Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.
Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.
Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?
Personally I found the first book and Mockingjay to be pretty close with The Hunger Games having a slight lead over Mockingjay. Catching Fire was still a great book, but it wasn't as good for me because the firs half to two thirds of the book was more plot than action, while the others had quite a bit more action.
I'd heard lots of people talking about this series but had no real idea what it was about until a couple of weeks ago when I picked up THG and oh, ohhh. So good. Couldn't put it down, it was over way too fast, and I need to order the next two books very very soon.
I can't quite decide whether it's fantasy, or adventure, or even a horror story - it's a pretty terrifying concept, anyway. Where would you put it?
I'm joining this for sure. When I first picked up the series, I didn't really think it would be all that good, to be honest. I was pleasantly surprised when I was wrong.
@Big Red, I would definitely be interested in a HG RP.
Hi guys! I don't want to rain on your parade, I just have a couple of questions I am genuinely curious about! Full disclosure: I haven't read the books, just Farla's reviews of them (in my defence, they are... extensive).
It seems to me the world-building in the series is pretty terrible. District 12 is supposed to be incredibly impoverished, everyone on the edge of starvation, etc., yet... somehow there is a bakery which makes cakes? How does that make sense? And the actual Hunger Games make no sense. You can enter more times than necessary to get more food, right? So why doesn't everyone enter, like, a hundred times? Proportionally the odds of any one person being chosen stay the same, but everyone gets loads of food! (Yes, I am taking these examples straight from Farla. Like I said, I haven't read the book myself. :P)
And then there's the curious manner in which the blame for the Hunger Games themselves ends up being focused more or less on one person (the president, who also seems comically evil). Even the head game-maker guy
ends up being a conspirator
. Isn't it a tiny bit disturbing that the general populace, who are clearly supportive of and enjoy the Hunger Games, are never really blamed for them? And the way the main characters merrily play along with the whole glamorous reality TV thing (costumes, interviews, etc.), without even a hint of rebelliousness? What sort of message is that? Why on earth is Cinna portrayed as a positive character? Plus the whole thing seems quite misogynist.
Right, sorry, I didn't really mean to rant. Dystopian fiction is kind of my pet genre and I just feel a little perplexed when people hail this as an amazing dystopian novel when in my opinion it clearly isn't. Tell me if you'd rather not discuss it in this thread, though. :D
It seems to me the world-building in the series is pretty terrible. District 12 is supposed to be incredibly impoverished, everyone on the edge of starvation, etc., yet... somehow there is a bakery which makes cakes? How does that make sense?
Even within the district there is a lower class and an upper class. The bakers can't even afford to eat their own fresh bread.
And the actual Hunger Games make no sense. You can enter more times than necessary to get more food, right? So why doesn't everyone enter, like, a hundred times?
I'm not sure what it was, but I'm fairly certain there was some limit.
And then there's the curious manner in which the blame for the Hunger Games themselves ends up being focused more or less on one person (the president, who also seems comically evil). Even the head game-maker guy
ends up being a conspirator
. Isn't it a tiny bit disturbing that the general populace, who are clearly supportive of and enjoy the Hunger Games, are never really blamed for them?
Yeah, it's disturbing, but the general populace is an ignorant, disturbing crowd anyway.
And the way the main characters merrily play along with the whole glamorous reality TV thing (costumes, interviews, etc.), without even a hint of rebelliousness? What sort of message is that?
It seems to me the world-building in the series is pretty terrible. District 12 is supposed to be incredibly impoverished, everyone on the edge of starvation, etc., yet... somehow there is a bakery which makes cakes? How does that make sense? And the actual Hunger Games make no sense. You can enter more times than necessary to get more food, right? So why doesn't everyone enter, like, a hundred times? Proportionally the odds of any one person being chosen stay the same, but everyone gets loads of food! (Yes, I am taking these examples straight from Farla. Like I said, I haven't read the book myself. :P)
I think the entering-lots-for-food thing falls under the scary police state umbrella that makes people submit to the games themselves, whether watching or competing or whatever. It is quite heavily emphasised (in the first book, at least) that the general implication of the Capitol (government... sort of) is along the lines of 'do what we tell you or we will squash you like a bug!' And it is set several generations into the regime, so it kind of makes sense that any initial rebellions have been overcome and the current generations have settled into their existence. From what I can tell the second and third books are about a rebellion of sorts, so I hope the first book was for setting up the atmosphere of paranoia in the society and the others are for its downfall? Somebody who has read the others feel free to expand, I know not of what I speak. :v
Haven't read all that many dystopian society based novels so I can't compare it there, but I enjoyed it for its pace and atmosphere!
(The cake thing I wasn't really sure about either. Can only assume that no matter how impoverished the dystopian society, they will always need cake.)
