Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I'd certainly read another book, the setting has a lot of potential, but I'd really like it to move away from the other characters already featured. In one way or another, they've all really had their plots resolved, and while I don't like some of the conclusions, I think to go further would be to undermine them. Some questions need to remain unanswered, and leave the reader to decide for themselves.
If we got all the answers, we wouldn't have discussions like the ones above. The best books are the ones that leave enough open to keep you interested, but still satisfied by the conclusion. Patrick Ness is a master of this, Monsters of Men and More Than This both have beautifully open conclusions.
What I would like to see, other than a sequel about the recovery, would be something about the first war and the early Hunger Games. It could avoid re-run plots, as I imagine the first Games were very different to the ones we see in HG and CF, and it would be fascinating to see the same ideas a little closer to home chronologically. I don't think they ever give a date for the war and the first HG, but I have a feeling it's early 21st Centuryish.
Paradigm wrote: I don't think they ever give a date for the war and the first HG, but I have a feeling it's early 21st Centuryish.
No, I doubt that.
An unspecified time before the current date, the face of the Earth changed and modern civilization was seemingly destroyed. It is unknown precisely what caused the "end of the world," but major landmasses changed shape as the sea level rose to unknown heights around the planet. Some time after the end of the world as we knew it, a nation was established in North America that would soon come to be known as Panem. It is unknown precisely when Panem was established and how long it has existed, though it is certain that Panem has been around for more than seventy-five years, and it's entirely possible for it to be at least a century or two old.
Panem is described as being a future version of North America. Climate change, rising sea levels and possibly nuclear war changed the landscape of the continent completely, to the point that Panem is a massive island. Alaska, Florida and several other parts of the coast were flooded. Mexico is underwater, cutting off Panem from South America completely (if South America still exists).
That huge upheaval in geography, climate and sea levels must surely have taken at least a century. That sort of thing doesn't happen quickly in just a few decades, unless Day After Tomorrow was actually accurate.
The Capitol is also indicated as being at a similar level of technology during the original War (Dark Days) and Hunger Games as it is 'today' at the 75th Hunger Games (I think I recall that the Capitol is mentioned as having an airforce of 'Hovercrafts' at its disposal during the first War, just as it has hovercrafts 'today'). The Capitol is highly advanced. I think it took at least a century or two of technological development until the Nuclear War/Climate Change/Rising Sea Level Apocalypse changed the world and created the continent of Panem. After which, technology would have become stagnant with less progress being made (the books indicate that the upper atmosphere is polluted somehow, making high altitude air travel impossible and orbital satellites useless).
Panem as a country originally started as a small country. It did not originally encompass the entire continent of Panem (the remainder of North America) but rather grew and absorbed several other small countries. I expect that would taken a few decades to a century of warfare and diplomacy.
Panem is described as possibly being between a century or two old (I'll assume that takes into account the 75 years of Hunger Games - making Panem 25 - 100 years old at the time of the Dark Days and the first Hunger Games).
So...assuming Panem was 25 years old or 100 years old at the 1st Hunger Games, and taking the year 2000 as a starting point instead of 2013 (for simplicity's sake)...
25 years.
100 years of climate change, rising sea levels and warfare between a number of smaller fractured nations (until Panem absorbs them all).
=125 years.
=2125
100 years old.
100 years of climate change, warfare etc.
=200 years
=2200
I'd say that at a minimum, Panem was founded between 2125 and 2200, sometime in the 22nd Century.
However, Panem could be as old as 2 centuries.
200 years.
100 years of climate change, warfare.
=300 years.
=2300.
So, at an almost baseless wild guesstimate, I'd say that Panem was founded sometime between 2100 and 2300. Which would make it between 175 and 375 years old at the time of the 75th Hunger Games and second rebellion.
Given the tech levels seen in the Hunger Games, I would say that we are probably looking for the first event (which wipes out most people) in the 2200's or so, with the civil war being at some point after that, probably in the next fifty to one hundred years.
In the same series, I think you are right that books set on early games would be interesting - it certainly sounds like there have been a few sparks in the games before, and a few punishments of districts in the games too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/17 16:03:29
Oops, like I said I haven't read them in a while, and had forgotten all the stuff about climate change/landmass shifts, which obviously would place it far further forward than I though.
