I just finished the first book in Suzanne Collins' trilogy, The Hunger Games, and I found it an exciting book for the world it creates and the constant cliff hanging action. I had received a Kindle edition of The Hunger Games as a prize in a blog contest. The next installment in the trilogy is Catching Fire. Of course I wanted to read that next but I confess not bad enough to pay for it. I recently have found a useful no cost web page Lendle that connects lenders and borrows of Kindle editions. It allows you to request books so I requested the two next books in the trilogy. I was offered the loan of the last book in the trilogy, Mockingjay, so I accepted it. I read the summaries of book two and I think I am missing a lot but the loan is only for a short time so I read the last book before the middle one.
What I liked best about The Hunger Games was the very interesting details about the world Collins has created. It really is quite an interesting alternative account of the future of North America after an apocalyptic war. I sadly found Mockingjay a let down. I freely admit maybe I would not feel this way if I had read book two before book three but I did read several posts on the middle book so I at least knew the basic plot action.
My biggest complaint is on the development of the characters. I did not find the romances of much interest and I was not moved by the use of the central character as a rallying point person. A lot of the book was about a war and I felt this went on too long. I began to speed read the book at about the midpoint. I would still like to read part two, Catching Fire, but only if I can get it as a free loaner. I will for sure see the movie in May. This book is also of interest to me just because it is so huge in the book blog world. The whole trilogy is all over the book stores of Manila. It is a quick easy read aimed at the young adult market.
Is Catching Fire more about the world of the districts than Mockingjay? Is it a better book? Did I short change this trilogy by my out of order read?
I still have a request in for a loan of this book so if I get a copy, I will read and post on it.
Mel u
4 comments:
Mel u,
I read the first book, _The Hunger Games_ for an SF book group, and found it interesting, a fast read.
But, I really didn't find it sufficiently interesting to read the second one in the series.
Parrish Lantern. Thanks as always for your comments
Fred. I admit freely i red the two book in the series partly to see why they were so popular and prartilly because I got them for free.
I enjoyed the trilogy when I read it a few and was actually pretty excited about it...and now I'm fuzzy on the plot details. For better or worse, it's a YA blockbuster series, which pretty much amounts to mind candy: Fun in small doses, but not that fulfilling overall....and when was the last time you spent days raving about that amazing soda you had?
As far as missing out by not reading the second book? I think you may have, because it was the transition between what happened in the first book and what happened in the third book. There was a lot that showed exactly how manipulative the government was and it revealed what had happened in previous games, plus it introduced quite a few characters only to have them die horribly...which laid the groundwork for the events in the last book. So I suppose you might have been slightly more emotionally invested in the events of the third book after the second?
I'm not sure. I bought the first book because someone recommended it to me and read the last one because I was able to get free copies at the library. I think I was slightly more impressed with the first book because I went into it with no expectations. If I had picked it up now after reading all the hype, I'd probably be less impressed. And, as I said, even though I was pretty excited while I was reading the books because I do love dystopian works and thought it did make some interesting points, I'm also having trouble remembering the names of characters and all the plot points less than six months after I read it.
Of course, keep in mind I'm one of those people who liked the Harry Potter books, but still found them to be overrated. So, for me, as a series, Hunger Games joins Harry Potter under the heading of "Good for what it was, nowhere near as earthshaking as people want to make it out to be."
Brooke-thanks so much for your comment-I have no read or scanned the second book of the trilogy-what I liked by far best about the series was the world Collins created-I was hoping for learn a lot more about that is book 2 but I did not
Post a Comment