The inevitable Hunger Games thread

Yeah, I would agree w/that. Her prose is definitely clunky and graceless in places, but the imaginative plotting compensated, IMO. Honestly, I read so few novels outside the realm of Serious Literary Fiction that I was excited to submit to a page-turner.

(xpost to Dan)

there are posters on this very board who write things like that on a daily basis in their interactions with each other so I really don't know what to say to you

also, i don't hold a super high opinion of every single poster on this board (tho i do of some!)

I am holding my tongue and turning my features into an indifferent mask so nobody guesses who DJP is referring to

this feels exactly like the harry potter arguments

it's a page-turner for kids, it's kind of like...stylish prose isn't even important, plotting is. at this kind of book's best you don't notice the lumpen prose because you've already turned the page

j.k. rowling was a decent stylist, though.

and its not just a style vs. plotting question, its also about -- as remy put it upthread -- refusing to "allow the reader to experience wonder, confusion, or ambiguity"

nah

i read all the harry potter books in about an afternoon to a day each and...nah

ha i dont think j.k. rowling is james salter or anything but youre CRAZY if you think she and collins are at the same level

oh i haven't read collins yet! i assume she's good at plotting or at least creating a compelling world given how just the film sucked me into it. if/when i do read her books i'm not going to partic care if the prose is a bit dodgy

criticizing The Hunger Games for not allowing the reader to experience wonder, confusion or ambiguity when compared to Harry Potter when one series is about a young wizard coming of age and learning all this cool magic while his dad's enemies try to murder him and the other series is about an indentured teen put in an arena to kill other indentured teens for the entertainment of the leisure class strikes me as a fundamental antipathy to the type of pathos-ridden story The Hunger Games is telling

having said that, Lex you should read Battle Royale instead; it's a much better book than The Hunger Games

remy's complaint wasn't about comparing it to harry potter! and i dont think you need to bring harry potter in to make the same complaint! the "wonder/confusion/ambiguity" thing, as i read it, is about SC's obsessive need to explain *everything* the minute it happens. "the hunger games which are this," "the mockingjays which are this," "the muttations which are this." the way thomp complains upthread.

you brought up remy's argument in the context of a comparison of Collins and Rowling, just now

and my Nook app is being annoying and not opening correctly atm but I am about 50% certain the mockingjays weren't explained the instant they appeared and I am positive the revelations about the muttations weren't, since Katniss didn't figure out what was going on with them until after they'd been chased/attacked for a while

criticizing The Hunger Games for not allowing the reader to experience wonder, confusion or ambiguity when compared to Harry Potter when one series is about a young wizard coming of age and learning all this cool magic while his dad's enemies try to murder him and the other series is about an indentured teen put in an arena to kill other indentured teens for the entertainment of the leisure class strikes me as a fundamental antipathy to the type of pathos-ridden story The Hunger Games is telling

yeah, this is true but also not really the point. is anyone saying the hunger games should invoke wonder? rowling is not a good prose writer, but she was still capable of making her prose feel alive. the tones of these books are obviously going to be different, but writing a story as dark as THG isn't the same as writing a story as DEAD as THG. collins writes dead, smelly prose, with flies buzzing around it. you're driven to keep reading because the plot is intriguing, but her sentences and paragraphs get in the way.

and she's awful at plotting. her devotion to the three act structure hampered all the stories immensely. probably the biggest reason catching fire was so messed up. especially telling that although movies are so much better than books at telling a story in three acts, whoever's directing the next one is going to have to completely restructure and re-center the plot to make it look like an actual movie.

djp, that sentence isn't really "high-minded, self-absorbed, convinced she is amazing teen" so much as not something a human being would ever think

It sounds very much like something a teenager would think to me.

(I enjoyed the movie more than I enjoy most action movies. I haven't read the books. I'm interested in why the sentence in question seems so horrible to people here because it is not obvious to me. Is it just the reliance on clichés? It has been a long time since I read YA lit but that sentence does not strike me as worse than most of the writing in the YA books that I remember.)

