment (protag-centered morality, for example). And sometimes Kat has lapses of logic which annoys her, not because the character is a flawed individual but because the author is flawed in his own logic.

@ Starfisher:
I agree with your post. However, I differ on 3 things.

1. In my own creative writing (hobby), I value the amount of research I do. I consider it to be responsible authorship; I have a duty to potential readers not to disseminate misinformation. I want them to learn something I learned, while they also enjoy themselves. Therefore, I cannot forgive an author who does zero research, as in not even tried. C'mon now, in the Information Age?

2. "If you're a dick who likes to nitpick things" is a very negatively biased way to describe a positive trait that should be required in all professional writers.

3. And since I write (script for my comics, actually) as a hobby, I am allergic to poor writing lest it rubs off on me subliminally. S'why I won't read bad books, ever. Except that one time.

[OhJohnNo]

@Bonnet:

"He knew that when he kissed this girl, and forever wed his unutterable visions to her perishable breath, his mind would never romp again like the mind of God. So he waited, listening for a moment longer to the tuning-fork that had been struck upon a star. Then he kissed her. At his lips' touch she blossomed for him like a flower and the incarnation was complete."

Blarg. Get it away. Pretentious drivel.

I hate it when books use so much description that it stops being descriptive and becomes superfluous. Give me Harry Potter's simple and to-the-point writing style over that rambling mess any day.

More on-topic, I haven't read The Hunger games, but I'm making the same mistake () Mlai did and reading that scathing review beforehand. I can still tell that it's plenty pedantic, and really, and story loses its lustre if you separate it into little paragraphs and then pore over each one of them with a microscope. It's still a funny read, though (and it does seem like he's making some good points, even - or perhaps especially - from my ignorant perspective).

[Aron_DeTomado]

Starfisher: The Romans were a lot less liberal with their definition of "children" than we, so I am certainly inclined to believe they used teenagers as gladiators. Barring a few volunteers, gladiators were mostly slaves. Given a story in which slavery doesn't exist in the same way it did in Rome, a lottery is the logical substitute if the gladiators aren't going to be volunteers. You're right about the theme though - the games were an entertaining distraction to the Roman people, rather than a symbol of dominance. So yeah, I suppose there might be similarities between Battle Royale and The Hunger Games beyond the merely superficial. I'm just not entirely comfortable with the implication that this theme alone should be considered a factor of sufficient magnitude to use the "rip-off." (which implies plagiarism).

Oh,John,no: Literature is more than medium of entertainment in which you describe a story. It is also a way of exploring the human condition by putting words on feelings the author (and presumably the audience) might have had. That quote doesn't just describe the physical events of the story, but attempts to make the transcendent concrete, something I consider one of the primary imperatives of literature.

[OhJohnNo]

Well to be honest, I view literature as a medium for storytelling - "exploring the human condition" is all well and good, so long as it doesn't sacrifice the story. More importantly, though, a good book should get me to relate to the characters, get me inside their head, get me to feel what they feel - and maybe I'm weird, but that paragraph just... repels me away from the character's head. All that nonsense about tuning forks just does nothing for me. Then again, I've never actually read The Great Gatsby (not even in English class - we studied The Lord of the Flies, which I liked) so that paragraph there could make perfectly good sense in context.

Of course, it's all subjective (I'm a bit of a minimalist, I don't like overly flowery description in most contexts).

[Misiok]

Speaking about the quality of the 'fans', here's some funny-sad post.

[Aron_DeTomado]

John: You are entitled to your opinion of course, and I won't pretend there aren't books so wordy I have trouble reading them, but what you are saying is basically the literary equivalent of berating abstract paintings for looking unrealistic.

[Buguba]

When I was a "young adult" (junior high school counts, yes?), I didn't need these "plot guides" to appreciate the novels I read. These writing crutches would only give the YAs bad habits if they ever grow up to become writers who wants to create believable characters. Perhaps we should expect more of our YAs.

And Buguba, you found Twilight fun to read, so I think we have irreconcilable differences of opinion anyways.

You're putting too much stock into the average young adult. I'd bet the majority of people on this forum didn't need "guides" in their teen literature to help them distinguish which side of the moral fence characters were on. Remember though that the majority of young adult readers are not people who are at a level where separating themes, motifs, stereotypes, and bad plot devices comes naturally to them. That's something that generally comes at a college-aged reading level. Also remember that it's called a "college-age" reading level because the average population won't have that kind of insight into their literature until they're around 18 - 21. I don't think it has anything to do with "expecting more" from our teen readers. The truth is that the 13 - 17 year old target audience that the book is written for is pandering to the average 13 - 17 year old kid (surprise!). They're still learning how to recognize when an author is creating a good story or when they're just being manipulated. There's absolutely nothing wrong with giving people time to learn.

What you're doing is like watching a Disney movie and defaming it for its linear character development. Of course it's going to have linear character development: the movies are meant to be watched by your 8 year old kid. Any adult themes going on in the story are secondary to the movies primary purpose, which is entertaining children.

That's why The Hunger Games is a good story, and it's a part of the reason I enjoyed Twilight. Twilight is supposed to be a stupid read that taps into the psyche of a socially despondent teenager. It's not meant to be any more than that. Does it have questionable adult themes? Yup. Does it have bad writing? Yup. Does it have poor character development? Yup. The book is terrible as a critically acclaimed novel for adults, but it excels at exactly what it was written for: empathizing with teens who feel cut off from society. If you're looking for anything more from it, then you're setting yourself up for failure.

