Book Review: The Hunger Games Trilogy {Part 1}

**Note: I have tried to keep this post as spoiler-free as possible, but it is difficult.  Minor spoilers may be given away, and I think I have made the ending rather obvious.  If you have not read the series,you somehow don't know the storyline yet, and you don't want to know what happens, you mayn't want to read on, especially where I discuss the plot.**

Oh, and just so you know, I'm having strange font-size problems, so if it's too big or too small, I apologize.

When a bunch of people in the writer's club I belong to said how much they loved this series, I became rather interested.  When I found out they were making a movie of it, I got more interested.  When two close friends of mine read the series and liked it (one loved it), I became desperate to read it.  Finally one of those two friends lent me the books.  (I finished them in four days, of course.) I was extremely curious as to exactly why these books are so popular.


Well, I am glad to say that once again I am not obsessed with what the rest of the world is obsessed with.  *pokes nose in the air*  It's an okay series, but it's definitely got problems. Like most things, it has good points and bad points.  I shall now proceed to ramble on about it all in no particular order.


Before I begin, I must say one thing.  WHY did Ms. Collins give her characters such odd names?  Some of them are okay, like Gale and Prim, but Katniss? Even worse, Peeta???  *shudders*


Apart from the names, I found the majority of the main characters to be largely unlikeable and a bit flat.  I did understand them, which is important, but I didn't particularly like most of them.  The one exception was - you probably guessed it already - Peeta.  The boy with the bread, he-whose-name-is the-worst-in-the-entire-series, the one truly good character.  Peeta is the only one whose love is true and unselfish.  (This goes back to the true love post, if you missed it.)  Oh, and I also liked Rue, but she's not really a main character.  I didn't like Katniss.  I understand that she had a shocking amount of hardships to bear, but I still couldn't stand her selfishness.  Most of the time she only does what will help herself, not taking into account anyone else.  The only one she seems to truly love is her sister Prim.  


 The series has a lot of morality problems, even if one leaves out the fact that nudity seems to be entirely acceptable in the world of Panem.   Supposedly the books are meant to protest violence, and to a certain extent I can see that, but the thing is, violence doesn't seem to be protested against if the "good" characters commit it.  Katniss's countless killings.  Gale's ruthless traps that play on human sympathy and charity in order to murder the most people possible.  (One may argue that the traps were not presented in a necessarily good light, but I don't think it was clearly against them, either.)  It's hard to explain it properly without giving away major spoilers, but you probably get the idea.  The books seem to subscribe to the philosophy of the ends justifying the means, which is of course wrong.


 Now for the fun part - style/plot/characterization critiques. (Mwahahahaha...)  The first thing that struck me when I began The Hunger Games was the first person, present tense writing.  It took about a third of the book for me to get used to it.  I'm not necessarily saying it was a bad choice, just different.  It actually makes sense, really, given the action-driven plot.  It adds to the feeling of immediacy in the series.  I don't think it's something I personally would have chosen, but I didn't write the book, so it doesn't matter.  It was quite interesting.  I've never read a book written like that before, so points to Ms. Collins for originality there.  I did find the actual writing to be a bit simplistic and limited, but given the audience and, once again, the plot, that is understandable.  There were some nice descriptions, mostly in the first book, but for the most part the vocabulary was unremarkable.


As for the plot, in general it was pretty tight.  I do rather believe in history repeating itself, so I find the idea, mentioned in Mockingjay, of a Panem et Circenses world believable.  The Romans kept it up for a while.  It's not like it's unprecedented, though the Romans didn't use children.  They were not averse to killing entire families, though, if sources are correct, so it makes little difference.  I shudder to think what they would have done with modern technology like that in The Hunger Games.   Anyway, enough with the history lesson.  The one MAJOR problem I have with the plot is District 13.  It's part of what makes the series so depressing: the leaders of the rebellion which is supposed to free Panem don't seem much better than the Capitol.  The monotonous, gray life led by the residents of Thirteen is not something I'd be happy about!  Sure, they're warm and they don't starve to death, but they are allowed no individuality, no self-expression.  Realistically, I doubt people could live like that.  Humans have an all-too-apparent need to express themselves.  Perhaps I am reading into it too much, but by her characterization of Thirteen Ms. Collins seems to degrade humanity into something that needs only the basics of bodily survival - food, clothes, shelter.  At least the Capitol made some twisted sort of concession to beauty, and it did not meddle in the daily life of its subjects.  Thirteen seemed to be, far from a savior, only a new power ready to take total control.  It is very sad.  


Well, that's all for today.  This was beginning to be one of my excruciatingly long posts (and perhaps already is), so I've split it in two.  Tomorrow I shall post the second part, where I discuss what I actually liked about this series and give my final evaluation.  I promise that it's shorter than this one.