Hunger Games

A slow, analog alternative to the internet

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

quantumcat42
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:06 pm UTC

Re: Hunger Games

Postby quantumcat42 » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:01 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:It didn't help that no one in the film looked starving.

This was definitely the single biggest failing of a movie called "Hunger Games". Over all it definitely could have been much grittier, but they really dropped the ball on the "hunger" theme.

LaserGuy, that jumped out at me as well (although I had read the book). They really did a poor job of conveying that scene visually for someone who didn't already know what was going on.

User avatar
mayhaps
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:13 am UTC
Location: Hawaii/CA
Contact:

Re: Hunger Games

Postby mayhaps » Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:43 am UTC

Obby wrote:For instance (late book 2 and early book 3):
Spoiler:
I understand that the plan was just a ruse to cover what he was actually doing, but I feel like more people would catch that Beetee's proposed plan is just not possible (wiring the water around the cornucopia to the lighting rod tree at 12 o'clock, in order to electrocute the other tributes). Especially the people that are designing the games. I guess Collins tried to hand-wave it away with Kat's remark about most people not understanding electricity, so they'd just have to trust Beetee, but it still rubbed me the wrong way.

And also, Pollux's whistling. If Avoxes are rendered speechless by the removal of their tongues, that means it is also impossible for them to whistle. Pollux whistles in response to Kat while they are in the woods near District 12. Unless he uses his fingers or something, which is not explicitly stated, but even then I'm fairly sure the tongue is required to manipulate the air flow across the teeth and lips.

As I said, minor gripes.


Spoiler:
I didn't get how the wire was even going to wrap around the tree. Wasn't there a force field around the tree? Or could the wire pass through the force field? Perhaps the gamemakers just assumed Beetee was trying to keep the tributes busy while letting the others catch up to and kill them, or something.

As for the whistling... the tongue thing is inconsistent. At times she says the Capitol has cut out the tongues of the Avoxes, but at other times she says they only went into their mouths and altered the neurons and stuff. So, it's possible they didn't cut out his entire tongue, and that's why Pollux could whistle? Eh.


I really liked the books, and totally approve of the way it ended (perhaps not the way it was written; I think the epilogue could have been left off, to allow us to wonder how healed they really are). But, guys, everything was so predictable it hurts. There wasn't really much surprise in what happened, even the final choice Katniss makes (both choices, actually). I liked it a lot, but... where is originality?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:40 pm UTC

mayhaps wrote: really liked the books, and totally approve of the way it ended (perhaps not the way it was written; I think the epilogue could have been left off, to allow us to wonder how healed they really are). But, guys, everything was so predictable it hurts. There wasn't really much surprise in what happened, even the final choice Katniss makes (both choices, actually). I liked it a lot, but... where is originality?

I mean, its a book for young adult readers with a feasible happy ending? I felt her choice was well handled. Not Twilight like ("I needed a man to patch this hole in my psyche!"), and gradual.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
UniqueScreenname
Something something Purple. Stop asking.
Posts: 1430
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:11 pm UTC
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Hunger Games

Postby UniqueScreenname » Thu May 03, 2012 10:31 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
Spoiler:
I guess what was missing was the urgency of the performance, and the juxtoposition of the fact that Peeta once saved her life by throwing her intentionally burnt bread. They kind of glossed over the bread thing, and barely even indicated that Peeta risked his own ass to get a loaf of bread to her. This was partially lost because the movie didn't really convey how starved District 12 was; in the beginning, we see a singular scene of a scrubby old dude gnawing on some bones, but that doesn't really indicate that they're starving, especially considering Katniss, Gale, Prim, the mother, and... everyone else in District 12, looks kind of dirty, but not starved. Poor, but not destitute. So the scenes of the rain and the bread just look like Peeta threw a sleepy Katniss a loaf of burnt bread, and we were given one or two lines about how Katniss remembered it.


It didn't help that no one in the film looked starving.


Having seen the movie before I started reading the books, I interpreted the bread scene in the movie completely differently from how it is written in the books

Spoiler:
From the movie, the impression I got was that Katniss was resentful that he was throwing the bread to the pigs, and then in the mud, rather than giving it to her. Especially since, in the first couple of times they do that flashback, it doesn't show him giving her the bread at all, but only on him feeding the pigs. I think it's on the third iteration of that flashback in the movie that it shows him throwing her the bread.

In the book, it's clear that she is very grateful and considers herself deeply indebted to him for giving her the bread, and that he did so at significant risk to himself, and later finds the obligation quite troubling, especially in light of the fact that there is a possibility that she may have to kill him.

This is exactly how it was for me. I hadn't read the books before the movie either. That part really confused me. I got the confusion over Peeta fine. I figured if I was confused, she must be too. I think the movie was trying to be too artsy when it should have been clearer. Just say how the dad died, and say why they have so many votes in the reaping, and talk about the bread. That being said, they've set themselves up well for all the dream sequences they'll have to work with later in the series.

Gale:
Spoiler:
I didn't like Gale much. I always thought he had more of a selfish attitude towards her. Like they had been friends forever, so he deserved her love and no one else could. He may have loved her, but didn't respect her much, mostly ignoring her feelings and opinions. I really hoped she would end up by herself, but Peeta's a decent alternative.

Spoiler:
I'm angry they took the District 11 bread out too, and the discussion about the differences between the districts between Katniss and Rue out. To me that was instrumental in showing how the Capitol worked. The second book doesn't connect well without it.

Spoiler:
I think I read this series from a more psychological POV than most. I didn't focus so much on the action and how the scenes went together and the logic (mostly concerning the third book) but more on how Katniss reacted to it and how she felt. She was carrying the weight of the entire rebellion on her back, even though she didn't particularly want any of it to happen, she was the one blamed for it, so all the deaths, all the pain, all the damage, fell squarely on her shoulders and she had to try to be a role model through all of that. She did pretty well until the end, but all the way through, you could see her losing her desire to be a part of it at all. She took the blame and wanted to sacrifice herself so that she wouldn't have the endless guilt anymore. So all the people dying over her stupid plan to kill Snow, I saw it less as stupid and more as a way of ascribing importance to her. Not just Katniss as a mockingjay inspired people, but Katniss the person inspired people.

