Some of you aren't going to like this perspective on The Hunger Games, but I'm going to share it anyway.
Why I Don't Like Hunger Games
I think the author is a little harsh, but she does have some valid points. Even if you are a Hunger Games groupie, do you see a point in anything she has to say?
Comment away.
Isabella Bishop, Period 3
ReplyDeleteI see NO point it what she is saying!! For example, number two on her list is: The Hunger Games makes no sense. She goes on to say that it makes no sense because people don't try to resist the Capitol and the Hunger Games and she doesn't understand why the Games were set up. Um, HELLO? I thought it was pretty clearly stated throughout the book! People don't resist the Capitol because anytime they do the rebellion is quickly and quietly killed. The Hunger Games is played to remind citizens who is in control of their world and their lives. Another example is number six: Katniss has no problem with murder. So, I guess those crazy nightmares where just a ploy to get attention right? Wrong, she has those nightmares because she is traumatized by what happened in the arena and horrified by what she had to do to survive. Also, sitting down and not fighting doesn't really work. Remember the fire? The Capitol will do whatever it has to in order to get an interesting Hunger Games. They would probably kill their families if the tributes refused to fight. Don't forget that to the Career Tributes either, winning was everything. They were taught that going into the Games was an honor and that winning would bring great pride to their district and their families.
Sam Moon, Period 3
ReplyDeleteShe has a point. Reason one on every anti-Hunger Games list is Katniss's personality. A person who was starved for her entire life throws away a rare treat from the same person who saved her life just for self-satisfaction? I don't really think any Hunger Games fan ever actually considered what the author of the blog was saying... but seeing everything pointed out right there puts a different perspective on the Hunger Games.
The survival thing for Katniss was a very invalid point. There are salts and chemicals in urine that the body wants to release... and drinking urine would just put those chemicals back into the body.
Yes, and the point about the districts was very true. There are other ways to resist the Capitol other than macho swordfighting rebellions or massive bomb attacks. The maltreated districts could simply just refuse to stop production of whatever good it is the Capitol so desires. Resetting everything would cause huge setbacks in the economy. It worked for Henry David Thoreau and Gandhi... if one person could effect such a change in government and society, what would happen if millions of people tried that?
And the nonviolent sit-out would have been effective as well. As stated before, even if the tributes were all decimated by some random explosion, it would send a very clear message to the Capitol that they were unwilling to commit their lives to the murder of other children.
And the author is right. The stylists broke down into tears when Katniss went into the arena again. If the Tributes said something like actual children, maybe that would actually stir people into support of them instead of sending in weapons for more entertaining murder, or medicine to keep them healthy like "pigs raised to be slaughtered".
The sexism is also a valid point as well.
The characters think more like out of someone from a Japanese shonen comic book. There, their "only" options are to kill or be killed, eat or be eaten. The author wrote the comics for the sole purpose of entertaining people and no matter how irrational the battle gets, the fans lap it up. This book was written to entertain in several ways, but especially in suspense... and that is exactly where every single fighting book or comic goes wrong.
Sabrina Rutner/Period 2
ReplyDeleteWhat she is thinking might make sense for someone who didn't really understand what kind of country Panem was. The Capitol had the most advanced technology while it seemed that some of the districts lived in a third world country, of course they would be afraid! They aren't going to rebel against the Capitol and risk killing thousands of lives while they could just sacrifice two and sometimes one child a year. She also says that the districts had no fear or real emotions when the games came around but that they never rebelled. Did it ever come to the authors mind that maybe they didn't rebel BECAUSE they were afraid? She says that Katniss is spoiled but yet the 16 year old girl had to save her family from a young age of 12. The girl risks her life on a daily bases to go out into the forest and hunt to feed her younger sister and her distressed mother. She also states that Katniss has no sympathy for murder. Of course she does! The only reason the author thinks like this is because there is no annual match held in the US that kills 24 teens. When you live in a world that this happens every year for the past 74 years then you would tend to think less of it. Obviously she spent no real time in getting into the book and the lives they lived
Luis Ventura/ period 4
ReplyDelete-_- Searching for things that are not there.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJordan Press
ReplyDeletePeriod 5
I think that the review was excellent. The author clearly characterized Katniss (and in all honesty, it's 100% true what the author said when you sit down and think about it). I still like the Hunger Games Series, but I'm not just going to bandwagon like most other people, and claim that the review is horrible because I like the series.