[Akranadas]

I liked how the movie didn't stylise the violence or go full on gore (considering the content of a blood sport).

[Carl]

@Mlai: You now your surprising me here. Usually your one of the few people who never manages to get under my skin and induce me to rant at my PC sceen .

To be fair i've done a lot more ranting at the reviewer. Like you I haven't read these books. Hadn't even heard of them till this thread started up. So the review is as new to me as to you. I didn't get far into it before i gave up in disgust. That reviewer has no business writing any kind of review of ANYTHING. They have absolutely no idea what they're talking about in the slightest. If you take anything, be it literature, art, music, movies, e.t.c. and cut it into littlie pieces it is going to look and sound crap.

But none of those tell you anything meaningful. Nothing is made up of just discrete pats. Context is vital and that is provided by what came before, and in the cases of the best authors, also what comes afterwards. To pick on that wild dog example. There's no specification of the type of wild dog. Are we talking something like dingoes. Or in this dystopian future is it a pack of wild dogs descended from escaped huskies, (or other large domesticated breeds). Dingo's wouldn't be a threat, no. The alternative certainly is as dangerous as a bear. The cougar example is the same. What kind of town are we talking about, what level of technology do they have, what sort of people are they hunting, given the age of the protagonists in this book I imagine most of their interactions with them have been as children. A cougar is a lot more threatening to a child, and a lot more likely to attack. It's also perfectly possible they're not a threat at all but the protagonist believes they are because that’s what they've been taught by their parents, (a good basic parenting trick every parent uses, tell the kids something is dangerous and they should stay away even if it isn't, that way if they encounter anything that is dangerous they don't know they'll fall back on caution).

I could go on in that vein but I think I’ve said enough. Books aren't a bunch of lines on a page. They're a woven narrative that combines into a complete story and it's that combined narrative that's important, not the individual quotes.

There's also author style to account for. Some like to do really exhaustive world building they have the skill to weave that into the existing plot so that it doesn’t get in the way. Other, often, but not always, prefer to keep their world building in check. They're focusing on the plot or the characters or some other aspect. At that point the world building is surrounding verbiage. Except where it proves important to the ongoing plot or character or whatever it doesn’t need to be too expansive, it will be simple and basic and let the reader fill in elements for themselves. It will tell enough to set the scene and give the reader the minimum information they need to understand what’s going on, but no more. That’s fine too. Many good world builders can become so lost in that that their underlying plot or characters or whatever begins to suffer under the weight of it. Only the very best combined all elements seamlessly, but that doesn’t make the one's who can't d it any less skilled at what they can do or those elements of their works any less enjoyable. Your just not going to get every last detail explained to the umpteenth degree.

I'm a detail nut too I understand that desire to have everything just right. But I also have a huge book collection spanning all kinds of authors and a fondness for a whole range of other mediums. If I see something that doesn’t make sense I just generally shrug and accept that that is how things are in this particular IP. The times I tend to rant and rave are when a pre-established context is violated. Characters changing viewpoints drastically with no explanation or buildup, (common to multi-author series). A sudden shift in theme or genre can produce a similar effect because there’s such a strong disconnect with the old that the old and the new don’t look sensible in light of each other. Each works on it’s own but not as part of the whole. Or where certain facts have been pre-established, and are then violated without explanation. But where no pre-existing facts exist, well that’s just a case of "not the real world DuH!"

TBH Mali you sound like you've never encountered TvTropes. I've found it incredibly useful not just for the hours of enjoyment it brings, but for how it's taken my English classes and my own observations about literature and allowed me to see certain things a littlie more clearly than I used to. Concepts I instinctively understood but could not previously articulate now leap into focus, so I’m going to drop you a few links you might want to peruse that could help here. Feel free to peruse links off of that if you wish and go on a wiki walk it should be entertaining.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...TropesAreTools

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...yIsUnrealistic

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...ionOfDisbelief

[TDATL]

John: You are entitled to your opinion of course, and I won't pretend there aren't books so wordy I have trouble reading them, but what you are saying is basically the literary equivalent of berating abstract paintings for looking unrealistic.

...and berating them for that is valid. We are talking about very subjective judgments. Just because one person makes something someway on purpose doesn't mean that they are beyond criticism for making it that way.

I find that paragraph to be an eye roller as well (not your's, but the one John was talking about.)

I also find most abstract art to be rather pointless to all but the painter (which is fine if that is what they are aiming for.)

[mlai]

@ The Great Gatsby quote:
Granted, that quote's literary level is beyond YA, but I don't find it too verbose for an able adult reader. The entire thing flows in 1 idea stream, and the metaphors are meant to communicate an emotional state. You don't even have to think about it too much; just having words/concepts like "god", "vibration", "star", and "blossom" pass before your eyes already creates for you a medium to understand the character's mindset without the author telling you that he's "awestruck" or "in love" or whatever.

@ Buguba:
So basically you're saying these types of novels are the equivalent of average comic books, and that's how you live with it.

@ Carl:
I am well aware of TV Tropes, to the point that I do not link to them anymore. Too dangerous. It is the hypertext equivalent of The King In Yellow.

