Is it typically the violence or The Argument that turn people off?
Usually both, in equal measure.
I ended up finding The Argument extremely convincing but I wonder if that is because I was already prone to agreeing with it; I know very little about neuroscience.
I'd be interested in seeing arguments against it other than it being disturbing if true.
Has anyone read Kafka on the Shore? My Japanese Civ teacher from a couple years ago recommended it to me and I've been meaning to read it. Just wondering if it is any good.
I recently purchased The Flight of Gemma Hardy: A Novel, and I am excited to start reading it tomorrow. It is apparently (loosely?) based on Jayne Eyre.
Started reading Glen Cook's The Black Company today. Looked like an entertaining short read. Pretty good so far but a bit hard to follow from the start.
Speaking of Sherlock Holmes I've been meaning to get to that. Haven't read those stories since 4th grade. That might be next.
Started reading Glen Cook's The Black Company today. Looked like an entertaining short read. Pretty good so far but a bit hard to follow from the start.
Adam read that book and found the writing weak (lack of character development/depth, poor description, clichéd, etc.), which was disappointing because he liked certain aspects of the world.
Got "Looking for Alaska" by John Green in the mail yesterday. Just finished it, a mere 24 and a half hours later with 4 hours of sleep, a work day and two hockey games in between. It's a quick but great read, and as you can tell it grabbed me pretty quickly and tightly. Highly recommended.
Adam read that book and found the writing weak (lack of character development/depth, poor description, clichéd, etc.), which was disappointing because he liked certain aspects of the world.
Poor description would be my biggest criticism so far. There are so many characters to keep track of and so far the sum of my knowledge about their appearances is that two are black and really old and one wears black armor and might be a woman. I know exactly nothing about the character whose perspective the story is being told from. This is about 40 pages in.
I just read The Great, Big, Beautiful Tomorrow, a short story by Doctorow. It's the perfect nerd dystopia. He takes a bunch of things that sound cool (environmentally-friendly robots, post-human genetics, brain uploading, mechas, etc) and basically uses them to destroy the world.
I dunno if I've reached the tearjerking death in Catching Fire (monkeys are involved, that's all I'll say), I can certainly see how emotional it is, but whether just from being numbed by The Hunger Games, or the fact it is from out of nowhere really, its not as emotional for me.
Finished reading The Hunger Games; it's an easy read and better than I assumed it would be. Now I'm looking forward to the movie, where before I couldn't have cared less.
@Jack, well it's not like tear jerking. Perhaps I used my words wrong, but it was truly a crazy suspenseful moment. It's the time where they visit District 11. I really liked that part.
So, I listened to The Hunger Games trilogy in audiobook form. Excellent dictation, I have to say. If you guys are at all interested, the Audible audiobooks are definitely great listens.
So, I listened to The Hunger Games trilogy in audiobook form. Excellent dictation, I have to say. If you guys are at all interested, the Audible audiobooks are definitely great listens.
Same here. Just finished book 1. Would you recommend I keep going or just enjoy the first book? I hear book 3 drops the ball a bit?? Not that I usually trust reviews.
You have to keep going! You can't just read the first one, you have to end the story! :-P
I have little desire to. I've heard each book is distinctly worse than the last one.
I'm not sure I'd put it that way, but more that the writer tries different things as the books go on, and tends to not do so well with them, or write herself into a corner and has to knock down a wall to get out.
For example - BTW, spoilers, but I'll try to keep it down - There is some dramatic tension between some of the characters, when one of the characters is broken and driven mad, and the aftermath of that, and he was also kind of a knobhead in the first place. The other character, who is generally more competent, less of a whiny princess, and works better with the other character in the tension.
Until he is suddenly, instantly and with no prior signs, signals or clues turned from generally competent good guy into a sociopathic arsehole (who it is strongly implied willfully commits mass-murder with zero remorse or regret, and who would do it again without hesitation), worse than the other guy becomes.
All to make the direction that the the aforementioned third character goes in the end actually make sense, rather than looking like a bizarre self-hate-driven self-sacrifice on an altar of emotional sadomasochism.
You have to keep going! You can't just read the first one, you have to end the story! :-P
I have little desire to. I've heard each book is distinctly worse than the last one.