Spoiler:
Also, Prim being there was explained. Coin saw Katniss as a threat to her power, so she wanted to disarm her somehow. She put Peeta into the battle in hopes he would kill her and she killed Prim in hopes he would break her sanity. It makes perfect sense. The series started with and every action by Katniss afterwards was fueled by the desire to keep Prim safe. Not only the pain of the loss but the thought that all the effort she's put in and the lives lost for that cause were in vain would certainly be enough to have my sanity liquefy immediately.
PolakoVoador wrote:Pizza is never a question, pizza is always the answer.
poxic wrote:When we're stuck, flailing, and afraid, that's usually when we're running into the limitations of our old ways of doing things. Something new is being born. Stick around and find out what it is.

User avatar
the_bandersnatch
Actually not so frumious.
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:46 am UTC
Location: on a bed in a room inside a TV in a hotel room in a hotel on a Monopoly board

Re: Hunger Games

Postby the_bandersnatch » Tue May 08, 2012 5:18 pm UTC

mayhaps wrote:
Spoiler:
I didn't get how the wire was even going to wrap around the tree. Wasn't there a force field around the tree? Or could the wire pass through the force field? Perhaps the gamemakers just assumed Beetee was trying to keep the tributes busy while letting the others catch up to and kill them, or something.

As for the whistling... the tongue thing is inconsistent. At times she says the Capitol has cut out the tongues of the Avoxes, but at other times she says they only went into their mouths and altered the neurons and stuff. So, it's possible they didn't cut out his entire tongue, and that's why Pollux could whistle? Eh.



Spoiler:
There's no mention of there being a force field round the tree. The tree is near the dome-like force field covering the arena, though, and there was a "window" in the field near there too.

Also, it specifically says they removed the tongues from the Avoxes, I don't recall it saying anything about altering neurons.
In girum imus nocte, et consumimur igni

PossibleSloth
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 6:51 am UTC
Location: Boston (or thereabouts)

Re: Hunger Games

Postby PossibleSloth » Sat May 12, 2012 4:30 am UTC

Just finished Mockingjay. If I may go back to...
Spoiler:
...the vote on whether to hold another Hunger Games, which I thought was one of the most nuanced moments in the series. In the first book, we're shown that Katniss is able to think like Haymitch and interpret his hints and actions. Before she votes, Katniss thinks something along the lines of "Now we'll see if Haymitch and I are as alike as I thought." The author doesn't explicitly state it, but it's clear Katniss is up to something and she's hoping Haymitch can understand what she's thinking. Voting "Yea" for the games is part of a plan and Haymitch is able to see that.

It actually took me aback when I read it, since almost everything else that happens is spelled out pretty plainly.

User avatar
UniqueScreenname
Something something Purple. Stop asking.
Posts: 1430
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:11 pm UTC
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Hunger Games

Postby UniqueScreenname » Sun May 13, 2012 12:46 am UTC

PossibleSloth wrote:Just finished Mockingjay. If I may go back to...
Spoiler:
...the vote on whether to hold another Hunger Games, which I thought was one of the most nuanced moments in the series. In the first book, we're shown that Katniss is able to think like Haymitch and interpret his hints and actions. Before she votes, Katniss thinks something along the lines of "Now we'll see if Haymitch and I are as alike as I thought." The author doesn't explicitly state it, but it's clear Katniss is up to something and she's hoping Haymitch can understand what she's thinking. Voting "Yea" for the games is part of a plan and Haymitch is able to see that.

It actually took me aback when I read it, since almost everything else that happens is spelled out pretty plainly.

Spoiler:
I just can't seem to figure out what that plan was, though. Make the nation hate Coin so she would forced out of office? Unlikely to work since the surviving winners made the decision, not her. Sure, it may have been her idea, but I don't know if people would look that deeply into it.
PolakoVoador wrote:Pizza is never a question, pizza is always the answer.
poxic wrote:When we're stuck, flailing, and afraid, that's usually when we're running into the limitations of our old ways of doing things. Something new is being born. Stick around and find out what it is.

maybeagnostic
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Hunger Games

Postby maybeagnostic » Mon May 14, 2012 1:45 pm UTC

UniqueScreenname wrote:
Spoiler:
I just can't seem to figure out what that plan was, though. Make the nation hate Coin so she would forced out of office? Unlikely to work since the surviving winners made the decision, not her. Sure, it may have been her idea, but I don't know if people would look that deeply into it.

Spoiler:
Katniss and Haymitch both realized that their vote is just a formality, the games were coming back no matter what they said. The plan was to stay in Coin's good graces so she'd get a chance to kill her. I don't think Katniss wanted any help from Haymitch for that part, she just wanted someone to know (and possibly explain to Peeta?) that she wasn't really for the games, she just had to lie in order to actually make sure the games go away. It didn't quiote work out as she expected it because she thought she'd be killed before she had a chance to speak to anyone.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon May 14, 2012 1:56 pm UTC

Spoiler:
I absolutely disagree with you. I think it was quite obvious and apparent that Katniss was voting out of vengence, not meticulous and thoughtful plotting
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

maybeagnostic
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Hunger Games

Postby maybeagnostic » Mon May 14, 2012 2:18 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Spoiler:
I absolutely disagree with you. I think it was quite obvious and apparent that Katniss was voting out of vengence, not meticulous and thoughtful plotting

Spoiler:
And I remember it being almost explicitly stated that she found the idea of reimplementing the Games abhorrent. The scene didn't even seem a little ambiguous when I was reading it.

The whole point of moving the PoV out of her head for pretty much the first time in the series was to have the reader wonder why she would possibly vote yes but that very scene had hints that Coin would implement the games with or without Katniss' support. Then she thinks something along the lines of "the only way to end the cycle of violence is to cleanse both sides" and shoots Coin, assuming Snow and her would be killed afterwards so someone else can come in power.

