Why the Hunger Games Trilogy Was Absolutely Terrible

I'd been surfing on the internet when i first bumped into the hunger games. I read its synopsis and nearly smashed my head through my computer. Really Suzzanne Collins, really? You just had to do it, didn't you. Anyway, my friend who's a girl put up a lot of praise for this book so  I bought all 3 of them. Needless to say, i'll soon be giving them away and never listen to her recommendations again. Lets start.

The basic premise of the novel (for those of you living under a rock) is that the country of Panem is divided into 12/13 districts, all of whom have to send 2 contenders to the annual Hunger Games which is a gladiator style death tournament meant for 13-18 year old children by means of a not so lucky draw called the Reaping as this apparently keeps rebellions in check. Our heroine Katniss Everdeen, who is also a neat archer and hunter, volunteers to take her sister's place in the Hunger Games and vows to come back alive. Katniss manages to impress a boatload of people and for some reason outside of my understanding, pretends to love Peeta to gain more sponsors

Oh, whats that "Battle Royal", "Lord of The Flies" and "Running Man"? Teenagers stuck on an island who have to kill each other to survive? Does the phrase "Its been done" even begin to cover my sentiments? Not to mention that the premise of the novel itself is flawed. Why would any government in its right mind spend an obscene amount of money and resources in order have "Hunger Games" to snuff out rebellion when there are a million other terror tactics that require less capital and garner more efficiency? Does nobody remember the way Adolf Hitler brainwashed more than half of his population into believing that what they were doing was right? Does nobody remember the art of stuffing propaganda and ideologies down childrens throats and thereby snuffing out all forms/thoughts/ideas of freedom? No? Okay!

Go ahead Katniss! Wear those iconic dresses and fake love your way out of a horror T.V show by practically sitting the whole game out! Good for you! Moving on.

Catching Fire was okay. Once I got past the basic plot flaws and overall stupidity, I was kind of okay with Collins's writing, but I'm still not sure about the whole choosing between Hottie No.1 and Hottie No.2 situation. Honestly, everybody knows she's going to end up with Peeta, there's absolutely no point in trying to delay the story till it gets there, but anywho, this book was a little engaging and I didn't immediately want to throw It across the room. The best thing I can say about this book is that it was at least better than its predecessor. Although I still don't see how a bunch of "star crossed lovers" started a damned rebellion.

So with all my might, I have somehow gotten through to the 3rd book. Mockingjay (what a lovely name) Finally the so called "rebellion" I'd been waiting 2 books for was happening,And when I read the words "Best dressed rebel in history" I started yelling and throwing things around the house. Really? was that the depth of the entire book?  Also, Katniss somehow needs a reason to choose Peeta over Gale so you make the latter do something completely out of character and have him kill her sister. Don't get me wrong, I didn't feel an ounce of pity for anybody throughout the entire book, but its just plain sad when authors manipulate a character in order to meet their desired plot requirements. I didn't finish this book. I'd had enough torture for 1 week and that was that.

I didn't so much have a problem with the story as much as I had a problem with its premise. Battle Royale is a movie Quentin Tarantino wishes he had directed and almost every element on which the series is carried out is an extremely bad rip-off. And why would a country with an already dwindling population try to make things even worse? There is absolutely no explanation for the governments actions and it upsets me that such a poorly thought out series is compared to Harry Potter.The background just didn't make sense, nor did Suzzane's explanation of making the people watch their children get killed and in turn lose hope. The recent surge of YA dystopia is seriously disappointing. I want to go back to the days of 1984 and V For Vendetta. Now THATS anarchical rebellion. But a bunch of teens pretending to be in love and sparking off a revolution? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!


Cheers!


Ruka Of The School Of Insanity

Why Pride & Prejudice Was A Bad Novel

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife."

My push towards Jane Austen was during a history lesson at school where we were being taught the effects of books in English society. I'd heard of her much quoted Pride and Prejudice before, and having it mentioned in the lesson got me seriously fascinated. So I decided to buy a collection of her books. Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility and Persuasion. Within a week i'd finished the former two, and was halfway through the 3rd. Know that I never leave a book unfinished, but for the first time, I really wished my brain had the capacity to ditch a novel.

My hate is mostly directed towards the well known 'Pride and Prejudice' here. It was mildly interesting and at times I actually wanted to find out what happened in the end but it was just not my kind of book. Jane Austen, seems to have landed herself a cult like fan following by pulling the whole "Byronic Hero" stunt over her largely female readers and she has simply happened to do it first. Meaning that she came up with the original, proverbial "bad boy" of this lustrum's teenage fiction books. And I know quite well that if anyone were to read this post, they would probably cringe and throw insults my way at my blatant disrespect for an enormously famed author,  but at the most, all they can really say is that Mr. Darcy is "drool-worthy" (I've been hearing that a lot) and that I wouldn't know a good book if it danced in front of me wearing Dobby's tea cozy. It wasn't a bad book, but it wasn't all that great either. I found nothing special in her writing and I all but think of her as as nothing better than an over-hyped Victorian era chick lit author. In fact, if you want to go further, I'm going to go ahead and say she's the reason for the recent BS that's been hitting the market ever since she started the genre ( 'Those Pricey Thakur Girls'. WHAT?)

I mean, Spare me the age old "Handsome-broody-rich-guy-falls-in-love-with-average-looking-sarcastic-girl" plot-line. Elizabeth herself is an extremely flawed character, and I don't even like her for it. All she did was base her opinion off of rumors and what other people said to her and judged others by it. The only time I even remotely admired her was when she sat in front of Catherine and did a good job of defending herself, and even then the entire argument seemed foolish. On top of that, Ms. Austen seems to think of all pretty girls as "silly". I  saw what she did to Marianne in Sense and Sensibility, because even though she ended up happily married to the Colonel, it was clearly not what her younger self would have wanted. In Pride and Prejudice, her two pretty sisters are portrayed as Victorian-era bimbos, and her pretty older sister is often accused of being nice to the point of idiocy. One could argue that the author was trying to bring out the message that looks aren't everything, but after one point or several "fine eyes" later, she just sounds extremely bitter.

Often it is argued that the book was meant to be a satire. Personally, I think that's an excuse for the character's irrational behavior and obsession with the business of another. Elizabeth Bennet is supposed to be intelligent, yet she forms an unreasonable opinion of Mr. Darcy on the words of another. I don't think she held an actual conversation with the man to actually judge him for who he was. She also doesn't have the courtsy to apologise to the man after he reveals all that he's done for her, that too after he had not for than 3 close encounters with her (the number may be wrong, but frankly, I don't care) The book even has a cliched 'mean girl' out to get the main leads hand in marriage along with a match-making and embarrassing mother!

Just shoot me already.

So why is this book on Guardian List of Books you can't live without? I don't know. Like I said, she has an age old cult following simply because she did it first. The only other reason I can think of for reading her is to analyse English society at its time and even then I don't think that this is the best book on the market. Jane Austen is revered for the simple reason that most girls rave about the book by just having seen the movie or the BBC miniseries, which I can understand because it supposedly wasn't all that bad (according to my sister), but regardless, Jane Austen of all authors, does not deserve the mantle on which she stands. And this is not an opinion, it is a fact. Nothing can counter the argument that her plot was a bore, her writing was just average and just like Twilight, she somehow appealed to the female population and developed a cult following that will get unreasonably offended if you tried to reason your opinion otherwise. It kills me that such a boring and irrelevant book has supposedly "made its mark" on literature. 

Cheers!
Ruka of the School of Insanity