If you take anything, be it literature, art, music, movies, e.t.c. and cut it into littlie pieces it is going to look and sound crap.

Except she's not doing that. Yes she structures her review like an omnislash, but overall her review is building a continuous narrative on how/why the book is trash. She does continuously refer back to her earlier points to explain how it connects to her current points, etc.
It's not a review styled after a mag article, but more like a Where-I-Also-Watch. Nothing wrong with that; it makes it fun to read.

Dingo's wouldn't be a threat, no. The alternative certainly is as dangerous as a bear.

She's very common sensical when she criticizes the author's **complete** lack of research. It's clear that the author is writing a future dystopian North America, so she's not going to nitpick to ask "Are they Dingoes or are they Huskies?!" She gives the author the benefit of the doubt where possible, such as "ok, if you say they're dangerous then obviously they're descended from aggressive common-in-USA breeds." (Not actual quote.)

However, the author is just SO BAD, there is THAT MUCH to criticize. But none of it is nitpicking. Seriously, people are all starving but the baker keeps pigs? The character thinks a chicken is better sustenance than a turkey (turkeys are huge)? I'm a city slicker and even I knew those sounded off before she critiqued them.

For example, say I'm reading a story about ancient Native Americans. And the author starts describing, with a straight face, that the Native Americans originally came to America by paddling from Australia on canoes. If I see that, HOW do I keep on reading?

It's also perfectly possible they're not a threat at all but the protagonist believes they are because that’s what they've been taught by their parents,

Except that, y'know, she's supposed to be this amazing huntress prodigy. And her dad is supposed to be Les Stroud + Rambo. And if such a dad is giving his daughter bogus wilderness survival info because "that's what parents do," then it's even worse than the version it is currently.

Other, often, but not always, prefer to keep their world building in check. They're focusing on the plot or the characters or some other aspect. At that point the world building is surrounding verbiage.

I know what you're saying, and I do know that Wall-Of-Text is prose suicide. It's 1 of the fundamental rules of webcomicking.

However this isn't the problem. The HG author is trying to describe the hardships of rural 3rd-world life, to make us know how hard the protag has it, except that he's getting EVERYTHING wrong. And it's not wrong because a survival expert is nitpicking; it's wrong because the author is a cityboy who did not feel like doing 30 minutes of research. This is (bad) fanfiction level writing.

The blogger even explains how with the correct information, certain plot devices regarding rural living can be made to make sense without major changes. The blogger is not asking for Wall-Of-Text.

Carl this leads me to think that you're judging the review unfairly because it's structured in an "unprofessional" manner. I've read up to Entry #4 of this review now, and the author is JUST THAT BAD. Not just on technical info, but on numerous instances of poor storytelling, unraveling with minimal fridge logic.

----------

http://jezebel.com/5896408/racist-hu...the-movie-made

Wow..................
Buguba, I now understand what you mean when you say "Young Adult".
Just...
Wow.

[Langy]

@ The Great Gatsby quote:
Granted, that quote's literary level is beyond YA, but I don't find it too verbose for an able adult reader. The entire thing flows in 1 idea stream, and the metaphors are meant to communicate an emotional state. You don't even have to think about it too much; just having words/concepts like "god", "vibration", "star", and "blossom" pass before your eyes already creates for you a medium to understand the character's mindset without the author telling you that he's "awestruck" or "in love" or whatever.

Yes, an adult reader can understand it easily enough, but that doesn't change the fact that it's ridiculously pretentious sounding and too verbose to flow well. I wouldn't call that quote an example of great writing.

Then again, the Great Gatsby is literary fiction, as opposed to literature or proper novels like The Hunger Games (or Song of Ice and Fire, or anything else that anybody would actually want to read); it isn't intended to be enjoyed by a normal reader, it's intended to be an author's version of an e-peen, showing how awesome his writing skillz are to other writers.

[Carl]

@mlai: His/Her review, (what I slogged through), is that bad. She might reference back to her own prior quotes, but she never even attempted to put the quotes in perspective from the PoV of the book. She’s using her own perspective derived from individual quotes taking each piece of the book a segment at a time. That isn't how you review something at this level of detail because nothing is a bunch of individual parts. It's why I gave up on the review so early. It's the most basic don't do of that kind of review.

Also I’ve done a littlie more research. This is set in a post apocalyptic future. That means how things are now, quite literally means bugger all. Trying to apply any kind of modern viewpoint to it is literally stupid in the extreme because it has absolutely no bearing. There’s no continuity fro the modern era to this. So what we would consider normal now may very well not be then

Your also doing it again.

Pigs, turkeys and chickens. Great you've picked up on something. Now tell me, what sort of turkeys, what sort of chickens, what’s the surrounding situation with those pigs. Yes some breeds of turkey may be better than some breeds of chicken, but not all. The amount of food they consume for the amount of meat they produce, as well as complications like how hard they are to keep healthy and the specific diet, (I believe these two factors are about the same but I can't say). Likewise what are those pigs being used for? If they're being used as a breedable source of meat or other products killing them now might ease your immediate issues, but make the long term much harder.

It's details like these and probably 50 things I haven't thought of that matter in situations like this and the section of the review I slogged though completely ignores this. There's no discussion on the various possible explanations for those odd statements and the rebuttals against them from the text of the book that show this can't be the case because it's directly contradicted by X and Y and Z. THAT would be a proper review at this level of detail. But the segment I read didn’t not come across as this in the slightest.