But yeah, there are certainly hints the Games haven't always gone smoothly, and I think the first Games would have been very different, as would the culture. The climate of fear over the Reaping would not exist,, instead you'd have a broken and battered rebellion in abject horror at this new punishment, which would be an interesting change-up from the idea that everyone knows what's coming.
But yeah, there are certainly hints the Games haven't always gone smoothly,
A few, off the top of my head...
Spoiler:
Haymitch Abernathy participated in the 2nd Quarter Quell, the 50th Hunger Games, in which double the number of tributes were reaped (4 from each disctrict, for a total of 48). He won his games, when he discovered and used the forcefield that surrounded the Arena to his advantage. The Game ended with Haymitch and a girl from one of the career Districts. Both were severely wounded - she'd been blinded in one eye, and Haymitch had been partially disemboweled, forcing him to hold in his own intestines. She pursued him to a cliff at the edge of the arena, where he collapsed to his knees, and threw her axe at him. He ducked the axe which flew over the cliff, struck the forcefield and was repelled back into the arena striking her in the head and killing her.
President Snow was so enraged that Haymitch had shown them up by using its own technology to his advantage, that they killed his family in retaliation (mother, younger brother and girlfriend).
Spoiler:
Finnick Odair, the Victor from District 4, was so handsome that President Snow forced him to serve as a prostitute for wealthy Capitol citizens.
My source for this is a fan film on Youtube, so I'm not sure if its accurate, but if true, then Finnick refused to continue working as a prostitute. The Capitol, or more likely, President Snow retaliated by fixing the Reaping and having Finnick's lover Annie Cresta reaped for the Games. She survived, but was left traumatised, prompting Mags to volunteer in her place for the 75th Games to spare her from the arena and to spare Finnick from being forced to face the choice of killing his lover or sacrificing himself for her.
Spoiler:
Hunger Games Wiki wrote:In Catching Fire Johanna says she has "no one left she loves", hinting that all of her loved ones have been killed by President Coriolanus Snow and the Capitol after her Games. This is then confirmed in Mockingjay by Finnick Odair due to her refusal to let President Snow sell her body to Capitol patrons.
Spoiler:
One previous tribute is mentioned by Katniss as having gone insane, resorting to cannibalism. The Game Makers had to stun him with something like a taser, so they could recover the bodies of tributes he had killed before he could eat them. He was eventually killed by an avalanche, which Katniss thinks was deliberately intended to kill him so that the Victor wouldn't be a raving lunatic cannibal.
Theres no indication that I'm aware of that there were ever serious incidents of rebellion between the 1st and the 75th Hunger Games. Haymitch remarks in the first film that Seneca Crane knows how to handle a mob from experience, so there may have been the odd riot every couple of years but nothing really serious.
It seems that the only truly difficult situations that took place were when individual tribute tributes embarrassed or challenged the Capitol, and the Capitol retaliated.
Which really emphasises how crucial Katniss was to the rebellion as the Mockingjay. She was the first tribute in 75 years to challenge the Capitol's authority and survive long enough to influence the Districts - their first and only opportunity to unite people throughout the districts against the Capitol.
I think she was groomed and manipulated from the beginning. The rebels had no idea that she would survive the 74th Games and become such a strong symbol of rebellion, but they did work to build her up and turn her into a symbol. Cinna and his unique costumes for the opening Parades that outshone all the other tributes. Presenting Katniss and Peeta as a team, partners, from the very beginning - having them hold hands in the chariot, Haymitch encouraging Peeta to make public his feelings for her, encouraging Katniss to play along for the cameras.
The rebels saw an opportunity with Katniss, and manipulated her into becoming a heroic symbol of rebellion.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2013/12/17 18:07:00
I read the three books about two years ago, I loved the first one but I felt that the second gave off a feel that it was just written for the sake of money and wasn't really needed the third was a better but still had the feeling of not being needed.
The first film was pretty good but like most films which you've read the book of you end up comparing the two and like most of the time the book comes out on top.
The first film was pretty good but like most films which you've read the book of you end up comparing the two and like most of the time the book comes out on top.
I agree. I read the books after watching the first two movies, and realised that there were many moments that were inexplicably absent from the first film. These were important emotional moments in Katniss and Peeta's interractions that really should have been included.
