This is basically cheating, I know, since it's three books that I'm reviewing and not one. I'm lumping them together because I read all three in the span of "reading time" I would normally allot to a single book. This is the peril of reading fiction that's way below your reading level; fast read times. And make no mistake, , despite the insight into politics that a teenager would not possess, and despite the perspective and world view in the book that a teenager (in the U.S.) couldn't possibly identify with.. this is a book written for teenage girls.
There, I said it. I read a book for teenage girls. Are you happy, internet?
The Hunger Games Trilogy, by Suzanne Collins, using the technical definition, was well written. If there were mistakes in grammar and spelling, they didn't jump out at me like a naked hobo with a clown mask on.
That's a good thing.
I ultimately reached a bad verdict of the series overall, because the third book in the trilogy made no sense. Don't get me wrong; the plot was understandable (and predictably linear), the characters easy to grasp, and the action well paced. But the characterization towards the end of the work was just atrocious. The characters do and say things that are completely out of character and run contrary to previous remarks, actions, and the moral of the story. Why? I don't want to hand out a ton of spoilers here, but let me just say that the end of the third book is like a Seinfield episode. No one learned anything, and there was no development for the characters. It's sad, and a waste of effort.
My better half lobs the argument that Katniss, the main character, has been run through the wringer and its reasonable to portray her as rather broken. I disagree, simply because this is a book about a heroine, that young girls might aspire to be like. If I ever have a daughter, I want her to learn that sometimes life can be needlessly cruel and unfair, that those with authority are not to be trusted, and that sometimes you have to get your shit together under terrible circumstances because other people depend on you. I don't want her to think that getting doped out of your mind, avoiding your issues, and taking more than a year to vacillate between two men is an acceptable method for dealing with things. Collins stubbed her toe on the heroics, except for Peeta (and to a lesser extent, Gale), who handle her silliness fairly well and are excellent male role models.
There's also some rather heavy-handed metaphors, which is frankly rather dull. I like to take a few minutes to think about events, what they mean. I don't need or want a literary ogre clubbing me over the noggin. Look, the main character's scarred appearance now matches the emotional/internal scars! We can dress her so she looks the same, but underneath she's still the same! I GET IT.
Jeez. Next time just send me the Cliff's Notes version, it's probably got the same level of subtlety.
Here's the break down. Book 1, the Hunger Games, gets a respectable 70. Book 2, which is almost as good, gets an almost as respectable 68. Book 3 gets an abysmal 40. I've read worse, so this doesn't come close to making my shit-list for horrible fiction, but I think it whisked through the door just in time (and perhaps, like Bilbo, lost a few buttons in the process). Average them out: 59%.
Try harder next time, Suzanne Collins. Try harder.