It's possible I assumed a bit too much about Katniss at the time but at no point before or after that scene does she even hint she wants the Games to exist in any form. I don't question that Katniss wanted revenge but I think the only people she wanted revenge from at that point were Coin and Snow- she knew Coin just killed her sister in order to shock people into reinstating the Games, what possible reason would she have to support this?
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

PossibleSloth
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 6:51 am UTC
Location: Boston (or thereabouts)

Re: Hunger Games

Postby PossibleSloth » Mon May 14, 2012 8:10 pm UTC

UniqueScreenname wrote:
Spoiler:
I just can't seem to figure out what that plan was, though. Make the nation hate Coin so she would forced out of office? Unlikely to work since the surviving winners made the decision, not her. Sure, it may have been her idea, but I don't know if people would look that deeply into it.


I kept waiting for it to become significant, but it never really did. I thought the series had a lot of plot and characterization issues (YMMV) and I just figured this was another example.

User avatar
UniqueScreenname
Something something Purple. Stop asking.
Posts: 1430
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:11 pm UTC
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Hunger Games

Postby UniqueScreenname » Tue May 15, 2012 6:24 pm UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
Spoiler:
I absolutely disagree with you. I think it was quite obvious and apparent that Katniss was voting out of vengence, not meticulous and thoughtful plotting

Spoiler:
And I remember it being almost explicitly stated that she found the idea of reimplementing the Games abhorrent. The scene didn't even seem a little ambiguous when I was reading it.

The whole point of moving the PoV out of her head for pretty much the first time in the series was to have the reader wonder why she would possibly vote yes but that very scene had hints that Coin would implement the games with or without Katniss' support. Then she thinks something along the lines of "the only way to end the cycle of violence is to cleanse both sides" and shoots Coin, assuming Snow and her would be killed afterwards so someone else can come in power.

It's possible I assumed a bit too much about Katniss at the time but at no point before or after that scene does she even hint she wants the Games to exist in any form. I don't question that Katniss wanted revenge but I think the only people she wanted revenge from at that point were Coin and Snow- she knew Coin just killed her sister in order to shock people into reinstating the Games, what possible reason would she have to support this?

Spoiler:
I'm pretty sure she hadn't decided to kill Coin until right when she did. It says she aimed at Snow, remembered how they never lied to each other, and then shot Coin. Besides, throughout the entire series, Katniss is not known for her plotting, strategy, and foresight. The only time she tried it it was hectic and poorly planned and she wished she hadn't done it.
PolakoVoador wrote:Pizza is never a question, pizza is always the answer.
poxic wrote:When we're stuck, flailing, and afraid, that's usually when we're running into the limitations of our old ways of doing things. Something new is being born. Stick around and find out what it is.

User avatar
apricity
almost grown-up but not quite
Posts: 3983
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:28 am UTC
Location: Probably North Dakota or something

Re: Hunger Games

Postby apricity » Wed May 16, 2012 2:15 am UTC

Spoiler:
I agree with Izawwlgood, it didn't seem like she was really plotting anything. The only way that her decision seemed consistent with her character at all was that throughout the books, she is sure that the Games will never end. It's the main reason for her not wanting to have children. Her decision is in that way a preemptive strike - keep the games, but make them aimed at others, so at least she and her loved ones will never have to worry about taking part again when they inevitably come back.

Then again, at this point I think she could also easily plead insanity on that decision.
LE4d wrote:have you considered becoming an electron

it takes just a little practice to learn to be
(she/her/hers)

PossibleSloth
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 6:51 am UTC
Location: Boston (or thereabouts)

Re: Hunger Games

Postby PossibleSloth » Wed May 16, 2012 10:59 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Yea, it's entirely possible I was just projecting my underlying wish for a better protagonist. She never seems to actually think about anything until after the fact, and then only after someone carefully explains what happened. I liked the books, but mostly for the ideas and the story.

User avatar
UniqueScreenname
Something something Purple. Stop asking.
Posts: 1430
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:11 pm UTC
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Hunger Games

Postby UniqueScreenname » Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:52 pm UTC

I'm doing a Hunger Games mafia in Forum Games. It has both a gameplay and an audience participation component.
PolakoVoador wrote:Pizza is never a question, pizza is always the answer.
poxic wrote:When we're stuck, flailing, and afraid, that's usually when we're running into the limitations of our old ways of doing things. Something new is being born. Stick around and find out what it is.

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Adam H » Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:33 pm UTC

I'm really good at mafia. The gamemakers would probably give me a score of 11 or 12. My point is that you should all send me lots of useful gifts; when I win I will remember who my friends are! :P
-Adam

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11215
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:11 pm UTC

I was not thrilled with either the books or the movie(saw movie first). The movie was not actually entirely bad, mind you, but it did have some weird bits. The book? Terribly written, nothing was researched, and we have a lot of conflicted portrayals. Sure, you can try to justify it as "it's a ya novel", but that excuse only goes so far. Just because the market is for youth doesn't mean it has to be bad.

Let's go over a few things that bothered me:

Tech levels:
Spoiler:
In the movie only, the dog-things are basically summoned from nothing. The game-makers basically have god-like power. This sort of tech level in the capital conflicts pretty heavily with the stated dependence of the capital on the districts. Even in the books, we see pretty amazing genetic engineering and so forth as pretty normal for the capital, but no evidence that they use these capabilities for say, food.


Unconvincing Hunger:
Spoiler:
Straight from the books, here. The entire intro section(while clearly meant to establish her as a skilled hunter) was very poorly written. Almost all the food was gathered, not hunted, and in significant quantities. A dozen fish, in the real world, takes a while to catch. A gallon of strawberries? Wild ones take forever to pick. Tame ones will die off in five years or so. This area's been wild for what, 75 years at a minimum? And we've also got wild apples in quantity sufficient that the townsfolk gather them en masse? AND you've got a milk goat? And there's stores selling food? And people are talking about wild dogs and bears and stuff in the woods? In hungry places, they call those things food.

It's not a very convincing portrayal of hunger. It's almost as if Collins has associated lack of bread with hunger, and gleefully ignored every other form of food which is portrayed in abundance. Oh sure, the pov char says they're hungry...but remember, good novels show, not tell.