Spoiler:
Peeta's leg is bitten by the muttations at the end and he loses a lot of blood. When the hovercraft arrives to collect them both, Peeta collapses from blood loss and is whisked away for immediate surgery. Katniss thinks they're going to kill him and she goes nuts, trying to break into the surgery room.
Spoiler:
When they're united in the post games interview, Katniss finds out (on air) that Peeta's leg was amputated and replaced with a metal (?) prosthetic. She buries her face in his shoulder to compose herself.
Spoiler:
In the interview, they're shown highlights of the Games and she nearly breaks down when they show Rue's death.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/18 14:28:04
The third book is reading like a straight up war novel.
There is some angsty stuff but most of Katniss' feelings seem to have matured.
Captain Killhammer McFighterson stared down at the surface of Earth from his high vantage point on the bridge of Starship Facemelter. Something ominous was looming on the surface. He could see a great shadow looming just underneath the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, slowly spreading northward. "That can't be good..." he muttered to himself while rubbing the super manly stubble on his chin with one hand. "But... on the other hand..." he looked at his shiny new bionic murder-arm. "This could be the perfect chance for that promotion." A perfect roundhouse kick slammed the ship's throttle into full gear. Soon orange jets of superheated plasma were visible from the space-windshield as Facemelter reentered the atmosphere at breakneck speed.
I think the films are great examples of movies that are better than the books.
That being said, the books are pretty clearly YA fiction, and I'm squarely out of the barrel of the target audience on that one. Over the years, I've grown unimaginably sick of YA fiction though, so my opinions on the quality of the books aren't that objective.
Killing 23 people (1 person you actually know because you're from the same district) Vs having to kill your classmates.. people you've grown up with.
Yeah battle royale has everything on the hunger games.
Have to agree with other people about these angtsy teen movies/books that are being pumped out like clockwork.
Twilight, Hunger games, Divergent.
all about teenage angst
Maybe thats why Ender's game didn't do too well. I mean he had problems, he had a psychotic older brother who would beat him and torture small animals. He was responsible for the death of an entire species....
So you see folks, Fictional characters with actual problems don't sell. Fictional characters that are angsty sell well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/31 04:11:51
"I LIEK CHOCOLATE MILK" - Batman
"It exist because it needs to. Because its not the tank the imperium deserve but the one it needs right now . So it wont complain because it can take it. Because they're not our normal tank. It is a silent guardian, a watchful protector . A leman russ!" - Ilove40k
3k
2k
/ 1k
1k
Tbh, I 'enjoyed' the books not because of the angst, but because of the wider story about a totalitarian and oppressive state, a desperate rebellion and war. They cover themes of rebellion, war, war crimes, the struggle between hatred for your enemy and retaining your human compassion, depression, PTSD.
Yes theres angst in it, but lets keep in mind the protagonist is a 17 year old girl. Isn't angst an appropriate emotion for such a young character who goes through so many traumatic experiences? To me, the angst was just a feature of the character. It made sense in context. The perspective is first person and present tense - you're literally in her head, as she experiences her life. You're reading her thoughts and actions as they happen.
I challenge anyone to find the last 50 pages or so of Mockingjay and not find it upsetting.
I'm not pretending that its a classic work of literature, but it was enjoyable to read. And I think we can all agree that its vastly superior to Twilight, yes?
(*not sure if "enjoyed" is the right term considering how dark the books are).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and speaking of classic works of literature...Could anyone recommend any other books similar to the Hunger Games but more mature? (i.e. not Young Adult).
Similar being...Sci-Fi / futuristic setting, featuring an oppressive totalitarian state against which the protagonists rebel and go to war etc.
It'd be interesting to see this sort of story from a more mature perspective - I havn't read much in the way of dystopian post-apocalyptic fiction.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/12/19 03:23:15
Killing 23 people (1 person you actually know because your from the same district) Vs having to kill your classmates.. people you've grown up with.
Yeah battle royale has everything on the hunger games.
Battle Royale is better because it did a far better job of selling the premise, with more credible characters. In Battle Royale, the kids are kept under control with bomb collars and squads of heavily armed soldiers, even before they have a weapon. In The Hunger Games, people walk unarmed into the room where their victims are training with deadly weapons, and not one of the kids takes a shot at them. That's just absurd.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
@SCE: If you're looking for adult post-dystopian stuff, read Orwell's 1984 if you haven't already. There's not so much an open war with the state, but it's very well-written and has an engaging plot with good character.
