Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#345 - Dakafal (02/01/2013) [-]
Seriously? Hunger Games is up there? The book really wasn't anything special. It was a pretty cool concept, but unfortunately Suzanne Collins simply didn't write it very well. Which is a shame, because she had written another series that was pretty cool. The second book wasn't as good, and tried too hard to overdevelop the characters. And the third book was utter **** . Like she was only half way done with the story, and the publisher called and said he was going to pick it up tomorrow, so she killed everyone off and came up with the most unsatisfactory ending I have ever had the misfortune to read. Oh and the movie sucked ass. Regardless, it doesn't deserve to be up there with the other stories.
User avatar #375 to #345 - loomiss ONLINE (02/01/2013) [-]
I personally loved The Hunger Games series but disliked Narnia, yes I have read all of both, it all really just comes down to preference.. except Twilight, never twilight.
User avatar #388 to #375 - Dakafal (02/01/2013) [-]
I get what you mean about preference. But looking at it from a literary perspective, The Hunger Games weren't written very well. I haven't read the books since they came out so I don't have a million examples off the top of my head, but one thing that really stood out to me was the lack of descriptive writing Collins used. The only things she really put any effort into describing were people, some more than others, and randomly describing the Capitol citizens very vividly. But locations? Nothing. She didn't even try to explain the geography of all the districts in relation to each-other, nor what any buildings looked like or anything. To compare, look at Harry Potter. The castle, houses, and all other locations are very precisely described.
User avatar #369 to #345 - kingarturi (02/01/2013) [-]
ya the movie wasn't as good as it could have been and the second book wasn't the best of the trilogy. the first book was great, it was emotional, well written and easy to understand i don't know what books you read but they must be Dickens level books or something (which i admit is a really good author) the second book ya it wasn't as memorable as the first but it made way to the third which is on par with the first. The reason so many characters die is because they're at WAR and people tend to die at war no matter if there main characters or not. I think it does deserve to be up there if you don't like it fine but don't diss it with out fully immersing your self in the story. the books made me cry and they made me happy and i would appreciate you not making fun of one of my favorite story's.
User avatar #383 to #369 - Dakafal (02/01/2013) [-]
I don't want to sound like a literature nazi or something, but I do read quite a bit. I was the kid that read The Lord of The Rings in 6th grade, so I do judge authors pretty harshly. Her killing of all the characters came across as her being unable to come up with decent endings for all the characters, and so she was lazy and got rid of them instead of investing some effort. The one's that actually lived, got ****** endings as well. The first book was decent. I was fortunate enough to stumble across the book almost right after it was published, so I read it without any popular bias. It wasn't bad, not by any stretch, but I was very surprised it attracted enough attention to get as popular as it did. The other two books were quite abysmal though. If you liked them though, she wrote another series called "Gregor the Overlander" that was pretty good.
User avatar #392 to #383 - kingarturi (02/01/2013) [-]
very well i shall try that series and now upon further inspection of your comment i see why you didn't like the hunger game, you grew up with the best of literature lotr bring one of them. but complaining about the end of the third book is a little harsh, in very few scenarios can you get a good ending with war or rebellionm if you are being realistic. the ending she gave, gave little closure and i think that was the point. Katniss herself lost much of all she knew with little of anything to make up for it she lost her sister, her best freinds, her love, her home, and even at one point her mom for a while it would be nearly impossible to find a way to make her get over that and add to the fact her sister died because of the person she was taking orders from (the leader of the rebellion) killed prim on purpose. it can be a little overwhelming and nothing will ever make up for that.
User avatar #396 to #392 - Dakafal (02/01/2013) [-]
I'm not criticizing how Katniss felt or anything. That's pretty understandable. I so much as didn't like the way Collins wrote it out. It was like "okay the stories over, thisiswhathappenedtogaleandhermomandeveryonesokay but katniss hates her life and everyone and doesn't even like her kids and doesn't really like Peeta , the end."
User avatar #398 to #396 - kingarturi (02/01/2013) [-]
she never said she didn't like her kids and she does like peeta but i get what you're saying it felt rushed and i admit it did feel that way to me too but you just have to sit and think about it for awhile and things start fitting together.
0
#391 to #346 - kingarturi has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)