So why on earth are they baking cakes? Only the rich can afford them, but if they can't afford to eat their own bread, presumably that money isn't helping!
I'm not sure what it was, but I'm fairly certain there was some limit.
But that's the whole point, by going along with it they're implicitly supporting the whole system! You can rationalise it away by saying they do what they have to do to survive, but that's the whole point of the Games, isn't it? By "doing what they have to do", they're playing straight into the government's hands. The most rebellious thing Katniss could have done was commit suicide the instance she had the chance.
Cinna is a conspirator. And martyr for that matter.
Sure, okay, but even before we find that out he's presented as a positive character, even though he plays a major role in promoting the Hunger Games. Also is it just me or is everyone a conspirator? It's like the author just didn't want anyone to be a villain. Which sort of fits with how the Capital populace isn't demonised at all. Concentrate all the evil in one person, and you don't need to worry about the possibility that maybe everyone is to blame, at least a little. It's like whitewashing the morality.
Consider the female characters other than Katniss. They're almost all presented as weak or suffering from mental illness; Joanna, one of the few exceptions, is portrayed very antagonistically (though, I grant you, she ultimately turns out to be on the right side and also possibly dead, oops). Katniss herself, although initially shown as strong and independent (good hunter, that sort of thing) is also constantly referred to as having some sort of natural affinity for healing. Peeta always seems to want to protect her, even though she is clearly way more suited to protecting him than vice versa (that one time when he was injured in a cave excepted). It all seems too much like the tired old trope of a tomboy coming to terms with her own femininity.
Then there's the relationships. The romance is downright creepy; both Peeta and Gale manipulate her emotionally, even when she makes it clear she's not interested in either of them (protip: kissing someone suddenly without permission is not romantic, it's sexual assault). Peeta especially takes advantage of their subterfuge, even after it's revealed to him.
EDIT:
Can only assume that no matter how impoverished the dystopian society, they will always need cake.
As much as this amuses me, it is downright silly! Cake is a waste of perfectly good resources. :P
Anyway, I'd suggest you all read Farla's reviews. They go chapter-by-chapter, pointing out all the inconsistencies. I think she's fair (though obviously not having read it, I can't really judge). In particular, a lot of the survival stuff makes absolutely no sense. I seem to recall Katniss tapping a tree to get water at one point? Just... what?
Also, Kinova, I highly recommend you read some dystopian fiction! :D I think it is one of the most interesting sub-genres of science fiction. I would suggest starting with We by Yevgeny Zamyatin, if you can find it.
...Is this discussion really necessary here? :/ I mean I'm all for debate and opinions and whatever but this is a Fanclub and imo it's rude to barge in - without having read the subject matter at that - and criticize everything about the thing the fanclub is for as if we're horrible or something for enjoying it. I know they're not perfect but really this is not the place for it. I don't like...idk, Eragon and Twilight but I leave them alone if they have a thread just for that subject.
I haven't even read the books either but I came here to see what some fans of the book had to say about it. Not read a debate.
If you haven't personally read the source material, I'm sorry, but you have no right to talk as if you've actually read it. You've read one person's opinion and are taking it as your own. That's not a strong base for any sort of criticism. Even with something like the Twilight series (which I haven't read) you need to read it to be able to comment on it intelligently. Hence why I stay out of Twilight discussions and simply say that it's not my cup of tea, which it isn't.
But this is getting off topic. Debaters gotta debate, take it to the debate forums. Fanclubs gotta fan and party, then let's boogie down.
@Big Red Cherry Bomb: If you like, I'll leave, but please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't criticise everything the fanclub is for, and I certainly didn't even begin to suggest that you're horrible for liking it. I'd read one take on the books (no, I haven't read the books, but Farla does reproduce a significant portion of the text), and I was interested in how fans would respond to the points raised therein.
If anyone wants to continue this discussion, I would happily do it over PM! :D
I haven't even read the books either but I came here to see what some fans of the book had to say about it. Not read a debate.
If you haven't personally read the source material, I'm sorry, but you have no right to talk as if you've actually read it. You've read one person's opinion and are taking it as your own. That's not a strong base for any sort of criticism. Even with something like the Twilight series (which I haven't read) you need to read it to be able to comment on it intelligently. Hence why I stay out of Twilight discussions and simply say that it's not my cup of tea, which it isn't.
I have read one person's commentary on excerpts of the books. I think that is sufficient to draw some conclusions, but I came here precisely because I wanted to hear other people's points of view. I think I just disagree fundamentally: I don't think you necessarily need to read the text to comment on something. I've read more than enough summaries of and commentaries on Twilight that I think I can discuss it fairly. I've discussed the Twilight books with fans before, and no one's ever called me out on misrepresenting the books.
My apologies then - I've just argued with lots of people that assumed if you like something they consider misogynist or some other bad thing then you automatically are just as bad.