That’s the real issue with the review BTW. Instead of sticking to a simple basic review they’ve tried to go into a lot of detail. The problem is that just like the literary essay it resembles, (it's really just a very brief extract of one), such a level of detail requires that you actually examine the whole thing in detail, not just the segments you want to make sound bad.

That’s the thing here. I'm not saying the book is GOOD, I haven't read it so I don't know. I'm saying that you cannot make a judgment that it is BAD from the review. It lacks far too much surrounding detail and deep level analysis of the quotes it gives to put them in any kind of proper context within the book. No one, not me not you, and certainly not the reviewer has ANY BUISNESS WHATSOEVER making a judgment on the books quality from such disparate quotes with so littlie surrounding detail. Anyone can write a review in that style about any work their sufficiently familiar with and make it sound utterly horrible, they're allowed to cherry pick quotes and display them totally out of context and then criticize them 5 ways to hell to make it sound utter tripe.

And as I already pointed out, even assuming all that the reviewer says stands up to scrutiny and is perfectly correct, (I’d be shocked if that where true mind), it still doesn’t make the book BAD. Not the top of the pile yes. But what about the non-world building elements, what are the characters and the way they develop like in the context of the world as presented, how is the plot, (again in the context of the world presented). The review seems to criticize the elements of the world that don’t make sense, then use this to critique the characters actions or thoughts. Few authors are good at all elements, some have strengths that lay in other directions and how good they are there can be just as impressive as a good world builder is in their strengths.

Maybe lattr when I’m more rested I’ll try slogging through the full review for you. Right now I’ve got work and then probably a nap when I come in.

[mlai]

@ Langy:
Fair enough. But does that mean Shakespeare falls in the same category?

@ Carl:
Basically I disagree with every single point you make regarding her review.

(1) She's not just picking quotes out of the book; she's also READING the book. Every time she takes out a quote that warrants a long(ish) explanation of the context, she gives it.

(2) It may be the future, but that doesn't mean future-dog, future-pig, future-oranges are wholly alien to 2012 counterparts. The fact that the author uses them with 2012 sensibilities and logic, tells us there's nothing deep at work here. Unless explicitly stated, simple and elegant always takes precedence. You can't try to explain away misinformation by saying "Well maybe future-turkeys are tiny," if the author doesn't say that. Therein lies the absurd traps of long-running comic books and Star Wars EU novels.

(3) This applies to the amount of details she give. She starts at "correct information because it actually matters to the plot", but she stops at "reasonable expectation of logic/knowledge before things devolve into useless minutiae."
Give you an example. The protag lists off wild countryside plants her dad taught her to eat. In the short list, we see the author listed a poisonous plant and the blogger facepalms. Blogger then explains the relevant facts to reasonable detail. If you try to defend the author using increasingly convoluted logic such as for example "Well maybe they switched the names of plants let's look for evidence!!!!!" or "Ah but you just said if you cook it reeeeeeally carefully in a chem lab you can still eat it let's review how!!!!!" then it would be you who is being pedantic.

(4) The last point... "Maybe the author really had zero clue how farmers live AT ALL, but the book is about the characters not farming!" Three things. One, the rural life is central to the plot-building and character-building, not just appendix material. Two, refer to my earlier analogy regarding a story about prehistoric Native Americans. Three, is a plot synopsis of "Children forced to kill each other for sport in dystopian future" really so amazing? It's not. Mix Lord of the Flies and The Running Man and you have the concoction. So what would make the work great, would be the details which follow from the synopsis. As far as I can tell, the details are trash.

[Bonnet]

Yes, an adult reader can understand it easily enough, but that doesn't change the fact that it's ridiculously pretentious sounding and too verbose to flow well. I wouldn't call that quote an example of great writing.

Yes that particular passage is a bit on the heavy side; the book actually flows very well, and very easily. I have to disagree with you profoundly on the rest. Fitzgerald is most decidedly not long winded. Take this sentence:

"Gatsby, pale as death, with his hands plunged like weights in his coat pockets, was standing in a puddle of water glaring tragically into my eyes."

He takes exactly three punctuation marks and 25 words to paint perfectly the picture of a broken man. In comparison the Hunger Games is actually long winded, the author in that novel using entire paragraphs to achieve similar effect. Note that he also doesn't "preach" as much to the audience, when it happens it is through the eyes of the narrator and much more in context.

I felt a haunting loneliness sometimes, and felt it in others--young clerks in the dusk, wasting the most poignant moments of night and life.

The Great Gatsby also carriers, a short, but very poignant story and many very human and deep characters. Read the book, the "literary" qualities of it won't stand out for you until you take time to notice; which is why its so good.

[Kirjava]

There's very little point in this argument continuing, mlai, when you're so convinced you're not going to read the books, in fact that you'll hate them, on the basis of one incredibly pedantic review. Most people reading that are going to either go, "Huh, bears, ok," and carry on. Others are going to maybe go, "Bears? Really?", forget it and carry on. Then there's the minority who insist that because the details of berry picking aren't right that the book is garbage. Fine, ok, if that spoils it for you you're not going to enjoy it. I personally didn't even notice, because it's science fiction, moves too quickly for things like that to matter and I can suspend my disbelief without concerning myself with the finer points of agriculture. If you think something's fun, you're less likely to worry about any flaws that you do notice, because you're more willing to forgive them. That you're so hung up on these relatively tedious points indicates that The Hunger Games is definitely not for you, so walk away.