And I agree fully with your point about liking THG because of the story. No one has ever tried to say they are classics in the making, but they're written well enough, have an engaging plot, and even though I don't personally like Katniss as a character, she is an interesting one.
And imagine taking any 17-year-old, put them in complete poverty, force them to fight to the death against people that often hopelessly outmatch them, threaten their family and friends. If there wasn't some angst after all that, I'd be surprised. The angst is there for a reason, Katniss is disillusioned, trapped, under constant threat and pressure. It's perfectly understandable, not just a cliche.
Killing 23 people (1 person you actually know because your from the same district) Vs having to kill your classmates.. people you've grown up with.
Yeah battle royale has everything on the hunger games.
Battle Royale is better because it did a far better job of selling the premise, with more credible characters. In Battle Royale, the kids are kept under control with bomb collars and squads of heavily armed soldiers, even before they have a weapon. In The Hunger Games, people walk unarmed into the room where their victims are training with deadly weapons, and not one of the kids takes a shot at them. That's just absurd.
I cant remember but I think that its explained in the book.
Paradigm wrote: @SCE: If you're looking for adult post-dystopian stuff, read Orwell's 1984 if you haven't already. There's not so much an open war with the state, but it's very well-written and has an engaging plot with good character.
In terms of "high schoolers being forced to kill each other" stories, I much preferred Dangan Ronpa. That said, I still liked the Hunger Games though I've never seen the movies.
AlexHolker wrote: In The Hunger Games, people walk unarmed into the room where their victims are training with deadly weapons, and not one of the kids takes a shot at them. That's just absurd.
No, its explained. Any act of defiance against the Capitol is severely punished, usually by the execution or 'accidental' deaths of the Tribute's families. There are very good reasons not to defy the Capitol.
Spoiler:
Haymitch Abernathy embarrassed the Capitol when he used the forcefield surrounding the arena as a weapon to win his Games. The Capitol retaliated by having his mother, younger brother and girlfriend killed.
Spoiler:
Finnick Odair refused to continue serving as a prostitute for wealthy Capitol citizens. The Capitol retaliated by fixing the next reaping and having his lover Annie Cresta reaped for the Games. She survived but was left traumatised.
Spoiler:
Johanna Mason refused outright to become a prostitute. The Capitol retaliated by having her entire family killed.
Spoiler:
Katniss and Gales' fathers were both killed in a mining explosion. Its hinted later on in the books that they were killed by the Capitol because they were members of a group conspiring to start an uprising.
In the 74th Games, Katniss does actually shoot at the Gamemakers when they ignored her in her private training review by shooting and pinning an apple in a pig's mouth to the wall to get their attention. This prompted them to install a forcefield for the 75th Games for their protection.
AlexHolker wrote: In The Hunger Games, people walk unarmed into the room where their victims are training with deadly weapons, and not one of the kids takes a shot at them. That's just absurd.
No, its explained. Any act of defiance against the Capitol is severely punished, usually by the execution or 'accidental' deaths of the Tribute's families. There are very good reasons not to defy the Capitol.
Still, I find it absurd that no-one, in a moment of stress, took a poorly thought out attempt to get even. There may be reasons not to, but humans do not necessarily behave rationally under stress.
AlexHolker wrote: In The Hunger Games, people walk unarmed into the room where their victims are training with deadly weapons, and not one of the kids takes a shot at them. That's just absurd.
No, its explained. Any act of defiance against the Capitol is severely punished, usually by the execution or 'accidental' deaths of the Tribute's families. There are very good reasons not to defy the Capitol.
Still, I find it absurd that no-one, in a moment of stress, took a poorly thought out attempt to get even. There may be reasons not to, but humans do not necessarily behave rationally under stress.
The districts present their entire childhood population so that the Capitol can pick two of them to fight each other to the death without anybody putting up a fight, and you think it's weird that none of the children fought back when they were all alone?
If they put up a fight, the District could be firebombed or even nuked.
You have to keep in mind that the Capitol is a very technologically advanced regime, with technology ranging from nuclear weapons, genetically engineered monsters and a range of bizarre and deadly weapons used as traps in the arenas, futuristic hovercrafts and trains that can cross the entire Panem (North American) continent in a day.