Incidentally, they're also pretty bad at portraying Katniss as a competent hunter in either movie or book. The books have her blurting out words because she can't shut up while hunting. That's remarkably basic of a thing to screw up. The movie just kind of skims over the initial setup. Part of this is likely due to basic movie length constraints, but frankly, we don't get much of a feel for Katniss or anyone else before the reaping in the movie. Things like the Mockingjay pin lack any explanation of why they're important(though, in fairness, the book doesn't explain this till later either).


On women
Spoiler:
This has been sold and praised as a "strong woman" theme in many circles. I don't see it. First, Katniss is particularly passive. Other people save her all the time. She is often indecisive and is forced into all manner of things. Hell, much of the book revolves around people thinking she's pretty and her choosing between which of the two guys who are inexplicably attracted to her she wants. If that's a strong female theme, then I guess twilight is a story about female empowerment. Hell, it gets worse. Look at chars both female and male throughout the story. Divide them into lists, and label which ones you think are portrayed as competent and good. Hell, her dead dad is more important to the story than basically all the female chars combined.

And, on top of it all, we have a lovely subtext of "natural beauty good, artificial beauty bad" with regards to the capital.


On the writing
Spoiler:
The inability to write a full sentence quickly grows obnoxious. Sure, some will defend this as how internal thoughts often appear to us, making it a valid stylistic choice. There's one small problem with this point of view....it doesn't just happen in Katniss's head.

The frequent violation of "show, don't tell" is also annoying. There's a LOT of narration from Katniss's point of view. What's actually happening is often not shown, especially in the third book, where it seems like great care was taken to portray the least interesting things possible.

Also, the inclusion of a hunger-games like segment in each of the three books had a really ham-fisted setup. Oh look, we'll suddenly invent the Quarter Quell at the start of the first one for no reason other than to redirect her back to the arena. Oh, now we're in the third book, and need pointless violence, so let's have a side mission that goes nowhere.

In fact, setup overall is basically non-existent. We continually see something important in the book, and after the fact, Katniss explains to us why it's important. This is pretty clumsy.


On Katniss:
Spoiler:
I'm frankly just unconvinced as to her alleged importance. Aright, she volunteered. Great. Volunteers happen every year. She's from a district where it's unusual? That's fine. That's happened before too. It's canon in one of the later books that someone in the very same district had done the same thing.

She did have a pretty dress, though. This seems to be given as a major justification, but I have trouble swallowing it. Sure, the capital is fashion conscious...that's fine. You know what happens in fashion? Change. Constant, rapid change. What's amazing right now is forgotten in weeks. Not years, weeks. "The girl on fire" is not something to base a revolution around, it's a temporary fashion trend.

So, we've got an arena love story as basically the only thing that's actually unique. It's useful. It plausibly gets them out of the arena(though why the gamemasters set dogs on them if they wanted the dramatic "lover kills the other" end, I have no idea), but it doesn't explain the revolution. People don't rebel because of a romantic movie with a happy ending. That doesn't explain a thing.

We've got the Rue thing. In the movies, the bread aspect was cut, so this is more unexplained. In the book, though, it's explained that the flowers and stuff was edited out. Also, I find it difficult to believe that, in the previous 73 years of games, no teen had previously experienced emotional grief over the death of an ally.

So, why's the mockingjay so damned important? Why does President Snow have nothing better to do than personally come taunt her, smell of blood, and die laughing? Why must absolutely everyone sacrifice everything for her?

User avatar
UniqueScreenname
Something something Purple. Stop asking.
Posts: 1430
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:11 pm UTC
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Hunger Games

Postby UniqueScreenname » Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:51 am UTC

I never considered it a very feminist series. I suppose I never really cared that she was a girl. It would have made the same points (that were important to me anyway) if the main character had been a guy.

Katniss wasn't important for winning the games or her fancy dress. She represented unity. Sure, tributes from different districts worked together all the time, but then they killed each other heartlessly. If she was able to have such an effect that another district would give her their bread instead of just saving it for Thesh, that's saying something. But that was just a foundation. Coming up with an idea that undermined the Capitol's authority in the Games made her a mascot. That's what the districts were waiting for, something to inspire them, which is essentially what the entire third book is about. Sure, she didn't particularly do anything after that to make herself important, but she certainly started out well.
PolakoVoador wrote:Pizza is never a question, pizza is always the answer.
poxic wrote:When we're stuck, flailing, and afraid, that's usually when we're running into the limitations of our old ways of doing things. Something new is being born. Stick around and find out what it is.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:24 am UTC

Unity? I think Katniss was supposed to be, like Enders Game, the 'viewing of a horrible war through the eyes of a child'. The point of the novel isn't that Katniss saved the day (she didn't, like, ever), or even that Katniss had something to teach the world (she didn't, she just sort of... reacted), but that when we sacrifice our humanity, the first to suffer are the children.

@Tyndmyr:
Tech levels: The Capitol had technology at the level of plot. They had magic robots and lasers and drugs that did what was needed. I'm cool with this; it's even mentioned a few times that some districts are responsible for technology production. It's easy to imagine a scenario where, say, factory workers produce the worlds most elaborate technological doodads, but don't have access to them, or have an understanding of how to use them.
Hunger: I'm not sure why you would think this; the book pretty clearly uses fast forwarding to indicate that she spends inordinate amounts of time outside hunting. Depicting a singular scene where her and Gale interact in the wilderness, then, around nightfall, return to the town with a couple birds and berries seems a fairly accurate representation of a day of hunting.
Katniss: Again, we're supposed to be treating this story as 'very serious world events told through the eyes of an innocent child'. As the protagonist, she's a fairly boring character, but she has what no other player seems to (which I think is emphasized ad nauseum), which is innocence. At a number of points in the series, we're made to understand that smarter, more capable people than her are shielding her from the stories events.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11215
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:04 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:@Tyndmyr:
Tech levels: The Capitol had technology at the level of plot. They had magic robots and lasers and drugs that did what was needed. I'm cool with this; it's even mentioned a few times that some districts are responsible for technology production. It's easy to imagine a scenario where, say, factory workers produce the worlds most elaborate technological doodads, but don't have access to them, or have an understanding of how to use them.


