+272 You have a feeling that the Hunger Games is going be like another Twilight. Everyone is going to like it at first and when everybody gets too obsessed, everyone is going to start hating it, amirite?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But then again, that's how it always is. And if they don't start hating on it, after a while, they'll get bored of it. Then, if you don't hate it and don't get bored of it, then you're a true fan.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Or it could be another Harry Potter. Everyone loves it and never stops obsessing over it. Ever.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Or perhaps it won't reach Harry Potter standards, resulting in everyone being disappointed in it, which in turn would cause them to dislike it because it's not another Harry Potter per se. But your idea works too.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I already feel that way about it, although I disliked it before it was popular as well. Anti-hipster?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Although unlike Twilight, the Hunger Games is actually well-written and diverse, so I think iceeselena up there has the right of it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What do you mean by diverse?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Rue is black.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

How does that make a series any better?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It was a joke.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Ah, my mistake. I thought you were actually answering my question.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

*reminds self that other people can't read my mind* No, I meant plot and content-wise. It seems Twilight just keeps going back to the whole love triangle thing and that's what a lot of the story looks like it's based off of. THG does have that awkward little love triangle too, but the story doesn't center around it. The main characters shift and change and there are real social issues being addressed. Also there is one main goal in THG that most of the mains want, and I didn't see that main theme in Twilight.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No it can't be just like Twilight. No one liked Twilight at first.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

My friends did, but we were thirteen. The Hunger games is popular with many different age groups.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Or there will be the psycho fans that make everyone who likes the hunger games look like idiots

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Every fanbase has those, unfortunately. It's just a matter of how many...... this coming movie has the potential to create a freaking army of them /:

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That's what will probably happen. The same happened with twilight. I liked the books, then everyone went crazy over the movies, so anyone who says they like the series is shunned. The movie for THG is going to be terrible, and the same thing will happen.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't think it'll become as infamous as Twilight or as loved as Harry Potter, really. Those are two extremes. Although I've been a fan of the books for quite a while, I don't really think the series has that kind of "blow up" potential. Not to mention, the movie trailer seems kind of "meh" at the moment. I feel as if it'll just end up being another series that was pretty good but people eventually forgot about it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

-Likable, strong(ish) female main character -Convincing story universe -Good enough writing -Actual bad guys -Actual conflict -Actual plot These are all things that the Hunger Games has and Twilight does not. I mean, it's definitely no Harry Potter and I don't know if anyone will care about it in 10 years, but it's streets ahead of Twilight.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Katniss is likeable? I mean, regardless of your thoughts on Bella, she wasn't THAT bad a heroine, unless you think every female portrayal of a fictional character has to be strong or the novel's sexist, but Katniss is a cold fucking bitch, and I hated her during almost the entire book. I don't understand how the story universe is convincing, either. There's almost no context given to the story which seems to exist solely to attempt to justify the angst of the main characters. Writing's subjective and since you've mentioned Harry Potter as a wonderful series I won't criticize the writing in this book since it's probably better than that of HP. If you wouldn't mind I'd like you to elaborate on the last three points, since bad guys aren't a requisite of any novel and don't figure in probably a majority of the greatest literary works, conflict doesn't have to be tangible to be real, and I don't understand at all what you would consider an 'actual' plot.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

-Katniss is likable in the sense that you actually want her to win, even if she is cold, whereas Bella was a whiny bitch who's only complaint seems to be that the two boys fighting over her are TOO beautiful. I think that Bella was a terrible heroine, considering that she was uninvolved in most of the action in the books and let her boyfriend fight for her -The universe is convincing because once the author establishes it, it stays constant. In twilight, there were all these rules that Meyer established about vampires that went out the window and only came back when it was convenient for the story. -I'm not going to say the writing in this (or Harry Potter) was remarkable, but it's not bad enough to distract from the story (*Twilight) -I realize that you don't have to have "bad guys" to be a good work of literature, but I was more using that as a dig at Twilight. It kind of feeds into the no conflict thing-Meyer spent 4 books pretending that there was conflict (not necessarily physical or tangible, I know) and bad guys to be afraid of, and in the end was just like "LOLJK they're gonna let them go everyone lives" -I'm not sure what a real plot looks like, but it's not Twilight

