A Longer Take:
The book itself splits itself into 3 parts...and as much as I usually find that a bit unnecessary when most novels do that (for a serialization-to-novel piece a la Dickens I can understand that division, but if you're writing it whole-cloth as it is, I've just never quite gotten why, in most cases, that's really necessary) here, it's almost justified, because the book really does feel like three distinct movements:
Part 1 is, as I've already bemoaned, in my opinion, a poor man (or woman's) version of something like "1984" or "Brave New World" and "Ender's Game," and I've already said enough about that part to the point that I'll leave it be for right now...
Part 2, when Katniss gets into these games, feels a lot more like "Heart of Darkness" or "Apocalypse Now" or even, again, "Ender's Game," what with the children fighting one another and acting/thinking in a way that most might not think children/teens capable (though I'm hesitant to say that to some extent, as obviously, in this post-Columbine day and age, we as a public, I think, really DO see kids and teens as obviously more capable of this sort of savagery.) This seems to be the most popular portion of the book, and probably the most screen-adaptation-ready, and those two facts are, in all likelihood, rather connected. To the fans' credit, though, I'd agree--easily the middle is the best portion of this work, it has a FAR better pace to it than either of the other two parts; those both had sections that dragged a bit for me, especially in flashbacks, whereas here those are eschewed in favor of a far more active tone and pace as, after all, this is a girl now running for her life, so long reminiscences about an incident with her sister or mother or father or whomever long ago probably don't come as readily to mind while she's dodging fireballs and running from spear-carrying boys trying to kill her. This all gives this whole section a far more intense feel to it, and I'd argue it's probably the most engaging section, on the surface...
But that's a problem in itself--again, I'll deal with that later, but overall, this section, at least, made me want to keep listening, and I was far more invested here than I was in the other two parts.
Part 3...is "Romeo and Juliet" done in a, somehow, even MORE cliched way, with a hint of the Winston/Julia relationship in "1984" popping up, but, again, far more stale and far more poorly executed. I've already said I think that the characterization in this book, overall, is fairly good...there are some exceptions to that (again, I'll get to that, just want to outline the three sections first) that really irritated me and pulled me out of it, but for the most part, the characters in THG feel real enough...which is why I couldn't stand a lot of this section, it seemed like A LOT of what made these characters conflicted and complex through the first two sections were dropped at points to either force drama or force a resolution to that drama. As such, the romance, after the state/world itself in the book, is, in my opinion, the weakest aspect of this book--it causes otherwise-strong and pretty intelligent characters to fall completely off the wagon (that boy and that girl have to be the two densest characters in terms of sensing emotions I've read in a LONG time...anyone with a brain can see, chapters away, what he thinks of her and what she thinks of him, and yet they can't piece it together, they have two completely different ideas about the nature of how they're viewing one another? To an extent that can make sense, and even be dynamic, utilizing dramatic irony and all, but instead, we have them meet, he misjudges her reaction, she misjudges his, over and over, yet the AUDIENCE knows how they feel...not due to dramatic irony, but rather, because it's rather blindingly obvious he's into her, so to speak, and she's missing that despite him giving clue after clue after CLUE, and she's doing this just for show, at least to start, which *he* can't see despite clue after clue after CLUE...
In all, I didn't care for the romance at all...there's an attempt to give it a modernized, reality TV-layering, which is admittedly commendable and creative, but I don't think either layer really works, or at least not beyond the most superficial level...
The resolution with the Girl vs. the State was, honestly, probably the biggest disappointment of the book, because that sets itself up so PERFECTLY to be that great, transcendent moment that sets the book apart and makes the book and the State and Katniss and the work as a whole stand out from a literary perspective...
And instead, the safest of safe routes are taken...
And THEN the cliche, in-so-many-bad-Hollywood-romantic-comedies "reveal" to one another of the differences in their feelings between the boy and girl occurs, and the book essentially ends there--on a cliche, albeit with at least enough of a bittersweet end to avoid what was almost becoming a cotton candy, typical ending on the happy side, which after that much gore and unhappiness, REALLY would've been a misstep.
So those are the three parts.