I am not complaining about the districts lacking the tech. I'm pointing out that with that level of tech, the premise that the capital is utterly dependent on the districts for base necessities like food is ludicrous. This is kind of foundational to book 2. Hell, what do they need the coal for? Do the hovercraft run on coal?

Hunger: I'm not sure why you would think this; the book pretty clearly uses fast forwarding to indicate that she spends inordinate amounts of time outside hunting. Depicting a singular scene where her and Gale interact in the wilderness, then, around nightfall, return to the town with a couple birds and berries seems a fairly accurate representation of a day of hunting.[/quote]

It wasn't, though. It was an unspecified amount of blackberries, a gallon of strawberries, a sack of greens, and a dozen fish. Firstly, none of that haul is hunting, so it doesn't really do a good job of establishing her as the archer/hunter. Secondly, that's a remarkably good haul, especially when it's established that people are willing to trade for even portions of these items. It's not really selling the hungry motif.

And of course, they also have cheese from the milk goat. Why do goats produce milk? For the same reason everything does. Because they had kids. If you're doing goat breeding and have a steady supply of milk and cheese, you're not starving. You might be poor, but you're not starving.

Katniss: Again, we're supposed to be treating this story as 'very serious world events told through the eyes of an innocent child'. As the protagonist, she's a fairly boring character, but she has what no other player seems to (which I think is emphasized ad nauseum), which is innocence. At a number of points in the series, we're made to understand that smarter, more capable people than her are shielding her from the stories events.


Meh. Rue is fairly innocent, far as we can tell. And even if that is true, innocence doesn't inherently make you important. Furthermore, if innocence was that important, that would be a fairly easy quality for president snow to denigrate in far, far easier and more straightforward ways. It's not a reasonable explanation for how people react to her.

And as for "very serious world events"...we don't actually see a lot of world events. We get told about a lot of very important world events. Massive difference.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:31 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:the premise that the capital is utterly dependent on the districts for base necessities like food is ludicrous. This is kind of foundational to book 2. Hell, what do they need the coal for? Do the hovercraft run on coal?

I don't think it's ridiculous; the Capital is NYC, the districts are NY state. NYC needs to feed people, and can't grow hundreds of thousands of pounds of food stuffs in the given space. More so, because the Capital doesn't include any serious production facilities, being, you know, decadent and shit.

Why does the capital need coal? Because they have super awesome coal burning power plants. Katniss' district could have mined uranium ore and you'd still be shocked that the super advanced capitol just uses boring 'ol fission plants.

Tyndmyr wrote:It wasn't, though. It was an unspecified amount of blackberries, a gallon of strawberries, a sack of greens, and a dozen fish. Firstly, none of that haul is hunting, so it doesn't really do a good job of establishing her as the archer/hunter. Secondly, that's a remarkably good haul, especially when it's established that people are willing to trade for even portions of these items. It's not really selling the hungry motif.


Yes, she talks about checking her traps. Trapping is hunting. She also, in just about every hunting scene, takes a shot at something... I'm not sure what your beef is here; that her hunting isn't just her stomping through the woods shooting anything that moves (which she sort of does), and actually includes gathering and trapping? Also, there's a difference between people living below the starvation line, and people not having an abundance of food.

Tyndmyr wrote:Meh. Rue is fairly innocent, far as we can tell. And even if that is true, innocence doesn't inherently make you important. Furthermore, if innocence was that important, that would be a fairly easy quality for president snow to denigrate in far, far easier and more straightforward ways. It's not a reasonable explanation for how people react to her.

And as for "very serious world events"...we don't actually see a lot of world events. We get told about a lot of very important world events. Massive difference.


Yes, and Rue isn't put into the games. I.e., her innocence is preserved.

And yes, we don't SEE everything, because Katniss doesn't see everything. This was my point; we're seeing world events through the eyes of a child.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11215
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:38 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:the premise that the capital is utterly dependent on the districts for base necessities like food is ludicrous. This is kind of foundational to book 2. Hell, what do they need the coal for? Do the hovercraft run on coal?

I don't think it's ridiculous; the Capital is NYC, the districts are NY state. NYC needs to feed people, and can't grow hundreds of thousands of pounds of food stuffs in the given space. More so, because the Capital doesn't include any serious production facilities, being, you know, decadent and shit.

Why does the capital need coal? Because they have super awesome coal burning power plants. Katniss' district could have mined uranium ore and you'd still be shocked that the super advanced capitol just uses boring 'ol fission plants.


Why is this a problem for the Capital? They can apparently, in a matter of minutes to hours, gene mash entire species together into a working hybrid based off a single individual. You're telling me they couldn't develop anything worth eating with that tech? In the movie, they can pull animals out of thin air. Does this tech strangely not work on cows?

Nah. Uranium makes more sense. It's at a tech level closer to what they work on. A coal-burning society and an ultra-high tech society are not an obvious matchup. I mean, you COULD try to justify it, but no effort is made to do so.

Yes, she talks about checking her traps. Trapping is hunting. She also, in just about every hunting scene, takes a shot at something... I'm not sure what your beef is here; that her hunting isn't just her stomping through the woods shooting anything that moves (which she sort of does), and actually includes gathering and trapping? Also, there's a difference between people living below the starvation line, and people not having an abundance of food.


Gale was the trapper. Her traps are mostly ineffective. She doesn't actually use this trapping skill to much effect in the games. And missed shots don't really build up the image of a great hunter. Ok, she did manage to kill the bobcat that followed her around like a pet. Truly a great hunter there. Also, she killed a deer once(this doesn't come up until book three, yes? Bit late to build up the hunter image).

You seriously have a couple of children who stroll into the woods, and find enough food laying about to feed their families. If this is seriously the case, the starvation premise is deeply threatened.

Yes, and Rue isn't put into the games. I.e., her innocence is preserved.