I'm going to break this up into parts based off of the review so that I'm not just jumping all over the place.
1) I completely agree with this point. It makes little to no sense that each district only has one thing it's responsible for. For example, let's take District 4 for example. District 4's job is to fish. Let's just ignore the fact that most of the people in the Districts wouldn't even have the money to pay for fish in the first place for a bit. Considering that fish isn't exactly an important resource, why not just make District 4 also be dedicated to food? Seriously, it has to get boring doing the same exact thing every day. Why not have District 4 also farm animals, or as the author of the review states, grow some crops that wouldn't be able to grow in the climate of District 11. After all, the book does take place in the post-apoptalictic United States. Last time I checked oranges won't be growing in New York, or something ridiculous like that. DIFFERENT places have DIFFERENT climates, where DIFFERENT things tend to grow.
I kind or disagree with the section about public schools, but it does come off as a bit odd to me, that somehow Katniss is able to outsmart, and out-manuever the other tributes, when she comes from the poorest district, and someone like Cato from district 2, should have far more wits than her, especially after the so-called training process, or as I would like to say, a process of training for your own demise.
2) Again, I completely agree with this point. Why not just revolt if your all being treated like garbage anyways? If your child was being called out as a human sacrifice, would ANYONE in their right minds condone it? Not in this world. Also, as the author of the article states, if District 11 just decided to stop whatever they were doing, then they could just stop food from going to the capital. It's a simple solution, but instead we get an over-complicated story (for the reader's pleasure. Obviously, a fight to the death is more entertaining than people refusing to farm.)
3) I kind of agree with this one, but not entirely. There has to be an upper class in every society. The economy isn't in the best shape today, but guess what? We still have an upper class, who could afford almost everything; however, I still have to agree with the author that your everyday citizen isn't going to be ordering a cake at a bakery for any occasion. I also agree, that it's a bit ridiculous that Thresh can somehow be the largest tribute in the games, when he's part of one of the poorest/weakest districts. Even if he does come from the district where the only farms in the country exist, he still shouldn't be that well fed in this kind of post-apoptalictic society.
I didn't realize how much I was writing, so i had to split it into multiple posts! Sorry!
4) Again, I kind of agree with this one. Katniss can't keep everything to herself and her family, she needs money for other things too. (You can't find everything by illegally hunting in the woods.) I don't care how mad you are, but if you're deprived as much as the people in this book, you should NEVER waste food. At a certain point it becomes about survival, rather than disgust.
ReplyDeleteAnd then the career tributes: What are they even thinking? They actually agreed to be raised as human sacrifices, knowing that they would most likely die in the arena. I find this not only disgusting, but completely idiotic. Although they were probably either forced into being a "career" or tricked into doing it, I honestly doubt that anyone is that suicidal/idiotic at the age of which they begin training. Seriously. They're training to be killers, knowing that they will be killed. Am I the only one who see's an issue here?
5) I do not have much to say about this one, but I do think Katniss is way too judgmental in the book, when she's supposed to be coming off as this "hero" who saves the country. How can you save the country if you don't like, nor trust anybody there? It makes absolutely no sense. And really, at the beginning of the book she absolutely hates Peeta for no reason at all, and then she falls in LOVE with him? This is ridiculous. By the way, I wouldn't exactly call sponsorships a reason for falling in love.
6) I basically responded to this one in the previous one.
6 (2) What kind of protagonist has no issue in killing a person who has done nothing wrong? Sure, I understand killing the boy from District 1 after he killed Rue, but honestly, how does she just move on in her life knowing that she's the one responsible for 22 deaths? It's kind of sickening now that I think about it. The book gives the image to the reader that "murder can be okay." Is this the kind of message we want to be sending to our youth?