OK, I did read the first Harry Potter book. Without having it around, I suppose Rowling would be less likely to rely on a cliché like "hold my tongue". I guess it's just that Collins's sentence is an unimaginative way of expressing that idea as opposed to being technically wrong or unrealistic? I think that's what Mordy was getting at here:

i believe there's an interesting way to write about someone trying to conceal their feelings from other ppl, even from a present tense first person perspective. that's kinda one of the problems here, i think, and in general what i think ppl actually mean when they say a book is poor writing. i don't think it's laziness. i think it's that ppl can recognize when an author spent a minimal amount of time thinking about how they write things and how they represent ideas in language. collins is an author who - for better or for worse (for better for her, she's rich!) - would rather tell the story in the most expedient way possible. that's what makes the writing poor.

(Thinking out loud, I guess, sorry. Also half-drunk so possibly slow.)

the crappiness of her prose can't really be discerned by just looking at a few sentences. collins doesn't embarrass herself every few words like stephanie meyer bc her writing is much too plain and safe. every sentence is an unimaginative way of expressing an idea and after a few chapters it grows suffocating.

having said that, Lex you should read Battle Royale instead; it's a much better book than The Hunger Games

i should WATCH battle royale too given how many years it's been on my must-watch list (i am just incapable of ever committing to a DVD though) (also not quite sure how they work)

you're driven to keep reading because the plot is intriguing

that bit is the bit i'm getting at. if YA authors like collins and rowling were straight-up bad writers you wouldn't be driven to read on b/c that's what bad writing boils down to imo - a book that loses my interest or that i don't want to finish. if you're driven to keep reading they're doing something very crucial right. it might not be the prose style but the prose style isn't necessarily the most impt ingredient

bad or good writing doesn't boil down to any one thing. it's both macro and micro. maybe your standard boils down to "do i want to keep reading this or not" but that doesn't stop bad prose from being bad prose, and for the most part people here aren't saying anything beyond that. though i am also saying that she is terrible at plotting her books.

being driven to keep on reading... i don't think that's enough. given the lack of payoff that typically greets stories based on intrigue. and after reading through the three books in a few days (and obv towards the end i was reading just to be done with it already) there wasn't much of that 'payoff' (ie 'a feeling that reading these books has contributed anything to me aside from a brief distraction'). i might have said this earlier, but the one thing i think collins is really good at is constructing individual scenarios that are original and compelling. but those were largely only compelling within their own meta universe. it didn't strike me on an emotional level or an intellectual one, the writing itself wasn't beautiful enough to keep my heart pounding, the action was incomprehensible. i wanted to keep reading but that hardly matters because i don't put much weight in a writer's ability to keep me curious.

and from my understanding, if a YA novel/series does not keep eyes glued on the page, they're DOA.

also there's a love triangle

maybe your standard boils down to "do i want to keep reading this or not" but that doesn't stop bad prose from being bad prose

But it does stop it from mattering.

the writing itself wasn't beautiful enough to keep my heart pounding

But this isn't the writing's job!

the action was incomprehensible

Yeah no, I'm not sure you read these books now.

its cool how the 'capital' is this place with all this fascist architecture and everyone who lives there is a humongous fruit, really makes you yearn for the simple honest country folk of the districts

But it does stop it from mattering.

yes, if that's all you care about, but that is not a standard i even understand. i've read plenty of crap things to the end because they knew how to keep me curious. if i started reading twilight i'd probably want to keep reading out of MORBID curiosity. that doesn't make it quality writing.

But this isn't the writing's job!

you separated that from my list of jobs writing COULD do to win me over. it failed all of them, including that. and you are most likely taking my usage of "beautiful" and "keep my heart pounding" too literally. you could replace them with "good" and "make me appreciate the english language" (not an easy task!)

Yeah no, I'm not sure you read these books now.

ha my movie criticism was leaking into my book criticism. incomprehensibility was only a big problem in the last third of mockingjay, when i had no idea how to visualize anything she was writing, and when i could, the images were ridiculously OTT. also had the same problem someone mentioned earlier with the murder clock in catching fire. oh, and that other action part of mockingjay when that one district is under attack. actually if i hadn't seen the movie first, i have no idea if the action of the first book would've worked any better. it mostly comes down her describing things badly, which she more or less admits.

What I mean by that is that if the book is telling an interesting and compelling story in an effective way, what good is good writing? Also I am wondering if many of the people complaining about stinky writing in this thread have actually read EG Dan Brown, where the writing is actually fighting the story, but the story is still compelling (NB I am not considering DB anything to aim at)

Fair point, I have indeed mistaken what you were saying there, taking you too literally.