Uh, Rue is in the first games. She dies there. It's not really a case of "innocence preserved".

And yes, we don't SEE everything, because Katniss doesn't see everything. This was my point; we're seeing world events through the eyes of a child.


And that's the authors choice. We don't actually see a lot because of her decisions.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:04 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Does this tech strangely not work on cows?

You're doing the incredibly unhelpful and pointless exercise of wondering why Wizards in Hogwarts don't simply make power plants that generate infinite electricity with 'Rotational Maximus!' spells. At some point in time, you have to be use your willing suspension of disbelief and recognize the story telling has it's own set of logic, and wondering why the Capitol doesn't simply use it's super technology to no longer require the districts is a complete and utter woosh on the world development and story at hand.

Also, the Capitol is a single large city. Surely if you took the entire coal output of, say, Pennsylvania, and used it to power a couple of coal plants, you could provide enough electricity for NYC. If not, again, Capitol super efficient power plant tech is the handwavy answer.

Tyndmyr wrote:You seriously have a couple of children who stroll into the woods, and find enough food laying about to feed their families. If this is seriously the case, the starvation premise is deeply threatened.

They're breaking the law. That's rather the point; that in order to feed themselves, they need to break the law.

Tyndmyr wrote:Uh, Rue is in the first games. She dies there. It's not really a case of "innocence preserved".

My mistake, I was thinking of Katniss' sister.
But, focusing on Rue, Katniss is taken to her because of how she reminds Katniss of her sister. Again, it's exactly a case of innocence preserved.

Tyndmyr wrote:And that's the authors choice. We don't actually see a lot because of her decisions.

Yes, that IS the authors choice. And we certainly do see a lot, and are made to understand more is going on. I'm not sure what your point is beyond 'this didn't work for me'. If you didn't find a story about a 'horrible war and the destruction of childhood innocence from the eyes of an innocent child' interesting, I suggest reading any number of other stories that follow the 'horrible war and the awesome badass soldier who fights his way through it all' story device.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11215
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:42 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Does this tech strangely not work on cows?

You're doing the incredibly unhelpful and pointless exercise of wondering why Wizards in Hogwarts don't simply make power plants that generate infinite electricity with 'Rotational Maximus!' spells. At some point in time, you have to be use your willing suspension of disbelief and recognize the story telling has it's own set of logic, and wondering why the Capitol doesn't simply use it's super technology to no longer require the districts is a complete and utter woosh on the world development and story at hand.

Also, the Capitol is a single large city. Surely if you took the entire coal output of, say, Pennsylvania, and used it to power a couple of coal plants, you could provide enough electricity for NYC. If not, again, Capitol super efficient power plant tech is the handwavy answer.


Harry Potter, while it has the occasional loophole, has a very basic world that makes sense. Wizards having a hidden world behind a normal one? Pretty reasonable. That's not usually a point of contention, but rather, somewhat more detailed plot points. A shortage of energy isn't a plot point, and they DO use magic to replace menial labor at least somewhat. It's not really a problem.

Here, the whole world has omni-tech that borders on magic, but they don't use it to replace menial labor. Or even consider or attempt it. Even when dying.

Izawwlgood wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:You seriously have a couple of children who stroll into the woods, and find enough food laying about to feed their families. If this is seriously the case, the starvation premise is deeply threatened.

They're breaking the law. That's rather the point; that in order to feed themselves, they need to break the law.


And starving people will break the law. This is pretty basic knowledge about starving people. In this world, nobody does that except the special protagonist.

Tyndmyr wrote:Uh, Rue is in the first games. She dies there. It's not really a case of "innocence preserved".

My mistake, I was thinking of Katniss' sister.
But, focusing on Rue, Katniss is taken to her because of how she reminds Katniss of her sister. Again, it's exactly a case of innocence preserved.


That doesn't explain importance. So, some people are innocent. What of it? What makes Katniss the special one of those people? Why is she the essential symbol that everyone has to die for?

Tyndmyr wrote:And that's the authors choice. We don't actually see a lot because of her decisions.

Yes, that IS the authors choice. And we certainly do see a lot, and are made to understand more is going on. I'm not sure what your point is beyond 'this didn't work for me'. If you didn't find a story about a 'horrible war and the destruction of childhood innocence from the eyes of an innocent child' interesting, I suggest reading any number of other stories that follow the 'horrible war and the awesome badass soldier who fights his way through it all' story device.


It's only one of the more basic rules of good novel writing. It's not the premise of the story, here. It's the poor writing of the story.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:39 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:And starving people will break the law. This is pretty basic knowledge about starving people. In this world, nobody does that except the special protagonist.

And all the people in the blackmarket trading warehouse in Katniss' district?

Tyndmyr wrote:That doesn't explain importance. So, some people are innocent. What of it? What makes Katniss the special one of those people? Why is she the essential symbol that everyone has to die for?

Sure it does; the games destroy innocence. Remember that whole thing at the end when they're trying to decide whether or not they should hold a games for the children of the capitol, and Katniss is all for it? The events of the series destroyed her innocence. And why is she 'essential'? She's the protagonist. Notice she doesn't have super powers of perpetual plot rescue (Harry Potter for example, is repeatedly rescued from danger 'just because'. At least Katniss is rescued by people who care about her).

Tyndmyr wrote:It's only one of the more basic rules of good novel writing. It's not the premise of the story, here. It's the poor writing of the story.

Again, if the story didn't work for you, then bummer. I rather enjoyed seeing how a war destroyed a child, and why war is so awful. I've read countless 'awesome soldier saves the day' stories, and that's rad and shit, but it's just a bunch of clever plots or military tactics or neat spy tricks. Yay. This is something different; this is showing you how the events of a paradigm change to a corrupt society affect someone who is a pawn in the events that unfold, not a master player or brilliant tactician or obnoxiously skilled warrior. Katniss is no Ender Wiggen, Johnny Rico, or Harry Potter. She's just a kid with a mildly applicable skill set and a compassionate head on her shoulders, and that's what makes her perspective so interesting.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11215
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:05 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:And starving people will break the law. This is pretty basic knowledge about starving people. In this world, nobody does that except the special protagonist.