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I can't say I completely wanted Katniss to win, since considering how little we know about the other contestants, it's entirely possible that they're better people than Katniss. I actually thought the idea of a 'heroine', or main character to be more accurate, who sits out the battle and doesn't fight. I didn't particularly enjoy Twilight, but I could feel more empathy for Bella than for Katniss much of the time and she's probably closer to the teenage reality than Katniss is. They both end up stringing two boys along for much of the series anyways. I'm not sure what you're referring to with inconsistencies, although I have some issues with parts of The Hunger Games which are probably exclusive to me. Again, writing is subjective and I would have lumped all 3 into the same level of writing. They were able to solve their conflict amiably, all this says to me is that the characters are more reasonable than previously thought. The vampires might not have been as large a threat as we were led to believe, but exaggerating the size of the enemy is something most people would do adding to the believability of the characters. I don't even know what to say to your last point.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Maybe it's because I'm such a big reader, but I could never understand people who didn't like the main character of books. It seems like you're either just being disagreeable to be disagreeable or you read the books for a reason other than to hear a story about the main character(s). Also, which "they"do you mean in "they were able to solve their conflict amiably"? If you mean the vampires, then would you rather have a butterflies and kittens book where stuff like that is euphemized? Or would you rather read a book that's true-to-life and can be related to stuff that's happening today. And to "I don't understand how the story universe is convincing, either. There's almost no context given to the story which seems to exist solely to attempt to justify the angst of the main characters." /Generally/ it's the other way around, actually...that is, authors want to write a certain kind of universe (future dystopia) and not a certain kind of character (angsty). The kind of characters that go with a future dystopia, though, are obviously kind of angsty, and how could they not be? I know I'm not going to get you to magically abandon your arguments and agree with us, but I can try.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I read the books because I was told by my friends that they were good. Typically I stay away from young adult fiction because I find adult fiction has better portrayals of young adults. There are exceptions but this wasn't one of them, because this is probably the only novel I've ever finished where I felt contempt for the main character. I do mean the vampires, yes. I've never understood why people had such a problem with a non-violent conflict. Plenty of wonderful books have less violence than the series. The idea of exaggerating the strength and viciousness of the foes is interesting to me because it's something that happens very often in real life but it doesn't happen often in books. And I agree that generally it's the other way around, but I felt that in the Hunger Games the world existed to justify the angst of the characters and not the other way around. I felt that the world was extremely contrived, much like how I felt about Harry Potter, unlike certain other dystopian novels like 1984 or Brave New World or The Road etc I don't have a problem with angst, I have a problem with badly written angst expressed by characters who bore me. I think that given the righ

by Anonymous 12 years ago

t expression, characters can portray angst very well in a fashion that is relatable and redeeming. In the Hunger Games, I didn't think it was.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I can elaborate on my last point if you want. I would have originally but I ran out of room. From what I've been taught, I understand that a plot has a beginning, rising action, climax, and resolution. In most good stories, you have a relatively short beginning to establish things like setting and character, rising action that takes up a good amount of the book to build tension, a climax in which the major conflicts are dealt with, and a short resolution to tie up any loose ends. Huger Games follows that structure. Twilight doesn't. We spend a good 60% of the book learning about the characters and world they live in. Then we get a comparatively brief period of rising action that leads to a climax that the 'heroine' is unconscious for half of. The resolution is fine. I'm not saying that a book needs to follow that structure to be a good book, but if it doesn't, the author needs to make sure that whatever structure they're using works. I thought the way Twilight was structured made it boring, since nothing really happens until more than halfway through the book. So I guess I misspoke when I said it doesn't have a real plot. It just has a boring one.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What makes a plot boring? Many of my favorite books spend more than that introducing characters and context. Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, for example, spends a good deal of time introducing the premise before setting events in motion.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I haven't read that, but I just looked it up and it seems like the author gets a lot of praise for her writing style. Again, I haven't read it, but I think that good writing can keep things interesting if nothing else is happening. Another example of that is The Sun Also Rises, which has almost no plot, but is a good read because of the way Hemingway writes. We've already established the fact that neither Suzanne Collins or Stephanie Meyer are a particularly great writer, so I think they should probably stick to the formula if they can't make up for it in other areas. Then again, we might just have totally different ideas about what makes a good book, which is fine too.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrel has an interesting premise with interesting characters and takes place in a great period. Twilight is a fluffy romance with plot thrown in at the end and very limited characters personality wise. There isn't anything wrong with that, but it's not interesting; it's for butterflies and romance. The Hunger Games at least makes people question where our society is, what people will do for entertainment, superficiality, etc.. The setting is also fun to read about It's not literature, but it is a bit more of an interesting read.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm not sure if I would say the characters and premise would be interesting to those familiar with Harry Potter magic which is more immediately rewarding on a more basic level. I personally prefer the more complex spells but I'm doubt that would be the general consensus. In any case, I'm not defending twilight as fine writing, I just don't see what makes The Hunger Games or Harry Potter or any of those kinds of books any better. I don't think the writing or setting is anywhere near specific enough to incite the sort of questions that a more completely realized (in the sense of realized by the author) dystopia might have provoked. The idea of entertainment as fear and the superficiality are explored by Battle Royale, a novel which has a virtually identical plot but which was released before. Honestly, I can't find most young adult fiction interesting because nothing in the stories feels complete to me.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What's Hunger Games?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I still have no idea what the Hunger Games are. The only time I hear people talk about it is when they talk about how everyone is talking about it. I never hear its actual content mentioned!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=The+hunger+games

by Anonymous 12 years ago

This calls for drastic measures. What you need to do, Chou, to find the most wonderfully stated, complete answer to your question, is READ the BOOKS. I know it's scary. But try it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago