Do I have to announce "spoilers"? Seriously? It's a book review. I can't review books without speaking about the things that happen in them. I do intend to disclose the ending, so read at your own peril.
"The Hunger Games." Loved it. Didn't see it in the theater, but did buy the blu-ray. The movie is as good as the book.
But I was disappointed in both "Catching Fire" and "Mockingjay". Not to say these are not good, or they shouldn't be read, but I excepted something, well . . . better. Quick synopsis: Sometime in the future our beloved United States is no longer, but has been replaced by Panem--which I thought may have been a run-together and slurring of PAN AMerica, but later learned it was the "bread" in the Latin for "bread and circuses", too metaphorical for my tastes, but I get it--a country once made up of 13 districts, the 13th having rebelled for reasons not disclosed and apparently annihilated. Each surviving district after this war supplies the Capitol through slave labor goods and resources while being kept on the edge of starvation (as if starving slaves could ever produce quality goods). As punishment for the rebellion, every year a male and female child from each district is drawn by lottery as a tribute to fight to the death in the Hunger Games. Pretty gruesome concept. The protagonist (an adept illegal bow hunter) Katniss Everdeen's little sister is drawn and Katniss volunteers to take her place; hijinks ensue. The other Tribute is Peeta. Katniss has a somewhat boyfriend in Gale, but through the machinations of her and Peeta's drunk Mentor and Sponsors, she has to pretend there is a love story between her and Peeta which makes for great entertainment for the citizens of the Capitol. They are such a hit that it is deemed that there can be two Victors if they are from the same district, so Katniss and Peeta kick ass and are the last two standing . . .the dual victor rule gets renigged and one has to kill the other, Peeta of course offering to die. But wait! Katniss has poison berries and they decide to take the Shakespearian way out and off themselves to deny the Capitol winners. But then before they can get the berries into their mouths, they are declared both winners of the 75th Hunger Games! Hurray! Dora the Explorer "We Did It!" dance!
Okay, maybe not such a quick synopsis. And though I may seem to be making light of "The Hunger Games", I did enjoy it very much: swift pace, credible dangers, realistic motivations. For aspiring writers (such as myself) this is one to study. And because it was in first person, there is a lot going on behind the scenes that only comes to light once Katniss becomes directly involved. I knew that with a story like this that there must be an opposition group ready to foment uprisings and open rebellion. You can't have a story about this kind of oppression without that hope. The actions of the minor characters lead me to believe that this was the case, and the sequels deal with that rebellion and civil war.
"Catching Fire" accounts the coming of the rebellion and the President's knowledge that Katniss' decision to chose suicide over victory was a form of rebellion in and of itself and has inspired unrest in the districts. He threatens her directly, charging her with quieting these stirring on the Victory Tour, or it's curtains for Gale and others she loves. But she screws it up and actually instigates rebellion. To punish her, the "Quarter Quell Hunger Games" Tributes will be drawn from the previous Victors pool, so she and Peeta are back in the arena. At this point I was like "Really? This is what you want to do? Rehash the first book? It's a different kind of game this time 'round, but still, why not something else? I don't think this was a moment for Collins of "My God! The Hunger Games KILLED! I'll reuse the formula for the sequel." Just the way the whole story reads, I think it was planned this way as it developed. I was hoping that the rebellion would start in the Game with the tributes all banding together and refusing to kill one another. But it wasn't so. As in the first, alliances were made, and may killed and died, but in the end, the Rebellion, initiated by the Oh-No-We-Are-Not-Dead,-We've-Been-Living-Underground-This-Whole-Time-With-Our-Nuclear-Arsenal District 13, comes to the rescue and saves several members of Katniss's alliance buddies.
"Mockingjay" is the full on war party civil war rebellion, but again, in first person perspective so we only see what Katniss sees which spares Collins having to think too much about strategy and tactics that don't require suspension of disbelief. I mean, I understand 43 year old Air Force veterans are not the target audience, my 17 year old daughter is, so in that respect I don't expect something written by a soldier who has done some serious soldiering. The military stuff is plausible from the perspective of someone watching military action on TV or youTube. And while Katniss was saved by the 13s, Peeta was captured by the Capitol, tortured and brainwashed, and actually a threat to Katniss when the unseen rescue attempt managed to get Peeta and other captives in an operation that was said to have gone a little too easily. Yep, the President wanted Peeta to, in no clearer words, fuck up Katniss pretty bad to damage the ongoing rebellion in the other districts. And he does mess her up.
The problem I had with "Mockingjay" was there was no side to root for. It's like an oppressive dictatorship gets taken out and replaced by a terrorist organization--pretty much like Libya and Egypt. District 13 is no better, and will do immoral and unethical warfare, specifically the killing of unarmed civilians and children, to win their war. While "The Hunger Games" left me with a feeling of hope, "Mockingjay" left me with a feeling of loss. Maybe that was Collins' goal. I don't know. And as conservative as "The Hunger Games" seems, the last book expounds the very liberal adage of the ends justifying the means. There's no honor or morality in 13's victory over the Capitol. And they further have a vote to conduct one last Hunger Game comprised of the Capitol's children, which seems to be a remark on the observation that the oppressed often rise to oppress their former oppressors. The good thing was that this last Game most likely never took place. Even though Katniss voted for the Game, when she is preparing to execute the Capitol President Snow, as was one of her conditions for being the "face" of the rebellion, she instead kills the President Coin of 13, who has pretty much been manipulating her the whole while and suggested the last Game. I saw that one coming. Of course, Snow dies or is killed in the aftermath, so it's a nice tie off.
Wickedness replaces wickedness. There's no one of Faith in 13. There is no morality. No line they will not cross. No murderous idea they will not fathom. And hence no reason to cheer them on. But Katniss seems to be numbed by the whole thing too, so there is that, but she doesn't offer a thread of morality either. She doesn't make the argument that they should not treat as they have been treated. She does run away and hide a lot, but then again, she is 17; I think my daughter has greater fortitude than Katniss. Peeta is the one who comes closest to morality when he votes against the last hunger game. With that said, I think the book paints an accurate picture of life absent religion.
Then there is the death of Katniss' younger sister Prim, who is killed in the final battle as a medic attending to bombed children. The whole reason for Katniss volunteering for the games was to save Prim, and here Collins comes and completely destroys the pay-off. At this point I finish the book just to get it done. I mean, I understand reality can be that way, but it seemed that Collins was showing her hand, just because she could. Prim could have just as easily stayed in 13, and recognition of the atrocities the rebel forces inflicted upon the citizens of the Capitol could have been enough to psychologically damage Katiss the way her sister's death had. Her living semi-happily ever after with Peeta? . . . I just didn't care.
The special features on the blu-ray inform us that Collins' idea for the book was about war (and reality TV) and how the wealthy older elite get the youth to fight and die in their wars. Typical liberal viewpoint of war. One I disagree with. If she wrote this in 1968, then I could see her point, what with the draft and all. But since the Persian Gulf War, our wars have been conducted by volunteers who are not fighting for just the old rich elite white guys, but for all our citizens, our families, friends, and neighbors. That's what it means to serve. In no way, shape, or form are the Hunger Games as illustrated in this trilogy comparable to the military--the military certainly has a better Code of Conduct. Katniss did not "enlist" into the Games to defend her district, she was forced to partake in gladiator combat against other contestants. As a veteran, I didn't recognize Collins' intended metaphor. A metaphor requires some similarity.