[mlai]

I agree with you Kirjava.
I did grow up with a father who can't help but verbally ruin (a lot of) martial arts movies while we're watching them, because he's trained in that stuff.
So either it runs in the family, or I got indoctrinated with a certain standard since kindergarten.
(The only movies that were safe from Dad's combat-deconstruction commentary were Jackie Chan martial arts, and Sean Connery's 007.)

[Kirjava]

I suppose it depends on the reader's area of expertise. When it comes to history I can get pretty anal retentive about films, tv shows, etc. So I guess it just depends on whether a piece of media addresses an area you're quite knowledgeable, at which point... I don't know, an unkind view of it could be that our narcissistic impulse to be right and seen to be right takes over. Goodness knows it's affected me on more than one occasion. *hangs head*

[mlai]

That's why the importance of doing research, as a writer.
As I said, I see that as a positive trait. And it confuses the hell out of me when otherwise very-intelligent Relicnews forumites seem to imply that it is not a necessary component to enjoying a novel. Because, Young Adult. What.
I only ask for an acceptable level of Doing The Research from any author. Doing none at all, is just unfathomable to me as a hobby writer.

[Starfisher]

I think it's just that it's often hard to get over a sense of "that's not right". It's not narcissism, it's that your mind wants things to be consistent. It can fool itself (suspend disbelief) to a remarkable degree, but if the dissonance is too great, it fails, and you can't "get into" the world the media is trying to create. What is dissonant will vary from person to person based on their knowledge and experience.

I recall a teacher for one of my college courses (some fluff thing I had to take to fulfill a requirement) who said that he and a group of friends like to try to find plot holes and inconsistencies in novels and movies. That's taking it too far, I think. It's one thing to notice something by chance or because it caught your eye, and quite another to go looking for something to bitch about. So long as you're not engaging in the latter, I don't think it's a character flaw to find something unappealing due to it not making sense to you.

mlai: It doesn't matter unless it actually catches your eye. If people here read the books without noticing or being bothered by a plot hole, then what's the problem? Sure, there's a plot hole there, waiting to be seen. But they read past it and enjoyed themselves. You're basically saying that your standards are THE standards, which should be an obvious falsehood.

I seriously doubt the author of the Hunger Games saw the behavior of random predators to be a critical component of their story. Do you sit around researching every single line in your writing in detail? Obviously, you don't, because if you did you'd never write anything. Or are you a "writer" like me, who never actually writes anything?

A work of fiction need only be effective, not perfect, especially popcorn fiction like Hunger Games, especially some young adult fiction not written with the intent of conveying a self-important message or puffing out its proverbial chest with hyper-realism. If you're reading for entertainment and not actively seeking reasons to bitch, you might as well enjoy it.

[Langy]

@ Langy:
Fair enough. But does that mean Shakespeare falls in the same category?

Close to the same, yeah, except Shakespeare was never intended for reading at all by anyone - Shakespeare wrote plays, not books. He also used a lot of slang and such that was in common use at the time, but isn't at all now; that makes it seem more 'literary' than it probably is.

Yes that particular passage is a bit on the heavy side; the book actually flows very well, and very easily. I have to disagree with you profoundly on the rest. Fitzgerald is most decidedly not long winded. Take this sentence:

He takes exactly three punctuation marks and 25 words to paint perfectly the picture of a broken man. In comparison the Hunger Games is actually long winded, the author in that novel using entire paragraphs to achieve similar effect. Note that he also doesn't "preach" as much to the audience, when it happens it is through the eyes of the narrator and much more in context.

The Great Gatsby also carriers, a short, but very poignant story and many very human and deep characters. Read the book, the "literary" qualities of it won't stand out for you until you take time to notice; which is why its so good.

I read The Great Gatsby some 14 years ago; I don't intend to do so again, as it wasn't particularly memorable or enjoyable at the time, and I'm not a fan of the 'literary' genre of fiction. I don't remember it enough to say whether the rest of the novel was great writing or not; I was commenting on that singular passage earlier.

[Kirjava]

I think it's quite possible we could sum this thread up with, "different strokes for different folks".

Still, where's the fun in that?

[roflmao]

The story is fun (so far), the writing is accessible (but not great, the author's descriptive analogies aren't fantastic). I think by far the best thing about the book is its relatively short size. Making it 200 pages or so was probably the best decision the author could have made given the nature of the book.

All-in-all, if you're a fast reader and are ever bored one day, you could pick this up and read it in one sitting if you go at a fast enough pace.

[Buguba]

The Great Gatsby also carriers, a short, but very poignant story and many very human and deep characters. Read the book, the "literary" qualities of it won't stand out for you until you take time to notice; which is why its so good.

This is completely unrelated, but I actually despised The Great Gatsby. I thought the characters were flimsy and the story itself was rather dull. Fitzgerald was so fixated on slugging you in the face with the "AMERICA'S UPPER CLASS IS SHALLOW AND PEDANTIC" bat that there was never really a story. First, the narrative is directed by a character that isn't actually a character. Normally this wouldn't be an issue (it's not the first time an author used a third-party to describe the events surrounding the primary character), but Fitzgerald insisted on making half-hearted passes at fleshing out the narrator without ever giving him genuine tangibility. The narrator, rather than being a telescope into Jay Gatsby's life, is instead a persistent distraction that demands your attention every 2 pages. This was probably done on purpose though, because the "meat" of the book probably only would have covered 15 - 25 pages if the narrator's drivel had been gutted.