I don't think she describes things badly (though I haven't actually read anything beyond The Hunger Games), but I am totally down with her being uninterested in picture-painting beyond what's necessary for the plot + characterisation (though like DJP it's possible I've burnt out the bit of my brain that should care about it with an infusion of pulp when I was younger).

haha "younger", ahem

btw read the Wool omnibus, that was fun

I didn't expect to, but I actually liked the movie. One question, were those dog creature things at the end holograms or were they real?

it was kind of confusing in the movie, and there's no way I'm bothering with fan wikis or reading the damn book.

i was informed afterwards that the dogs were made from like the uh... fucking souls of the dead contestants or something. or dna. i dont know

Yeah, in the book they have the faces of the dead contestants, but it's really not clear whether this is just the games masters fucking with the remaining Tributes or what.

Not the entire faces, just the eyes.

its cool how the 'capital' is this place with all this fascist architecture and everyone who lives there is a humongous fruit, really makes you yearn for the simple honest country folk of the districts

― Hungry4Ass, Tuesday, May 22, 2012 2:11 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ah yes, hmmmmm

fwiw the subsequent books do go into that whole setup a little bit more

I'm kind of lolling at myself for defending these books so much, I must be really bored

that line just makes me think "i can't turn my face into a heart"

I know what I'm getting DJP for Christmas.

I know what I'm getting Austerity Ponies for Christmas.

Would you like that gift-wrapped?

thanks for the etsy link. i'm buying one of those bracelets right now.

or maybe...

Philip Seymour Hoffman cast as Plutarch!

ooh, that's good casting!

too lazy to verify but twitter is saying they're splitting "mockingjay" into two movies? dumb but not NEARLY as dumb as splitting "breaking dawn" into two movies. at least mockingjay has the pretense of like, introducing district 13 and the war and stuff.

Haven't read anything beyond the first yet, but at this point I think its just so they can milk a sure-fire franchise a little longer, nothing to do with actually following the plot.

the 'break the last book of a series up into 2 movies' trend is kind of silly and transparently greedy, but probably even pretty short novels usually have enough happening that you can get 4-5 hours of film out of it as easily as 2 so i'm kinda like ah go for it who cares.

yeah it's obv a cash grab but p much all the HP movies after the third one had enough stuff going on to warrant split movies, and the three that weren't split had so much incomprehensible crap crammed into a couple hours and they sucked for it. the first three books fit pretty perfectly so it's going to be a problem when the next four books are more than twice as long but WB keeps the same time limit on the movies. deathly hallows movies weren't great movies but they at least had enough room to be good movies (in the hands of a less boring director and screenwriter)

problem with this is the hunger games books are all the same length and the first book adapted very easily

probably even pretty short novels usually have enough happening that you can get 4-5 hours of film out of it as easily as 2

yeah one of the best novel-to-film adaptations i've seen was brokeback mtn, which was tellingly a slim 100-page novella - the film had so much space to breathe and linger on stuff rather than having to cram plot points and exposition in at every turn

OK, Melissa Leo is in talks to play Mags? I know haggard-looking characters are kind of her thing, but she's like 30 years younger than the character.

its cool how the 'capital' is this place with all this fascist architecture and everyone who lives there is a humongous fruit, really makes you yearn for the simple honest country folk of the districts

― Hungry4Ass, Tuesday, May 22, 2012 6:11 AM (2 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah i mean really

plus what several people said upthread about how katniss never has to confront the conflict that the entire premise of the movie points to with big flashing arrows: what happens when allies have disposed of their enemies? at the very least let's see how the band of baddies deals with this situation? but it's completely elided in favor of what, a kind of disheartening ending where the heroes become what they aren't, the very thing peeta said he was determined not to do, and it sort of dribbles out.

NB i have not read the book

and i mean the districts' down-by-the-old-mill aesthetic is picturesque but 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, kansas city mega-chiefs championship jerseys from 8 years ago, a birthday frock worn once by a capitol citizen and then donated selflessly to the hoi polloi, subsequently mended 20 times but still retaining a spangle here and there

also wtf with "anti-chekhov's brooch" - constantly referred to, zero payoff