And sadly, that's the book, ended without any of the greatness it might have attained, because everything is played far too conservatively here (stylistically, not politically...you can read in your own faux political message here, this is a book that, again, says it's maybe-sort-of against some aspects of some ideologies some of the time...maybe...if that won't offend it's base or go over its head...about the only consistent "political message" we get in the work is "Absolute control of people is really, really not a cool thing, and it's pretty bad," which I'd imagine any teen intelligent enough to read this book would somehow--shocker--have already pieced together on his or her own.)
We don't get O'Brien or Goldstein or Winston giving the twisted rationale BEHIND such authoritarian rule, which is sorely needed to flesh out the drama and setting.
Katinss doesn't give that much thought before, during, or after THG, and neither does anyone else--we're told this is a controlling, bad government that somehow sprung up out of the ashes of North America, somehow got the population down from 400 million or so to a few hundred thousands, and that rebellion led to a quashed District and these games. Other than that--we don't get much, and what's worse, we don't get WHY the state acts the way it does...just having a big, bad state be...well, the big, bad state lacks depth and dramatic potential, it doesn't seem as real or scary, for that matter--when we hear O'Brien explain that the State essentially wants people to believe 2+2=5 and, through exercising absolute control over the mind, and believing the mind to be the key to human existence, to thereby essentially rule as a sort of God over human existence, we get a sort of chill, almost, because not only is that a genuine philosophical nightmare and puzzle all at once, it's also an interesting and very egoistic and even human answer...it isn't just "We're bad because we can be," it's "There's no such thing as good and bad, human's invent that, so control the invention of morality and language and history, and you control humanity, and become immortal, in a sense." When we hear the tour guide at the beginning of "Brave New World" reveal to the students--and audience--the alleged positives of a world with totally-cloned people and eugenics governing who you are for your whole life, and that the reasoning behind THAT is that diversity means diversity of opinion which means conflict, which this conformist State sees as upsetting to harmony, and...they're right, it does upset harmony, and that revelation, and the fact that they want order and harmony and will give up all freedoms to obtain it says something profound about this state, and says something rather frightening about humanity...possibly because, well, to some extent, we all know that this COULD happen, we see people willing to give up freedoms for order throughout history, and even today, we do it out of a fear for our survival and our desire for security.
THG has none of that--Panem has no depth as an "evil" government beyond...being and evil government.
And that's a SHAME, and a missed opportunity, because it takes away from the main character as well--
With "1984," it's Winston Smith and Julia as agents of not just individuality, but, in a sense, reality and truth as we'd like it to be, that is, real--Winston really DOES want to have 2+2=4 because that's real and NOT have it be 2+2=5 because someone said so, he says that if you can have 2+2=4, all else falls into place and free assertions and thoughts can occur, because then there is something objective BESIDES just whatever a human being is told or believes.
Winston vs. Oceania, thus, becomes a manifestation of the fight between some of the most difficult and complex and almost intimidatingly-imposing questions in philosophy.
Katniss vs. Panem...is a good girl vs. an evil government.
Not nearly the same level of depth, then, for Panem OR Katniss--where Winston and Julia are in part defined by what they oppose, so too is Katniss...but as all she's really opposing is 1. Getting killed and 2. This evil government, she feels flatter, and less developed.
For that matter, that's another missed opportunity--she DOESN'T directly take on the government...she has that opportunity at the end, to say why she made her defiant stand in the arena against the rules and Games...but she takes the safe route, and so does Suzanne Collins, at the same time.
If we're going to be fair, Katniss really DIDN'T perhaps intend defiance, she was just looking for an out...
But that itself is another area that the book misses an opportunity for a difficult path taken and instead takes the easy one--
So they have that rule change that two can win as a team, and then change it back to try and get Katniss and Peeta (aka "Sir Ireallydonthaveaclueshesnotintome") to fight.
OK, that's actually a nice twist, and raises a huge dramatic potential...
What do you do now, if you're these characters?
Does the boy, loving the girl for real, offer himself up so she can live?
Does the girl, not wanting to be a killer, offer herself up to save him?
Do they both die together, a la Romeo and Juliet, with that same impact upon their society (ie, the Montagues and Capulets make peace after their death, so perhaps their playing martyr is a call to arms amongst their fellow youths, in the Districts and Capitol, who clearly care enough about them that the State switched the rule to allow team wins and then clearly presented such a danger of being angered by both dying that the State reneged on their switch back, forcing the State to look somewhat humiliated rather than anger the populace to that extent?)