This is not to mention the fact that it is virtually impossible for the reader to empathize with the main characters in any way, shape, or form. I'm sure this was intentional on Fitzgerald's part, because the biggest irony of The Great Gatsby is that the "great" tragedy wasn't a tragedy for anyone at all. Even assuming Fitzgerald actually meant for that to be the theme though (instead of The Great Gatsby being his personal teenage diary), it doesn't change the fact the book evokes no emotions from the reader at the end. The entire cast could have been brutally killed in a wood-chipping factory, and the book wouldn't have been any different. Nothing was learned, nothing was gained, and everyone remains a distant "nobody". If it had been any other story that left us with that impression, then we'd just call it "bad writing". I'm not quite sure why everyone finds The Great Gatsby an exception to this though.

Fitzgerald's greatest contribution with his story was making it relatively short, meaning we wouldn't have to suffer through anything more than 200 pages.

[TDATL]

So far (the last two posts) the thread seems to be in agreement.

The sign of a great writer... less than 200 pages.

edit: Which shows why "The Cat in The Hat" is a literary work of art considering how short it is. Don't even get me started on the literary masterpiece that is "Rattle Rattle Dump Truck."

[Trinity]

Dr Seuss trumps 'em all.

[Hand of Asur]

"So what do they call The Hunger Games in Paris? Battle Royale with Cheese!"

"Battle Royale with Barbie Dolls" made me chortle a little

Don't even get me started on the literary masterpiece that is "Rattle Rattle Dump Truck."

'Run Spot Run' will blow your mind.

The Great Gatsby

'The Pearl'>'The Great Gatsby' in my humble, and lets not forget 'The Heart Of Darkness'. The classic novella Vs novel debate still rages in 2012 My only stake in it is that I like to put ' in front and after words. 'Its great fun'.

[OhJohnNo]

I don't really agree there TDATL - I love me a good doorstopper. But yes, being concise is a useful skill not all writers have.

[mlai]

I just watched the movie at the cinema.
You already know how I laugh at the book.
The movie wasn't half bad. Very decent.
IT WAS BETTER THAN JOHN CARTER (which I really wanted to like) THERE I SAID IT.

Con:
SHAKY CAM. FIRE THE F***ING DIRECTOR.
This is coming from someone who never complained about shaky cam before. Cloverfield? Loved it. Star Trek? Don't even remember shaky cam in it. Avatar? Was there 3D shaky cam I don't even remember. This movie? I'll put it in perspective for you...
Katnip sitting in her bedroom looking at her knick-knacks. SHAKY CAM
Katnip and her sister sitting and talking. SHAKY CAM
Katnip shopping. SHAKY CAM.
Panoramic establishing shot. SHAKY CAM (I kid you not.)

Pro:
Remember all the "pedantic nitpicks" from the blog review which ruins the book completely? You won't find 95% of those in the movie. It seems the movie's writing talent actually paid attention in college classes. Whatever could be fixed was fixed, even the subtle stuff. Some examples:

1. The ridiculous electric fence? Not powered in the movie.
2. Katnip hides her bow somewhere sensible. Not next to berry bushes where any hungry person would go to.
3. The gold pin she picked up at a flea market, rather than given to her by a rich person. This is fine because it shows jewelry from the old days is worthless in the districts (the blog suggested this as an economics fix, too).
4. The mother went into brief depression when the father died, but she's normal at the time of the movie. She's not forever useless like in the book.
5. The timing of Katnip liking the designer is better. It can be explained by normal Stockholm Syndrome, rather than author-endorsed liking.
6. The movie spaced out Katnip' memory of Pita being nice to her. It worked better.

The stuff about the goat and the pigs couldn't be fixed. But then the movie's districts weren't all-out starving, so it's not that bad. No mention of cougars and bears, thank god. And none of that clueless "I must trade a lot of meat for a little bread, (Gale did trade 1 squirrel for 1 bun, but at least squirrels have very little meat)" "Eating pig innards is gross," etc.
Pita did say Katnip could shoot a squirrel through the eye (ridiculous), but you can tell he's exaggerating. I don't know how it was done in the book.

Oh, and the racist Tweets about Rue being black and that ruined the character? Pure racism; the girl was a little angel.

[Carl]

@Mlai: I was going to just leave things be because like someone else said I can’t see myself getting anywhere. But your last post just hacked me off way too much because of how utterly aggrevatting it is.

Having read a littlie more of the review, (and done so while not tiered). I can now more clearly see why it’s so bad. The reviewer hasn’t actually read the book then written that. They’ve written the review as they read. That is just about the worst possible way to review something. Only a tiny percentage of writer even attempt to explain every littile detail as they go, especially in the first few chapters. Many odd details leap into focus and suddenly fit much better only in light of later information.

My basic research turned up a few important facts about the universe the book takes place in. 1. It’s post apocalyptic. 2. it’s a totallarian police state. 3. they don’t want each individual district to be self supporting.