7) Agreed. Every single person in the book is just a follower. There is not a single moment in this book that Katniss chose to complete herself. (And don't say volunteering for your weak, younger sister is an act she chose to do on her own, because I'm sure that we all would have done the same exact thing.) Her romance with Peeta? Forced by Haymitch to get sponsors. Almost committing suicide? A result of being forced into a romance with Peeta for sponsors. Shooting at the game makers? It's clear from the beginning of the book that Katniss has a temper issue, and if I recall correctly she regretted that decision, because even she knew that it was stupid.
8) The only thing I agree with on this one is the fact that Katniss killed three people, but she can't stand the sight of blood? Makes no sense.
I used to only think positive things about the Hunger Games, but this review opened up my eyes, and my mind. I'm still a huge fan, but after reading this review, I do have to agree that the Hunger Games is not as logical as I thought it was.
Jacob C. Period 3
ReplyDeleteI thought that the review was too in-depth for a children's book. Suzanne Collins just needed to write a suspenseful plot with a suprise ending and include unique, rebellious characters. This creates rave reviews among the youth. They will talk about the plot and their favortie characters. They will yell at each other for spoiling the ending. These rave review will either attract adults into being "young" orfool adults into liking the book. There really is no message of the book other than be rebellious and stand up for yourself. Teenagers don't need any more of that behavior. I read "The Hunger Games" series. I hated them. I know hate is a strong word. That is the end of my literature-related rant. DA BEARS!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XX
Sam Howard/ Period 4
ReplyDeleteTo make it short and simple, I see no point in what she has to say. I think this because she is a little sexist, does not make any sense and is not logical, and is very harsh. It doesn't make sense when the starving kids from the districts weigh unusually high for a starved child and they would not be able to sustain a normal life of live. To add, I don't understand that katniss does not like the sight of blood, yet she still murdered/ killed numerous people from many districts.
Sam Howard
Period 4
These are corrections to my first blog. Sorry.Does not make any sense, not logical, and is very harsh. *** correction of 2nd sentence in the middle. It doesn't make sense when the starving children weigh unusually high for a starved child. They would not be able to live or sustain a life. I forgot to capitalize Katniss in the last sentence. Sorry for all of my corrections that I forgot to fix. :/
DeleteSam Howard
Period 4
Brynn Furey- P. 4
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jacob. The critique is harsh for a children's book. I thought the story line was great, and I really liked reading "The Hunger Games." On the contrary, I completely agree with everything she is saying. I've actually discussed the setting with a few friends on different occasions. It's hard to believe that these people would allow the Capitol to rule over them so horribly for 74 years before anyone did anything. It's a bit ridiculous. Another thing I agree with completely is her view of Katniss. I can't stand Katniss. I can't even put my dislike for her into words. I don't understand why Peeta falls in love with her. He's such a nice person, and she thinks she's so misunderstood. All she does is complain.
Annika R, pd5
ReplyDeleteI can understand the point the author is trying to make; however, I strongly disagree with the reasoning. The author of the Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins, developed a captivating story/plot that would attract numerous readers. The author of the review stated that "anything, murdering two children per year ought to galvanize at least some of the people--survivors of the Games, relatives and friends of children lost in the Games, etc, etc. Suzanne Collins apparently knows very little of human nature, because there is no real force of resistance ever mentioned in the book. Petty rule breaking, sure, but only by the main character and her friend, and even that is only so the author can prove she's a superspeshulawesome hunter." The author of this review clearly misunderstood the genre of "fantasy." Numerous outstanding works of literature like the Harry Potter Series, The Twilight Saga, The Wizard of Oz, and Alice in Wonderland all depict the results of imagination and creativity. The Hunger Games is clearly part of a different world, so for the author to make such a statement is ridiculous. Otherwise, I understand the author's feelings towards the book, but her thought were poorly expressed.