NO.
They both get to live after a last-second reprieve from the governor (almost literally.)
What's worse, they're ABOUT to take the berries and die together...and then they just drop the idea.
Now, it can be argued "Well, Katniss only used that idea to try and beat the unbeatale scenario...she was cheating, a la Captain Kirk with the Kobayashi Maru test, because we know how much you love Star Trek, Obi."
And there is some truth there, and that's a valid point--mine is that it doesn't have nearly the sort of dramatic effect of the others, and feels far more like the protagonists lucking out through the author's not wanting to upset a potential teen fan base (and, obviously, if the kids are dead, that might not mean more books, and thus, more money and movie deals and talk show appearances and T-shirts and so on.)
That sentiment, however, depends on the idea of this being a satire of reality TV.
Again, I think this fails to hit on all cylinders as well, and, again, it's a missed an opportunity.
Reality TV contestants generally are...well, people who VOLUNTARILY go through humiliating and even painful ordeals for a tawdry payoff of attention and the hope of cash.
The kids aren't entering this voluntarily...or, to be more precise, Katniss volunteers, but only to save her 12-year old sister, "attendance is mandatory" still, so to speak, people are still forced to play these games.
Then there's the audience reaction, and here, there's a difference in perception--
Some argue that it's the Capitol, mainly, who is the target audience (not counting the worried people back home)...
Some argue it's the whole country.
If it's the former, and there's that much possibility of such visceral discontent at the idea of these Hunger Games ending in a way the audience doesn't agree with, if Katniss and Peeta are that much of a draw and the people pose such a threat to the government if offended that the possibility of ending the Games with both dying is out of the question for the State...
How is this nation so powerful, if people in it's Capitol are ready to pose a danger to the government over a TV show, and as the rest of the novel poses a very rigid, District residents oppressed/good, Capitol fops and socialites oppressing/bad...how are these Capitol citizens the insensitive "bad guys" if they're essentially the ones all but demanding these two, our protagonists, live?
And if it's the LATTER, and it's the whole Country (and as Katniss gets a sent from another District, clearly, it seems, everyone is watching and involved emotionally here, so this is the one I'd lean towards) wants them alive, and the State caves to the will of the people expressed thusly...
Again--HOW do they not have the emotion and energy and boiling sentiments for a revolt of some kind, if they're perceived as so dangerous they might potentially riot over the outcome of a TV show the State puts on? HOW are the put down to the point of folding?
The romance itself is cliche...but what's worse is this, again, is ANOTHER missed opportunity, because this is reality TV--it could've been played off as cliche to that end ON PURPOSE, and fit perfectly, and THERE it could have really delivered some scathing criticism of the medium the book and its proponents claim it's criticizing.
But we get only "half" that, as there's a real romance as well...which itself is fine, you start with the relationship made up, and it becomes real over time, plenty of works from "The Taming of the Shrew" to "Pygmalion" and so on work off that idea, it's an old idea, but a good one, and it could have worked...
Except the real romance is as cliche as the intentionally-cliche, intentionally-put-on romance, so essentially, we have a poor writer of romance satirizing poor depictions of romance...and, again, like so much of Act 3, it only works just enough for me to call it "OK," but fails, despite every opportunity, to rise and really become something of a special moment.
The most enjoyable moments are in Act 2...and that's the best-written portion of the work...
But sadly, it's also the least-ambitious thematically and otherwise; Act 1 gives us our view of this society and these characters and tries to set things up there, and Act 3 tries to have both a romance plot (two, if you count the real and fake ones separately) as well as a commentary on what we've just seen, as well as an attempt to explore the two characters engaged in the romance.
Act 2 almost can be summed up by the Doctor Who line:
"Basically--run."
And in all fairness, again...it's entertaining, but that's it. There's no real meat to that portion thematically, aside from something of a look at the human will to survive and savagery and how those interplay...but that's not exactly new, and this doesn't bring up anything "Heart of Darkness," "The Most Dangerous Game," and other such works do already, and almost always with more depth.