Wheras the Districts are massive prisons and labour camps scattered across the continent with NO contact between Districts allowed (leaving your District, and even a Capitol citizen leaving the Capitol without authorisation is potentially punishable by death).
They're forced to work and provide materials for the Capitol for very little in return. Propaganda has been shoved down their throats for 75 years, and they're forced to celebrate the deaths of their children in a grotesque Reality TV show.
They have very little technology and weapons with which they can fight back. Making a weapon as simple as a crude bow is punishable by death. The rebels were only able to drive the Peacekeepers out of certain Districts (District 8) through mass, spontaneous uprisings inspired by the example of the Mockingjay, that took the Capitol by surprise. Then the Capitol retaliated by firebombing entire Districts. District 12 is reduced from a population of 8000 to a population of a few hundred. The people of District 8 overthrew the garrison of Peacekeepers, arming themselves with the weapons they seized. The Capitol retaliated by sending in bombers.
It wasn't really until District 13 got involved that the rebels were able to fight the Capitol on equal terms. District 13 had its own fleet of aircraft, and stockpiles of nuclear weapons that deterred the Capitol against launching a nuclear war.
Yes, its a plot hole that the Game Makers didn't already have a forcefield up to protect them from the Tributes they were watching.
But we don't know for sure that none of the Tributes have ever tried to attack the Game Makers. I think in the early years after the first rebellion, some of the Tributes may well have tried to retaliate. Security was probably much tighter in the first 10 years or so of the Hunger Games, with the first rebellion fresh in everyone's minds, and people still getting used to the new arrangement. But after 75 years of Hunger Games, the propaganda, oppression and the lack of hope probably left the Game Makers feeling somewhat complacent and untouchable.
So thats my theory. Its either Game Maker complacency and arrogance, or its just a simple plot hole.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/12/19 22:17:21
Avoiding thread reading for spoilers, but just got back from the 2nd film and was very impressed. Managed the clever trick of re-treading the same plot, whilst being strangely different. Possibly my favourite cinema trip of the year.
AlexHolker wrote: In The Hunger Games, people walk unarmed into the room where their victims are training with deadly weapons, and not one of the kids takes a shot at them. That's just absurd.
No, its explained. Any act of defiance against the Capitol is severely punished, usually by the execution or 'accidental' deaths of the Tribute's families. There are very good reasons not to defy the Capitol.
Still, I find it absurd that no-one, in a moment of stress, took a poorly thought out attempt to get even. There may be reasons not to, but humans do not necessarily behave rationally under stress.
The districts present their entire childhood population so that the Capitol can pick two of them to fight each other to the death without anybody putting up a fight, and you think it's weird that none of the children fought back when they were all alone?
I was willing to accept that logical extension of the classical punishment decimation. Still, when you know you are about to get slaughtered horribly, and everyone in your District had the chance to pull a Katniss and save you, but did not, I would expect most of the non-career tributes to try to kill those really responsible for their almost inevitable death. Probably at the first fancy dinner with the silverware..May the knife be ever in your favor!
Self sacrifice for people who have abandoned you to death is a very rare virtue.
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
AlexHolker wrote: Battle Royale is better because it did a far better job of selling the premise, with more credible characters. In Battle Royale, the kids are kept under control with bomb collars and squads of heavily armed soldiers, even before they have a weapon. In The Hunger Games, people walk unarmed into the room where their victims are training with deadly weapons, and not one of the kids takes a shot at them. That's just absurd.
I cant remember but I think that its explained in the book.
It's handwaved. It's an excuse for not doing something that might actually do justice to the concept.
Battle Royale also does a far better job of addressing the idea of committing suicide rather than playing their sick game. In Battle Royale, it's rightly treated as a tragedy. When Katniss and Peeta threaten to do it at the end of the book it lacks that pathos, in no small part because of how transparently Collins' motives were tied to the Capitol's.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
As mentioned before in this thread, quality went from high to abysmally low by the third book.
The ending set up felt forced. He'll that whole situation throughout the story felt forced. What I found ausing is that Catniss said on a few occasions she didn't want to be for Ed into anything.
I'm also not a big fan of character who, when it comes to saving something like an entire town, or sitting around whining about personal issues, they choose the latter. This is why gale was my favorite character. He was all about helping people and not moping around.
“Sometimes I can hear my bones straining under the weight of all the lives I'm not living.”
3k
2k
/ 
1k
1k 