And all the people in the blackmarket trading warehouse in Katniss' district?


Existence of a black market does not demonstrate starvation. It merely means the legitimate channels are substantially inefficient. The idea of tons of people being willing to engage in a black market, yet not wander out to pick up food instead of starving is inherently contradictory.

Tyndmyr wrote:That doesn't explain importance. So, some people are innocent. What of it? What makes Katniss the special one of those people? Why is she the essential symbol that everyone has to die for?

Sure it does; the games destroy innocence. Remember that whole thing at the end when they're trying to decide whether or not they should hold a games for the children of the capitol, and Katniss is all for it? The events of the series destroyed her innocence. And why is she 'essential'? She's the protagonist. Notice she doesn't have super powers of perpetual plot rescue (Harry Potter for example, is repeatedly rescued from danger 'just because'. At least Katniss is rescued by people who care about her).


Also, Katniss is kind of overtly not all for it. Her agreement is pretty obviously a ploy.

"she's the protagonist" is always a crappy reason for why everyone treats her as essential, too.

Additionally, the people who rescued her from Game #2 mostly ranged from hating her to not knowing her. People you've just met sacrificing their lives/friends lives for you is not normal, and kind of IS a case of plot rescue.

Tyndmyr wrote:It's only one of the more basic rules of good novel writing. It's not the premise of the story, here. It's the poor writing of the story.

Again, if the story didn't work for you, then bummer. I rather enjoyed seeing how a war destroyed a child, and why war is so awful. I've read countless 'awesome soldier saves the day' stories, and that's rad and shit, but it's just a bunch of clever plots or military tactics or neat spy tricks. Yay. This is something different; this is showing you how the events of a paradigm change to a corrupt society affect someone who is a pawn in the events that unfold, not a master player or brilliant tactician or obnoxiously skilled warrior. Katniss is no Ender Wiggen, Johnny Rico, or Harry Potter. She's just a kid with a mildly applicable skill set and a compassionate head on her shoulders, and that's what makes her perspective so interesting.


It is not merely "it didn't work for me". It's crappily written, and a poor book. It's not about the TYPE of story, it's about the execution. There are plenty of bug's eye views of war books. Some of them are even pretty fantastic, and the fact that you think this is unusual because it isn't about "awesome soldier saves the day" indicates you should probably investigate a broader range of books.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:12 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Also, Katniss is kind of overtly not all for it. Her agreement is pretty obviously a ploy.

There was some discussion about that earlier in this thread; I'm under the impression that she was rather for it, and it was not a ploy.

Tyndmyr wrote:"she's the protagonist" is always a crappy reason for why everyone treats her as essential, too.

Sure, fine, but a magical reverberating love reflected spell/scar is a legit reason to treat someone as essential?

Tyndmyr wrote:It is not merely "it didn't work for me". It's crappily written, and a poor book. It's not about the TYPE of story, it's about the execution. There are plenty of bug's eye views of war books. Some of them are even pretty fantastic, and the fact that you think this is unusual because it isn't about "awesome soldier saves the day" indicates you should probably investigate a broader range of books.

A) I disagree, and again, if you feel this way, then bummer.
B) By all means, recommend some books. I'm always looking for more solid novels. What else has been written in the style of 'not really essential child characters perspective of horrible war/world changing events'? Because I consider myself a pretty prolific reader (or was, for a while) and I haven't really read anything like the way Hunger Games treated it's protagonist.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11215
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:04 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Sure, fine, but a magical reverberating love reflected spell/scar is a legit reason to treat someone as essential?


This thread is about Hunger Games, not Harry Potter. If you dislike Harry Potter, that's perfectly fine, but I'd rather not get into a detailed comparison of that story and this...they're really not terribly similar to begin with.

A) I disagree, and again, if you feel this way, then bummer.
B) By all means, recommend some books. I'm always looking for more solid novels. What else has been written in the style of 'not really essential child characters perspective of horrible war/world changing events'? Because I consider myself a pretty prolific reader (or was, for a while) and I haven't really read anything like the way Hunger Games treated it's protagonist.


First, the protaganist was essential to the plot. Somehow. It was just never explained WHY Katniss was essential. She definitely was treated as such, though.

However, child char's perspective of war and changes that he didn't create? I'd recommend The Kite Runner. It should be exactly what you're looking for.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26169
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Hunger Games

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:28 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:This thread is about Hunger Games, not Harry Potter.

Hey.

That's my job.


Stop it.

Particularly when it's making a damn point.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11215
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:19 pm UTC

Apologies, my comment was not meant to forbid him from discussing Harry Potter...but merely to indicate that I was not particularly interested in getting into a discussion on another book. I feel the two are substantially different stories, and therefore, comparing "it's magic" and "she's important" is not likely to lead anywhere but lots of subjectivity with people finding reasons to support their own side. As evidence, I give you basically every "vs" thread the internet has ever seen. Doing that yet again is not interesting to me. Evaluating a work on it's own merits is.

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Adam H » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:30 pm UTC

I'm with Tyndmyr.
Izawwlgood wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:"she's the protagonist" is always a crappy reason for why everyone treats her as essential, too.

Sure, fine, but a magical reverberating love reflected spell/scar is a legit reason to treat someone as essential?
The answer to this question is pretty obviously yes. The other characters think Harry is "the Chosen One", which is misplaced praise but completely understandable.

Compare that to Katniss, who is a protagonist because she is a POV character, which should mean nothing to the other characters.
-Adam

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:47 pm UTC

I can keep repeating the 'She's an innocent in world of people trying to preserve innocence' but that was deemed unsufficient. Which is why I've pointed out 'chosen one due to magic reverberating love spell' and 'chick with a bow and penchant for making people crush on her' is pretty similar in the scheme of things, insofar as 'hero through no real feat of own accomplishment' is concerned for the protagonist.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Adam H » Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:05 pm UTC

Ah. I don't think protagonists have to perform feats, or anything like that. I think Katniss is a good protagonist/POV character. The problem I have is with the story - the adoration/praise/attention/reverence heaped on Katniss in books 2 and 3 isn't believable. That's not how people behave in real life. To echo Tyndmyr, why wasn't Rue a martyr that the rebels rallied around? Why wasn't Katniss's sister famous for being an innocent child risking it all as a medic? Why didn't the rebels like Peeta more than Katniss?