What's more, for as much as we're told that this is a simply awful thing, these kids killing one another...with a few notable exceptions, the deaths are either just passed over, early on, and treated as a matter of fact to be reported, or else, in some cases, are treated as actual triumphs...and it's here that the characterization runs into something of a snag. With most of the opposition so basically-defined, if defined at all, Collins relies more on stereotypes cliched tricks towards cheap pathos and anger and sadness to try and reel the audience in emotionally, while by contrast, before the games, even secondary characters were given some level of depth to them; once we get to the arena, with a few exceptions, the kids are either just "opponents" or "bad guys," full stop, with no depth to them. To compare to "Ender's Game," obviously the Wiggin children all have a great deal of depth before Ender leaves, but once he does, and he's with children in their world on the station, the new children retain that same level of depth...
Bonzo is not simply "the bad kid," he does what he does for a reason, and Scott Card even goes out of his way to suggest that he's felled as much by his pride as he is by Ender.
Compare with the character "Clove" from THG--here only trait is that she's a sadistic knife-wielding antagonist who wants to be sadistic and not only kill but to kill slowly and tortuously because...
She's an antagonist. She has no reason given, not even that token mentions of "family pressure" and "pride" Bonzo gets, so he's not just a sadistic monster of a child, but a kid pressured to always win and who cannot stomach being shown up in his own mind, and so dies because he takes that obsession too far.
This Clove girl tortures a 12-year old girl...and then selects a knife, puts it to Katniss' mouth, and is about ready to break into her best "You wanna know how I got these scars...why so serious?!" impression before a lukcy break occurs for Katniss and she's saved from this girl's slow taunting and slower slicing up and mutilating of her face.
And she does that because...she's the bad girl, and we need to manufacture a sense of tension and drama and pathos towards Katniss.
It's not the logical choice--this isn't just a kill-and-go, as has been the norm so far in this arena of death, because if you stay in place too long, chances are, you die by another's hand (and guess what happens to this Clover girl?!) and she hasn't really had a personal reason for this sort of vendetta against Katniss...so...?
The person who saves Katniss from this person, then, does so because he, apparently, was outraged that this Clove psychopath killed that 12-year old so horribly, and fairly so, except then, in order to "make things even," he spares Katniss' life?
There's an explanation given--Katniss was friends with the 12-year old and now this boy's District likes her, so obviously, killing her might be an unpopular choice...except, those are the rules of the game, he'll have to eventually anyway, and in any case, he's from that District, so after losing the 12-year old, wouldn't they hold out hope, at least, their other candidate can win?
It's a reason given, but not one that wholly works...but Collins needs it to work, otherwise, logically, her heroine is dead as dirt.
Such is the reason, I suspect, for the sudden lapse in characterization and development of most of the non-Katniss/Peeta teens in the arena:
The more ill-defined they are, the easier they can be made to dance like puppets to avoid or fill in potential plot holes or serve as a means to give Katniss another shot at lif (which she clearly needs, as this is someone who, apparently, is a great hunter and a strong person...but constantly needs lucky breaks and to be saved by this fellow or Peeta or others taking deaths intended for her and so on...she helps others, so at least it is a two-way street somewhat, but still, when she escapes danger by what appears luck for the umpteenth time, it not only ruins the drama to an extent--why threaten to kill her part way through anyway, it's clear the author'd never do that to her star that early, so we as an audience know it'll fail, so why pull that trite attempt at a lucky twist at all?--but makes our protagonist look weaker...
Which, in turn, is an opportunity for her strength to be further shown missed (not to mention the fact it hurts the feminist, women-can-be-strong-too aspect of this work when said woman is often saved by one man or another from a situation...)
Which is the tone for this book...which, again, I DO think is at least decent, for teens...
I'm just hard on it because, honestly, upon reading it, I can't believe the amount of cop outs and missed opportunities...at every juncture where a choice can be made between easy/will please target audience for sure and more difficult/might be challenging for fan base but could enrich the story's theme and message and tone and characters...
Every time, the easy road wins out, and it shows--it's still a digestible meal of a story, but Collin's over and under-cooking of the story's dilemmas leaves it far from the gourmet table.
(Also--I GET it's supposed to have a connection to Rome...do we NEED every last government official/media personality/many antagonists named after a famous Roman? Caesar, Claudius, Cato, Titus, Flavius, Octavius...just off the top of my head, plenty more...really? WE GET IT, Rome, got it...! Just saying.) ;)
POST YOUR CHEATING ACCUSATIONS HERE
)
)
)
)
)