This clear up like 90% of the complaints in that first section of the review. It makes perfect sense the whole town isn’t out there exploiting every last resource. The state would kill the if they tried. On the other hand most police states have some degree of corruption, and this is backed up by a quote the review gives about the officials turning a blind eye to some of it because they’re starving. Not only do we have an affirmation of corruption, but an extra justification for it. But like all corruption it only goes so far. They can only go get so much before it becomes obvious and the authorities have to take action. For the same reason they can’t keep most of what they acquire for themselves, and basic economics means that they won’t get anywhere near value for the stuff, the people receiving it know they’ve no choice about offloading it and will give them as littlie as possible for it. By the same token a state that controlling that is also said to be limiting what jobs someone could do easily and simply explains why the mother would have to give up he job when she married.

I can keep going on in that vein but I don’t see the point. Had the reviewer actually sat down, read the whole book, (preferably the whole series), and then started pointing out the errors with full cross referencing I wouldn’t mind. But they’ve made complaints about points that basic research, (never mind a full read-through), can rebut. So much of the so called information in that review is in effect, falsified because it’s taken out of context.

Add to that the author rubbishing elements of the work on the basis of a bias against specific storytelling concepts, (rather than how well executed they are), and I have zero respect for the author whatsoever. It also calls into question weather that bias is affecting the rest of the review. I could have written something better back in highschool. I expect better than that from something that touts itself as a proper review.

To address your other points in your reply to me:

1. Would you care to provide that list, I didn’t get down that far but I’d like to see with no one telling me the answer if I can spot the culprit. I’d also point out that some of the poisonous plants out there can actually be safely eaten, either in small quantities or with special preparation. (surprised me when it came up on a programme about wilds survival).

2. How do you know that the animals are used in a 2012 context? And please don’t say the review, it’s already show it lacks any degree of impartiality or proper adherence to facts.

3. You haven’t read the books so again how can you claim to know how the survival information is used. I’d like to point out that my research implied, (but did not directly sate), that the focus is on how their experiences of survival in day to day life, the arena, and the civil war that followed. For that the author could have used totally made up information and it wouldn’t have mattered a wit. It would be harder for the reader to follow without a LOT of description, but it would work fine because it’s the underlying themes of the experiences more than the verbiage that matters to the effect on the character.

At this point you can rightly point out I’m making assumptions from my own minor researches. And you’d be right. But I’m doing that no more than you are with yours. Your taking that review as unquestionable fact, just as I’m, (deliberately to make my point), presenting my research as unquestionable fact. In practise I’m sure the book has a whole range of problem points, the author doesn’t sound like an all time great and others in the thread have made similar statements. But I sure as hell doubt it’s anything like as bad as the review.

[Kirjava]

People got upset because she was black when her skin colour was never mentioned in the book...? People are weird. And a little depressing.

[Starfisher]

More like the character was written as "dark skinned" but apparently a lot of people subconsciously white washed that out of their reading of the story. So when the movie faithfully reproduced that detail, their minds caught fire. Fun: http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/20...-rue-is-black/

[roflmao]

Oh boy, that's very depressing. I thought Rue was one of the cooler characters of the movie!

[Kirjava]

...wow. That's... just wow.

[Misiok]

Speaking about the quality of the 'fans', here's some funny-sad post.

Eh, guys.

[Saunders]

I sincerely thank you from the bottom of my heart, Carl. I didn't even know where to begin in highlighting what was specifically wrong with that review, and you've graciously covered it pretty well.

I'll reiterate: it's garbage! The author doesnt know how to (or didn't intend to) write an effective review.

[Kirjava]

Apologies for missing that when you first posted it, Misiok!

[Misiok]

It's okay Kirjava. I got used to it :P

[Ira Aduro]

1. The ridiculous electric fence? Not powered in the movie.

Actually, it's not powered in the book except for the occasional times power is working in the district. If the reviewer missed that, she really really didn't do a good job paying attention.

[Carl]

@Saunders: TBH the issue isn't so much the quality of the review in of itself as how it tries to pass itself off.

If I’d been asked to sit down read the books back in high school and then write an essay detailing all the logical holes I’d have probably come up with something like that. Reading the partial copy of my Macbeth essay from then is really painful for me. The trouble is a highschool quality essay on the faults just isn't acceptable. If the author wants to find fault and rip into it, that’s ok, (though they still shouldn't bill it as a review, those are supposed to be impartial and emphasize strengths and weaknesses alike, not just the weak points), but they need to do it at a quality level that’s appropriate for this sort of thing.

Ideally what I’d have done was gone out, acquired the books, sat down and then rebutted the review in detail with quotes. But A) we don’t really have time for me to do that, I might be able to finish the books in a couple of days, but the rebuttal would take weeks to write. And B) I’ve had a rough year so far, the aftermath of my mum and stepdad splitting is rumbling on, it's going to be a while before I feel upto reading something that depressing sounding. IRL is depressing enough ATM.

[mlai]

@ Carl, and regarding TEH REVIEW:

1. First, you seem to keep wanting the review to be a professionally structured essay. I said from my first reply to you, that it does not try to do that. I kept saying, yes, this review is a giant omnislash. And I do not care. Why? Because that is not the point: I do not care it is a giant omnislash. If I'm writing a college essay or a book report, ofc I'm not going to write in that format. But for entertainment and information (on what not to do), it's good for its purpose.