And this isn't that big a deal for me. I liked Hunger Games a lot as a story. This is just it's biggest flaw, IMO.
-Adam

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:51 am UTC

I think it was explained pretty well. And repeatedly, at that, as Collins was aiming for a pretty young audience and didn't really leave anything for the reader to deduce themselves. Which is why I made the comparison to Harry Potter; I like those books, but lets be honest, Harry doesn't have any skills either, nor anything HE did that really makes him a POV character. Sure, he's loyal, and compassionate, and a good friend, and he's not BAD at magic, just not great. He's almost like this symbol of the merge of the muggle and wizard world, the embodiment of how someone outside of social paradigms can rise above.

Which was my point.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
apricity
almost grown-up but not quite
Posts: 3983
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:28 am UTC
Location: Probably North Dakota or something

Re: Hunger Games

Postby apricity » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:11 am UTC

Adam H wrote:Ah. I don't think protagonists have to perform feats, or anything like that. I think Katniss is a good protagonist/POV character. The problem I have is with the story - the adoration/praise/attention/reverence heaped on Katniss in books 2 and 3 isn't believable. That's not how people behave in real life. To echo Tyndmyr, why wasn't Rue a martyr that the rebels rallied around? Why wasn't Katniss's sister famous for being an innocent child risking it all as a medic? Why didn't the rebels like Peeta more than Katniss?
I think Izzawlgood explained this well, but the whole point is that Katniss is made into the personification of the revolution - she "is" the Mockingjay because she's branded as such by Coin and the other leaders of the rebellion. She's not important at all, except that the leaders of the rebellion had been trying to find a way to get the people to rise up, and she was the first person that they could grab onto, because she's the first person who ever rebelled against the Capitol and was still allowed to live. I think this gets confusing because the people who do love Katniss, like Peeta and Cinna, try to make it sound like she's super amazing in order to inspire her, but the truth is that she's not all that special to anyone besides them. And that's also one reason why I love the books so much - too many books are about people who can do no wrong. Katniss is totally human. In that way, she's absolutely like Harry Potter - she screws up, she doesn't know what the hell she's doing and she readily admits that, and she doesn't know why people are rallying around her. The only difference is that Harry accepts it in the end, while Katniss is basically broken by all the misguided responsibilities heaped onto her.

Re: Unrealistic hunger: The whole point is that Katniss isn't currently hungry, but only because she and Gale spend literally every possible day hunting and gathering to feed their families. Gale is worse off because he has more siblings, so more people to provide for. They don't trade all their food for food - some of it is for paraffin and whatnot. And Katniss WAS desperately hungry when her father died and her mother fell into depression, until Peeta threw her the bread and then she started gathering. I know it is a little bit of telling-not-showing, but it took Katniss years to get good enough at hunting/gathering that she could provide enough for her family that they weren't hungry. It was only pretty recently (within maybe 2 or 3 years? I think Katniss says Prim was 9) that Prim got the goat, so it probably hasn't had any babies yet. If it's even legal for them to breed her.
LE4d wrote:have you considered becoming an electron

it takes just a little practice to learn to be
(she/her/hers)

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1805
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Hunger Games

Postby natraj » Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:10 am UTC

lanicita wrote:It was only pretty recently (within maybe 2 or 3 years? I think Katniss says Prim was 9) that Prim got the goat, so it probably hasn't had any babies yet. If it's even legal for them to breed her.


given that the goat is a dairy goat and is producing milk it is a pretty safe bet they have bred her at least once.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
tomandlu
Posts: 1073
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:22 am UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Hunger Games

Postby tomandlu » Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:29 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Tech levels:
Spoiler:
In the movie only, the dog-things are basically summoned from nothing. The game-makers basically have god-like power. This sort of tech level in the capital conflicts pretty heavily with the stated dependence of the capital on the districts. Even in the books, we see pretty amazing genetic engineering and so forth as pretty normal for the capital, but no evidence that they use these capabilities for say, food.



I know the bit you mean, but I think it was just bad editing, not helped by the bloody shakey-cam. The dogs came out of a hidden tunnel, but the first time you see it, it looks like they appear out of thin air. my daughter loves the books and films, so I have had the pleasure of about 6 viewings so far...

BTW the actress playing Katniss is very funny...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWhfoyuZPKM&feature=share
How can I think my way out of the problem when the problem is the way I think?

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5949
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Sprocket » Thu Apr 11, 2013 5:10 pm UTC

A friend had me watch an interview with Jennifer Lawrence from after the...academy awards was it? It was like I was watching Katniss give an interview during the Hunger Games, it was incredibly meta. Then my friend had me watch her interview on Ellen, Lawrence is so sincere and awkward, it totally fits. so Delia's some how keeps sending me Teen Vogue out of no where (they decided I ordered it...I'm 32...) and there is an interview with the guy who's playing Finnick (they made him blonde instead of a red head :-/ ) and he's talking about how great and together and talented Lawrence is, and I feel like I'm getting that perspective inside the characters heads that you don't actually get in the books, about how everyone think Katniss is so strong and capable. It's weird!
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5949
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Re: Hunger Games

Postby Sprocket » Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:02 pm UTC

Anyway, just finished the last book......... JESUS GRANDPA, WHAT DID YOU READ ME THIS FOR!?
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!

User avatar
UniqueScreenname
Something something Purple. Stop asking.
Posts: 1430
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:11 pm UTC
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Hunger Games

Postby UniqueScreenname » Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:04 pm UTC

Perfect words.
PolakoVoador wrote:Pizza is never a question, pizza is always the answer.
poxic wrote:When we're stuck, flailing, and afraid, that's usually when we're running into the limitations of our old ways of doing things. Something new is being born. Stick around and find out what it is.


Return to “Books”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests