100 pages into this and so far it's reminding me of michael swanwick's 'iron dragon's daughter.' very pleasantly surprised at how blatantly class conscious this is
― reggie (qualmsley), Monday, 11 July 2011 01:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
i hate these books almost as bad as the rick riordan ones
― remy bean, Monday, 11 July 2011 01:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
Is there any point in reading this if you've already read Battle Royale?
― grey tambourine (wk), Monday, 11 July 2011 01:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
there's no point in reading it if you haven't
― remy bean, Monday, 11 July 2011 01:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha wait, you mean "just don't read it", right? not "you have to read BR first"
― grey tambourine (wk), Monday, 11 July 2011 01:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
only riordan book i read replaces hogwarts with lucian's olympus. tone's a little different so far in 'the hunger games,' more pg-13 gene wolfe or michael swanwick
― reggie (qualmsley), Monday, 11 July 2011 13:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
just started Mockingjay, haven't read anything so gripping and fun in a while. lots of gore for a YA book (or maybe they're all sex&violence these days, i dunno), be interesting to see how they handle it in the movies. the dumb names are starting to get to me though (Peeta, Cinna, Beetee blargh)
― herbal bert (herb albert), Monday, 11 July 2011 13:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
^ for a YA series, I read the first two over the past week
― herbal bert (herb albert), Monday, 11 July 2011 13:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
my objection is that these books are just ... easy fiction, kind of pandering 'boy stuff' w/ lots of graphic violence that milks video games and episodic TV for ideas and is otherwise woefully ignorant of the larger literary tradition or canon. it is written in present tense and basically free of any device or craft beyond basic storytelling aptitude. it perpetuates the same limerence-drenched soap-opera shit that's saturated YA for the past half-decade, and does a lot of the ham-fisted world-building that passes for 'imaginative' and refuses to allow the reader to experience wonder, confusion, or ambiguity. i like gore and gruesomeness in YA - it's such an overly mannered genre - but I think a lot of other authors have recently done better jobs conveying it, like Rick Yancey in his Will Henry series – 'The Monstrumologist' & 'Curse of the Wendigo'
― remy bean, Monday, 11 July 2011 13:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
never heard hunger games dismissed as 'boy stuff' before
― Ayatollah Colm Meaney (Princess TamTam), Monday, 11 July 2011 14:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm not dismissing them out of hand – i read all three of them. in my classroom, however, it's 99.9% of the time the boys who grab for the books before the girls.
― remy bean, Monday, 11 July 2011 14:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
well i avoided twilight so i might give these a go i guess
― thomp, Monday, 11 July 2011 14:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
doesnt it have a huge female following because of, y'know, the strong and independent young female protag? theres a considerable number of feminist readings out there that seem to find value in it & i feel like its worth embracing just for that (NB. i havent read these but i hear in the later books she becomes more marginalized while the men assume a larger role, which is a shame if so)
― Ayatollah Colm Meaney (Princess TamTam), Monday, 11 July 2011 14:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
in the year 2011, YA literature shelves are filled with strong and independent female protagonists – and this, i don't think is one of the better examples. the predominance of feminist readings are, to my mind, occasioned by the popularity of the books and not their quality.
― remy bean, Monday, 11 July 2011 15:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
so this appears to be an interesting set of books, being adapted into films by a decent filmmaker with a strong cast. as far as megafranchises go, we could do worse.
― THIS IS SATIRE BTW (Simon H.), Monday, 11 July 2011 15:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm the first guy i know who's reading it. lots of ladies i know have though. so far the girl from 'true grit' would make a way better katniss than the girl who played mystique in the last x-men. that's who they cast, right?
remy, are you serious that you expect literary erudition to shine throughout young adult novels? i just want them to invoke the spirits of the greats, like mervyn peake and joy chant. so far, so good
― reggie (qualmsley), Monday, 11 July 2011 15:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
absolutely, and i often find it. YA isn't the 'junk' genre it (largely) was 20 year ago. laurel wil back me up on this, i think, but there are a number of incredibly talented, capable, and innovative writers working in the field b/c its lack of pretension, willingness to bend genre and story conventions, and relative ease of getting published make it a good place to try out new ideas.
― remy bean, Monday, 11 July 2011 15:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
the girl who played mystique in the last x-men. that's who they cast, right?
Yeah, but I prefer to think of her as the girl from Winter's Bone, which makes her seem more promising, tbh.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Monday, 11 July 2011 15:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
― thomp
Those two things need to be decoupled: Everyone should avoid Twilight no matter what you plan to do later in the day/month/year/life.
xp remy is right! Don't lower your standards for young peoples' sakes, they don't need it!
― manager expects you to work past 6PM but won't allow you to change into (Laurel), Monday, 11 July 2011 15:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
i don't consider young adult fiction junk or i wouldn't be reading it. but have you ever read harold bloom's young adult fantasy novel, 'a flight to lucifer'? yuck
― reggie (qualmsley), Monday, 11 July 2011 15:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
remy, are you serious that you expect literary erudition to shine throughout young adult novels?
Also this is a patronizing and makes you sound like a jerk. Don't do that.
― manager expects you to work past 6PM but won't allow you to change into (Laurel), Monday, 11 July 2011 15:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't see how a lifelong reader/critic not turning out to be a great YA author in the genre of fantasy is proof of anything, btw. False dichotomy, or at least an extremely lazy one.
― manager expects you to work past 6PM but won't allow you to change into (Laurel), Monday, 11 July 2011 15:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah she really has nothing to prove in the confident-lead department.
― THIS IS SATIRE BTW (Simon H.), Monday, 11 July 2011 15:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
like harry potter, i think these stories may succeed better as movies than books: there's very little in the story besides a kind of reportorial narrative.
― remy bean, Monday, 11 July 2011 15:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
laurel do you like hunger games
― Ayatollah Colm Meaney (Princess TamTam), Monday, 11 July 2011 15:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
laurel & r.bean recommend two or three good YA novels i should read for contrast to 'hunger games', if i read 'hunger games'
― thomp, Monday, 11 July 2011 15:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
Haven't read 'em. Storyline seemed a little too pat, and then they got the commercial success to match so I just didn't make the effort. remy is saving me from having to try again.
― manager expects you to work past 6PM but won't allow you to change into (Laurel), Monday, 11 July 2011 15:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
Remy already did!
Rick Yancey in his Will Henry series – 'The Monstrumologist' & 'Curse of the Wendigo'
― manager expects you to work past 6PM but won't allow you to change into (Laurel), Monday, 11 July 2011 15:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
@thomp, for the sci-fi/horror/gore/monster angle i'd recommend rick yancey's 'the monstrumologist.' it isn't really my cup of tea, but i think it is a well-written book and a good read for a certain type of kid. it introduces a lot of great elements, and ties well w/ frankenstein, lovecraft, etc.,
for total contrast w/in the genre i recommend peter cameron's 'someday this pain will be useful to you' for great, deceptively simple, characterization.
i've recently enjoyed green & levithan's 'will grayson, will grayson' and paolo bacigalupi's 'ship-breaker'
― remy bean, Monday, 11 July 2011 15:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
halfway through ellen klages 'the green glass sea' if historical fiction is your thing
― remy bean, Monday, 11 July 2011 15:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yay, Ship Breaker!!
― manager expects you to work past 6PM but won't allow you to change into (Laurel), Monday, 11 July 2011 15:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
so good, right?
― remy bean, Monday, 11 July 2011 15:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
thanking u
just out of curiosity, how would you rate the possibly-not-as-ubiquitous-as-i-think-they-are franchises:
i. artemis fowlii. diary of a wimpy kidiii. skulduggery pleasant
― thomp, Monday, 11 July 2011 15:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
Sorry, actually quite busy so reduced to being cheering section. Also in terms of new stuff, I get most of my reading from work these days and our YA is extremely "commercial" so apart from SB'er and some others, most of it isn't what you're asking for.
― manager expects you to work past 6PM but won't allow you to change into (Laurel), Monday, 11 July 2011 15:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
you attacked me for reading 'the hunger games.' then you call me a jerk? sorry if i offended you somehow
― reggie (qualmsley), Monday, 11 July 2011 15:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
(my vested interest here is that my nephew is being put off reading by being deluged with brightly coloured FOR THE KIDS type books that people get him which largely appear to be .. kind of awful, and it is a lot harder to go into the bookstore and buy YA books than it was to buy picture books)
― thomp, Monday, 11 July 2011 15:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
there's a general-purpose YA thread somewhere, isn't there? maybe i should revive that one
― thomp, Monday, 11 July 2011 15:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
you attacked me for reading 'the hunger games.'
You can keep thinking that's what I was "attacking" you for, or you can re-consider about how dismissive you were about the literary "merit" of books for kids/young people.
thomp, honestly I haven't read any of any of those three. They give me the lip-curl when I see them around...hadn't realized Skullduggery Pleasant had become a thing?
― manager expects you to work past 6PM but won't allow you to change into (Laurel), Monday, 11 July 2011 15:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
There is an excellent YA sf/f thread somewhere but it's probably like 700 posts.
― manager expects you to work past 6PM but won't allow you to change into (Laurel), Monday, 11 July 2011 15:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
artemis fowl are kind of silly –- they've got some good ideas, but they seem a little too calibrated (?) cynical (?) for my taste. there's definitely an audience, but they're so commercial that they sometimes seem more like a product than a series of books in their own right. whenever i'm reading artemis fowl, i sort of wish i were reading diane wynn jones
diary of a wimpy kid is fluff, but its formatting is obv. very appealing for struggling readers (marginalia, text design, illustrations, limited words/page) and it's pretty funny, i think. they series isv. easy, and doesn't go to any depth or characterization so the books don't have a cross-generational appeal in the way they might the format was used to better, and more interesting effect in tom angleberger's 'the strange case of the origami yoda' which came out last year.
i haven't read skulduggery pleasant; it hardly made splash over here. i've got an ARC of it sitting on the sofa and i'm meaning to get to it.
― remy bean, Monday, 11 July 2011 15:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
sorry abt. poor editing above ^^^
― remy bean, Monday, 11 July 2011 15:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
@thomp: how old is your nephew? how is his reading?
― remy bean, Monday, 11 July 2011 15:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think the really good stuff ends up coming out in areas that aren't popular at the time, it just goes unnoticed a bit until things quiet down. I don't think the repetitive and increasingly sensational sf/f that's everywhere right now is going to be the stuff of this era that lasts -- not when we've got Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian and some gender-bendy/LGBTQ "issue" books by Julie Peters and others that are also v good and will probably burrow into kids' thinking more deeply and, one hopes, lastingly, but aren't going to make headlines now.
― manager expects you to work past 6PM but won't allow you to change into (Laurel), Monday, 11 July 2011 15:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
And I normally dislike like "issue" books, I'm just sayin'.
i sort of wish i were reading diane wynn jones is basically my motto in life.
― manager expects you to work past 6PM but won't allow you to change into (Laurel), Monday, 11 July 2011 16:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
when was i ever dismissive about the literary merit of books for kids/young people? i haven't said a single negative thing on this thread . . . that i revived! how very district one tribute of you
― reggie (qualmsley), Monday, 11 July 2011 16:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm sorry. i said something negative about harold bloom
well, help yourself to that. he's kind of a turd.
― remy bean, Monday, 11 July 2011 16:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm reading his new book alongside 'the hunger games.' definitely prefer 'the hunger games'
― reggie (qualmsley), Monday, 11 July 2011 16:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
black jelly bean: cold oatmeal
― remy bean, Monday, 11 July 2011 16:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
also to echo the wtfs upthread about sponsorships. such a big deal is made of them in the movie, it's the justification upon which rests the need to appeal to the public, to get a high score in the assessment, etc - we are constantly told by woody that sponsorships are absolutely critical to success because you can get a leg up with equipment and supplies. but then we are.... never shown anyone receiving anything from a sponsor? in the game? unless i missed something?
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 16 August 2012 09:44 (9 months ago) Permalink
guys, i don't think Suzanne Collins put much thought into her future world
― Number None, Thursday, 16 August 2012 09:45 (9 months ago) Permalink
but then we are.... never shown anyone receiving anything from a sponsor? in the game? unless i missed something?
yeah we are, at least twice - medicine both times i think
― lex pretend, Thursday, 16 August 2012 09:46 (9 months ago) Permalink
that's not from a sponsor she "won" through being appealing it's a special treat from her mentor isn't it?
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 16 August 2012 10:10 (9 months ago) Permalink
the beginning of the game was thrilling and nightmarish, when they're all on those pedestals and the corcnucopia is waiting for them, and the first dash which cuts the number of contestants in half
i was sort of wondering why everyone is so stupid as to run straight for the goodies when they've presumably seen the results of such a strategy (and every strategy) every year on their TVs
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 16 August 2012 10:24 (9 months ago) Permalink
no it's def from a sponsor
and because they think they're big and strong enough to survive, esp if they're from the trained districts
― lex pretend, Thursday, 16 August 2012 10:26 (9 months ago) Permalink
i also think a lot of the things we're not shown, that could be entire stories in themselves, are kinda key to why this has become such a phenomenon - creating a fantasy world and leaving tons of room for your imagination to fill in the blanks is what's always made this kind of literature compelling (as opposed to, like, the prose). and that's especially the case when kids nowadays are relating to the material through online discussions, fan fiction etc etc - the story does not end at the actual story as written by the author and suzanne collins understands this
― lex pretend, Thursday, 16 August 2012 10:29 (9 months ago) Permalink
yeah, that sounds very right
i dunno i just figured we were gonna get some treasure-of-the-sierra-madre type paranoid shiz out of this, it's the whole reason i watched. it had nothing, i repeat nothing to do with watching the impossibly gorgeous jennifer lawrence shoot magically replenishing arrows around the place in tight clothing
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 16 August 2012 10:45 (9 months ago) Permalink
i think we were shown very brief shots of haymitch chatting up some rich people, presumably convincing them to be sponsors. then haymitch is the one in charge of sending items along using that sponsorship money. it makes more sense in the movie than the book actually, because in the book it gets MORE expensive to send things the farther along in the game it is...for some reason? and the districts themselves send along, like, a chunk of bread to their player and it represents incredible cost and sacrifice for them to do so. idk
― deist mountain dew (reddening), Thursday, 16 August 2012 10:48 (9 months ago) Permalink
Oh i see, Woody's the go-between! Ahhh. I was confused because in the movie he's watching her on TV, we see her wincing in pain from her wound and then we cut to him looking determined and striding purposefully away, like he's about to "get on the case" somehow and then next thing you know there's a parachute floating toward her with a note from him inside. I guess he went to his contact list of sponsors and was like "OK now's the time to make good on your promises, this girl's goin down"
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 16 August 2012 10:57 (9 months ago) Permalink
i think we covered upthread how the "hunger games as tv show" was a bit of a missed opportunity from the perspective of seeing it through the viewers' eyes
― lex pretend, Thursday, 16 August 2012 10:59 (9 months ago) Permalink
the "hunger games as moral dilemma" was a missed opportunity as well, which leaves you with nothing much left over, other than close-ups of jennifer lawrence looking gorgeous which, you know what i'm OK with that actually
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 16 August 2012 11:08 (9 months ago) Permalink
My memory is that Woody gladhanding is inbetween the "Katniss needs help" and "Katniss gets help" scenes, I think. What's not as clear in the movie is that being the only person from District 12 to win the games doesn't actually confer much status on him - he's basically the town drunk 51 weeks of the year.
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 16 August 2012 11:27 (9 months ago) Permalink
I thought he lived in the Capitol cause of his celeb status
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 16 August 2012 11:31 (9 months ago) Permalink
Maybe I should have watched this movie at some point before 1am
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 16 August 2012 11:34 (9 months ago) Permalink
They established this very neatly in the book, but I can see why the scene where he first meets Katniss and Peeta and then throws up all over the floor might've been the first to go.
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 16 August 2012 12:56 (9 months ago) Permalink
I felt with the clothing that the more working class districts had kept to sort of functional, plain wear because they have to work in them. Harder to work in a castoff bright blue wig and fake McQueen heels or whatever! Also: they probably sew their own clothes, so a simpler pattern would be easier/use less fabric? It's been a while since I read the books so not certain if that's touched upon. The Capitol people by and large are very wasteful [TINY SPOILER: they have a pill or drink that makes them throw up so they can gorge themselves on food at parties!], unlikely that they'd even think to donate!
The sponsorship thing could definitely have been clearer in the movie - I almost missed the scene of Woody talking to them, iirc you can't even hear what he's saying? Poor planning for those who hadn't read the books! It was pretty shit to cut out the scene where Rue's district sends Katniss a piece of their distinctive bread after Rue's death. That was a pretty touching moment in the books. Because the district is so poor, she assumes almost everyone in the district chipped in to get that piece to her.
― she started dancing to that (Finefinemusic), Thursday, 16 August 2012 13:13 (9 months ago) Permalink
functional's one thing but heritage vintage patterns from ca. 300 years ago?
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 16 August 2012 22:45 (9 months ago) Permalink
well, if they are even using patterns? just simple, functional clothes imo. what would you have them wear?
― she started dancing to that (Finefinemusic), Friday, 17 August 2012 14:30 (9 months ago) Permalink
I haven't seen the movie but please, those are not somehow fashion-neutral "simple, functional" clothes. Simple and functional would be T-tunics and shapeless, pull-on pants with drawstring waists. There would be no pleats, no gathers, no belts, and one size would fit most. Every single person in that picture is wearing something that has extra, unnecessary fabric and work in it.
― check the name, no caps, boom, i'm (Laurel), Friday, 17 August 2012 14:36 (9 months ago) Permalink
Buttons? BUTTONS? Do you know how much work buttonholes are??? The poors of the future will be wearing shapeless pull-over tunics made of recycled fibers flattened into a colorless mulch.
