The Hunger Games

[flipreads]

It's my pet peeve when people compare the book to Battle Royale.

Books aren't just their "concept."

And even then, Battle Royale and Hunger Games have two entirely different themes.

Battle Royale for me seemed like the preservation of innocence. Hunger Games, on the other hand, was more interested in survival, with coping, with coming to terms with the situation.

The sequels also delve into territory that Battle Royale never really tackles, such as the price of actually taking down a government, the various political machinations, etc.

Both Battle Royale and Hunger Games are valuable reads. I just think a lot of people get too attached with the elevator pitch that they don't see the important nuances and differences between the two novels.

[bill_mchale]

These books are really not about the action... at least not for me. The theme seems to be about the cost of oppression and violence to the human psyche...

--
Bill

[jhempel24]

Originally Posted by flipreads

It's my pet peeve when people compare the book to Battle Royale.

Books aren't just their "concept."

And even then, Battle Royale and Hunger Games have two entirely different themes.

Battle Royale for me seemed like the preservation of innocence. Hunger Games, on the other hand, was more interested in survival, with coping, with coming to terms with the situation.

The sequels also delve into territory that Battle Royale never really tackles, such as the price of actually taking down a government, the various political machinations, etc.

Both Battle Royale and Hunger Games are valuable reads. I just think a lot of people get too attached with the elevator pitch that they don't see the important nuances and differences between the two novels.

Actually Battle Royale is very much about government controlling things, while Hunger Games was pretty much the same thing. I'm not comparing the whole kids vs kids thing at all. I'm comparing it because to me, it was quite a bit of the same book, only Battle Royale did it better.

The sequals delved into more, that's true...the movie Battle Royale II delved into that territory though. However, I did enjoy Book II because of how it was presented...book 3 was an abomination though.

[Penforhire]

A reader whose opinion I value is telling me to read The Hunger Games. It is getting so much hype with the movie coming. I'm worried, especially since I did read Battle Royale a year or two ago. I may regret this as much as reading the Twilight series...

[jhempel24]

I promise you won't regret it as much as Twilight. LOL!

[bill_mchale]

I think the Hunger Games series very much is a question of taste. My wife and I went through the series in about a week. We enjoyed the books immensely. I am not saying people who didn't like the books are wrong (I don't need to say it ), but I am pretty sure looking at Amazon reviews, that far more people enjoyed the books than disliked them and they definitely pull a larger demographic than Twilight. These books, while containing romantic elements, are not primarily about the romance.

--
Bill

[elemenoP]

I loved Hunger Games (the first one) and I hated Twilight. The first book was a really fun read, and I found it quite fresh and original, but I never read Battle Royale. The books did go downhill after the first one.

On io9.com they did a comparison of Battle Royale and Hunger Games to try to settle this question, but it was flawed from the start, because they compared Battle Royale THE MOVIE with Hunger Games THE BOOK.

http://io9.com/5888124/did-the-hunge...-battle-royale

eP

[jhempel24]

Yeah, seems they compared book to movie....although the movie does follow so close to the book from what I remember.

There is no doubt differences, and I'll go with the term Heavily Inspired by rather than rip off...as there are different sets of themes, but I think they HAD to add some of those themes because of the target audience..which is fine....it's why I liked book 2 better.

[scrapking]

I found The Hunger Games Trilogy (that's how I read it, as a single e-book) was an enjoyable read, despite it having a few writing (and several editing) flaws:

- Book 2 near the end has a ridiculously long "tell, don't show" moment, as does the third book near the end.

- There was at least one reference to "Peacemaker", which is a simple editing error (the book has "Peacekeepers" and "Gamemakers", but no "Peacemakers").

- The first 7 chapters or so every character refers to the final meal of the day as "supper", but afterward every character suddenly starts referring to it as "dinner", and no explanation for this sudden and all-pervasive change is offered.

- The narration refers in one instance to Effie as a "sponsor" for tributes, which is potentially confusing since sponsors has another definition in the book and the editor should have removed/reworded that reference.

The situation is interesting, the books move quickly, and there are characters that I found relatable, so I forgive it for its failings.

[HarryT]

They are childrens' books, aren't they? That's not a criticism, but most of us here are probably not a part of their target audience.

[jhempel24]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They are childrens' books, aren't they? That's not a criticism, but most of us here are probably not a part of their target audience.

Young Adult and Childrens are waaaaaayyyyyy apart in my opinion.

Childrens = Sesame Street, Dr. Seuss, Dora the Explorer

Young Adult = The Chronicles of Narnia, Hunger Games, Twilight, Maximum Ride, The Hobbit

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jhempel24

Young Adult and Childrens are waaaaaayyyyyy apart in my opinion.

Childrens = Sesame Street, Dr. Seuss, Dora the Explorer

Young Adult = The Chronicles of Narnia, Hunger Games, Twilight, Maximum Ride, The Hobbit

I've always felt that "Young Adult" is a particularly meaningly phrase. If a book is aimed at 14-year-olds, then (in my view) it's a childrens' book. Let me add that I say that as a big fan of children's books. I have a large collection of turn-of-the-20th-century childrens' books: Tom Swift, Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, etc.

That's the category into which I'd place "The Hunger Games"; please do correct me if you disagree.

[jhempel24]

Oh, I'd put these far and away above the Nany Drew/Hardy Boys type of books.

I put Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew above Childrens, but a bit less than Young Adult, just my opinion though. I thought there was a "pre-teen" book category, but I'm not sure.

[Belfaborac]

Lumping Dr. Seuss and Hunger Games together in a "Children's Books" category makes for a far too large, unwieldy and inhomogeneous collection as far as I'm concerned. No self-respecting teenager would read Dr. Seuss (or at least would never, ever admit to it) and few, if any, six or seven year olds would find Hunger Games very appealing. A separate "Young Adults" or "Teenagers" category makes far more sense I think.

I enjoy the odd children's book myself every so often and find great pleasure in re-visiting Wind in the Willows or Winnie the Pooh, but I think you generally have to have progressed well into adulthood before being able to admit to such things, or to enjoy them.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I've always felt that "Young Adult" is a particularly meaningly phrase. If a book is aimed at 14-year-olds, then (in my view) it's a childrens' book. Let me add that I say that as a big fan of children's books. I have a large collection of turn-of-the-20th-century childrens' books: Tom Swift, Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, etc.

That's the category into which I'd place "The Hunger Games"; please do correct me if you disagree.

Never really read "children's books when I was growing up so i can't really judge.

Here is my opinion though. I think these books are considered "Young-Adult" books based on the age of the characters involved and based on the fact that the writing is targeted at a 9th-10th grade level (Not very meaningful IMHO since generally kids of that age are suppose to be reading adult books in HS). The subject matter however is such that I can think of quite a few books that would be emotionally easier for someone in the 14-15 year age range to deal with.

These books are violent, sometimes graphically so. Some of the characters are evil, but not of the simple sort of evil that we get in Harry Potter. I liked the books quite a lot, but I think they require more maturity of the reader than Narnia and the Hobbit do (and even more than "The Lord of the Rings").

Oh, I would also point out that I believe quite a few adults are buying and reading the books .

--
Bill