2. I know, and the blogger knew, that it is a near-future police state, and that most of the districts are poor, and that each district serves a particular function (Katniss' district mines coal). This does NOT invalidate her comments. Why? Because her comments already assume a setting with the above facts, which she made clear.
Things you say "now makes sense" still do NOT make sense. We already knew all those things, when we said "do not make sense!" You're the one who didn't know until now.

3. I know the difference between "rubbishing elements of the work" based on personal bias, and doing the same based on literary principles of good writing. As detailed by the blogger, the author violates many rules: self-insertion POV, ethnocentrism, mary sue morality, male worship etc etc etc. That has nothing to do with personal bias.

Actually, it's not powered in the book except for the occasional times power is working in the district. If the reviewer missed that, she really really didn't do a good job paying attention.

I guess now I have to go into detail about this insignificant detail...

The blogger merely said that the idea of an electric fence for that purpose is ridiculous, and she didn't specify whether it was powered 24/7, or in disrepair and powered only sporadically. As far as she's concerned, that didn't matter. She merely explained why the very idea of it was dumb.

I use the fact that it's shut down to defend the movie, because the movie didn't have to explicitly state "this electric fence was built to keep out wild animals." For all we know, it could just be a shortcut Katniss took through restricted-access gov't property, such as military training grounds or somesuch.

[GeoffS]

@mlai, I have been away from my high speed internet for a while so I haven't been able to properly research things until now. That review is just about the biggest load of hypocritical bullshit I have ever seen, and this is why...

First, the reviewer accuses the book's author of being inaccurate based on not doing basic research. They illustrate this by making statements that are inaccurate because they did not do basic research. Example 1, they accuse the author of being incorrect in describing bears as predators "Bears? Bears are omnivores, not carnivores", this is not only irrelevant because omnivores can be predators, it is inaccurate because not all bears are omnivores. Example 2, they claim that the book is incorrect in saying that "In the fall, a few brave souls sneak into the woods to harvest apples" since apples are only a domestic fruit that would not survive in the wild. That's also simply wrong and shows that the reviewer is making things up rather than do any simple research.

Second, the reviewer chooses to attack the book based on things that are not even in the book, like claiming that "A chain link fence is not going to keep snakes out" when even the section of the book that they quote does not make any such claim... "Electrified or not, the fence has been successful at keeping the flesh-eaters out of District 12". There is nothing there about the fence being chain link, or that it kept venomous snakes out. The reference to venomous snakes was about them being additional concerns in the woods, something that is highly likely to be correct since most snakes prefer grassy areas to live in since it provides cover. They rarely venture into urban areas.

So, the reviewer did not do any basic research before accusing the author of not doing basic research, and the reviewer makes shit up that doesn't exist in the book and then attacks the book for those things. And you based your decision to not read the books solely on that review...

[Kirjava]

I don't really want to get into a fight about the review again, but the pedant in me wants to point out that the fence is there to keep people in, not animals out. The inhabitants of D12 might have been told it's to stop the terrifying bears from eating them all, but it's another element of control, even if it's not really enforced all the time.

[mlai]

@ Everybody who cares about the review:
Yeah, I don't care about arguing over this anymore, either. If you want to read the novels, be my guest. Here's the exact reasons why you can't change my mind...

(1) I was on the fence about reading the novels or not. But now I'm tipped over and that's it. Even if the blogger only got 1/4 of her critiques right, that's still enough to condemn the novels IMO. They're YA mediocrities and I CBA'ed. If I really want to read some words on paper, my next goal is The Once & Future King. Y'know, something worth reading.
(2) The importance of that review, to me, is not whether or not it critiqued the novels objectively. But whether it taught me things while being entertaining. The author constantly lists things that a good writer shouldn't do, and uses clarifying examples from the novel (whether they're accurate to the novel is irrelevant). I feel I will be a more cautious writer after reading the entire blog, which is why I continue to read it even though I'm already convinced I won't read THG.

@ Kirjava:
Yes I can understand, say, the protag's little sister being fooled by the schpiel. But Katniss is "the amazing hunter prodigy" Artemis-trope protag.
Oh, and it seems the blogger clarified that the fence is only electrified some of the time. I hereby apologize to the blogger for misrepresenting her as not reading carefully.

@ Geoffs:
1. Right, because polar bears and pandas are relevant to the discussion.
2. Ok, now we've both been debating inaccurately. I because I'm on to the blog's page 7 and I can't remember the fence thing word-for-word. You, because you're taking things out of context, which is what everyone is hating on the blog for doing. So now you made me go back to page 1 to actually look:
(a) Blogger simply implying that bears (unless specified to be an aggressive type which the author didn't) invading the town is more likely to be making a mess of the garbage, than to be actively stalking people. Ofc they can still be dangerous, but she's more concerned about the author simply ratting off big animals as random examples of the nebulous category of "predators", which an Artemis-prodigy should not be doing.
(b) You can nitpick out wild apples which are nutritious/delicious enough for "brave souls to sneak into the woods", but the fact is that many wild apple varieties wouldn't be that tempting for "brave souls to sneak" and the author obviously didn't think about that. Now, if the author simple added ONE WORD: "chestnut crabapple", it would have transformed into Wow Did The Research. Basically, we just did more research than the author ever did. Which should make both you and me feel very stupid.
(c) As for the snakes... You'd be correct if there was grass on 1 side of the fence, and pavement on the other side. Except it's not. It's more like the location in the movie.