― check the name, no caps, boom, i'm (Laurel), Friday, 17 August 2012 14:37 (9 months ago) Permalink
iirc (from teh books) that dress was her mother's 'fancy' dress and her mother came from a higher-class than her father and had kept a bunch of fancier stuff
― obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Friday, 17 August 2012 14:39 (9 months ago) Permalink
well, I was talking about in comparison to the Capitol's dress, which is the 'current fashion' in Panem:
― she started dancing to that (Finefinemusic), Friday, 17 August 2012 14:39 (9 months ago) Permalink
just cuz they're poor doesn't mean they don't deserve buttons ;_; I had forgotten about that detail, rrobyn!
― she started dancing to that (Finefinemusic), Friday, 17 August 2012 14:40 (9 months ago) Permalink
and everybody kind of dressed up for that dayxp
― obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Friday, 17 August 2012 14:40 (9 months ago) Permalink
Well then that was a poor choice of photos to show people wearing "simple, functional" clothes, wasn't it.
― check the name, no caps, boom, i'm (Laurel), Friday, 17 August 2012 14:41 (9 months ago) Permalink
such is my memory, haha - i can remember little details about people's lives but i can't remember the name of the day people get picked to go to the hunger gamesxp
― obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Friday, 17 August 2012 14:42 (9 months ago) Permalink
meow meow! lol ;)xp
Laurel, I feel like you're being a bit condescending? Maybe you don't mean to be. I was simply responding to TH's post where he says "in a society where inequality is stretched to such extremes having clothes in an entirely different vocabulary doesn't make sense; they'd be living on cast-offs, ... subsequently mended 20 times but still retaining a spangle here and there"
Do you disagree with my ideas that the Capitol people probably *don't* donate a lot of castoffs to the districts, or that the clothes they wear are useless for working in anyway? Next time I will say simpleR to appease the seamstresses around, but those outfits (and as rrobyn pointed out - those are their fineries, they dress up because that is a big 'event') are still much more functional than the crazy shit going on in the capitol. And it's set in the future, would be weird to have them decided to throw all construction knowledge aside and go back to draw-string pants.
― she started dancing to that (Finefinemusic), Friday, 17 August 2012 14:46 (9 months ago) Permalink
So the riches of the future will dress like insane, colorblind Victorians, good to know.
― check the name, no caps, boom, i'm (Laurel), Friday, 17 August 2012 14:46 (9 months ago) Permalink
i think there's def a "movie ugly" thing going on with costumes though, yknow, the designer sack
― obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Friday, 17 August 2012 14:48 (9 months ago) Permalink
i just thought the aping of Depression-era tech and fashion was obviously v effective as a shorthand for "these people have it tough" but unimaginative and pretty unlikely, not two qualities i really want from speculative fiction
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Friday, 17 August 2012 14:50 (9 months ago) Permalink
and there are still seamstresses and dressmakers and tailors in district 12 i would thinkand katniss has her dad's leather jacket and who knows where that came from - the past! i assumethe hunger games is obv so full of holes, as previously pointed out, but whatevs!
― obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Friday, 17 August 2012 14:51 (9 months ago) Permalink
TH otm. I hate this movie and I haven't even seen it.
― check the name, no caps, boom, i'm (Laurel), Friday, 17 August 2012 14:52 (9 months ago) Permalink
this conversation reminds me of how my parents rave over a movie or tv programme's attention to costume detail and barely care about the plot or characters while i'm the other way around
you are all probably right that the costumery is inaccurate but it's not something that matters to me, really
― lex pretend, Friday, 17 August 2012 16:50 (9 months ago) Permalink
there's no "accuracy" here, it's sci-fi, it just seems dumb, much like the plot and the characters
it's a shame because the PREMISE and the general outline of the setting is just killer (no pun intended), sort of a mashup of lord of the flies, the lottery, the most dangerous game, battle royale and brave new world - right in my wheelhouse
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Friday, 17 August 2012 16:54 (9 months ago) Permalink
Catching Fire trailer. Phillip Seymour Hoffman's in this?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jyPnQw_Lqds
― DavidM, Monday, 15 April 2013 14:21 (1 month ago) Permalink
I didn't know where else to put this but LOLOLOL
― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Wednesday, 8 May 2013 20:09 (1 week ago) Permalink
(JLaw photobombing Sarah Jessica Parker at Met Ball - Marillon Cotillard and Lena Dunham loling in background)
― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Wednesday, 8 May 2013 20:10 (1 week ago) Permalink