I'm not sure I'd put it that way, but more that the writer tries different things as the books go on, and tends to not do so well with them, or write herself into a corner and has to knock down a wall to get out.
For example - BTW, spoilers, but I'll try to keep it down - There is some dramatic tension between some of the characters, when one of the characters is broken and driven mad, and the aftermath of that, and he was also kind of a knobhead in the first place. The other character, who is generally more competent, less of a whiny princess, and works better with the other character in the tension.
Until he is suddenly, instantly and with no prior signs, signals or clues turned from generally competent good guy into a sociopathic arsehole (who it is strongly implied willfully commits mass-murder with zero remorse or regret, and who would do it again without hesitation), worse than the other guy becomes.
All to make the direction that the the aforementioned third character goes in the end actually make sense, rather than looking like a bizarre self-hate-driven self-sacrifice on an altar of emotional sadomasochism.
That's a Yes, but it's because with each book the author tries to expand things and push the universe/characters further, but just ends up painting herself into a corner more often with each book. Plus an example that starts in the second book, and concludes poorly in the third. To make it clearer, straight up spoilers in whitetext below
TextGale, Peeta and Katniss all get into a nice little love triangle. Gale ends up more suitable for Katniss, and is generally the far more desirable partner, especially after Peeta is tortured, broken and brainwashed by Snow into wanting to kill Katniss and anyone else in the rebellion, in that order. To compensate, instead of improving Peeta or deepening Katniss's character, she simply tore down Gale, and without any hint of warning or any prior clues to it, Gale is suddenly a murderous sociopath, who is not only willing to kill anyone and everyone for little reason, but actually does kill a large group of children, civilians and the Hunger Games universe equivalent of Red Cross doctors and nurses, for little more effect than to sway the public opinion toward their cause, rather than any actual military objective. It's not outright said that he came up with the plan and essentially pulled the trigger on it, but it's strongly implied to the point of Katniss essentially saying "Well, I don't KNOW for absolutely sure that he did it, but yeah, he did it, and I'll never forgive him, BUT WE WILL ALWAYS BE BES FWENDS despite the fact that he outright murdered my sister and dozens of others for what amounts to popularity." It does end up being the final turning point of the war, but that doesn't change the fact that he willingly and knowingly fucking murdered childeren to aid his cause. I mean, WHAT THE FUCK. You don't be best friends for life with that person, you fucking put them before a firing squad./text
The ending of the third book was such utter garbage that I thought most of it was part of the dream Katniss had when she passed out near the end. When I realized it wasn't, I WTF'd pretty hard.
Comments
I'd be interested in seeing arguments against it other than it being disturbing if true.
Edit: I'd like to recommend it as a geeknights book club choice.
Speaking of Sherlock Holmes I've been meaning to get to that. Haven't read those stories since 4th grade. That might be next.
Next up: The thousandfold Thought.
For example - BTW, spoilers, but I'll try to keep it down - There is some dramatic tension between some of the characters, when one of the characters is broken and driven mad, and the aftermath of that, and he was also kind of a knobhead in the first place. The other character, who is generally more competent, less of a whiny princess, and works better with the other character in the tension.
Until he is suddenly, instantly and with no prior signs, signals or clues turned from generally competent good guy into a sociopathic arsehole (who it is strongly implied willfully commits mass-murder with zero remorse or regret, and who would do it again without hesitation), worse than the other guy becomes.
All to make the direction that the the aforementioned third character goes in the end actually make sense, rather than looking like a bizarre self-hate-driven self-sacrifice on an altar of emotional sadomasochism.
TextGale, Peeta and Katniss all get into a nice little love triangle. Gale ends up more suitable for Katniss, and is generally the far more desirable partner, especially after Peeta is tortured, broken and brainwashed by Snow into wanting to kill Katniss and anyone else in the rebellion, in that order. To compensate, instead of improving Peeta or deepening Katniss's character, she simply tore down Gale, and without any hint of warning or any prior clues to it, Gale is suddenly a murderous sociopath, who is not only willing to kill anyone and everyone for little reason, but actually does kill a large group of children, civilians and the Hunger Games universe equivalent of Red Cross doctors and nurses, for little more effect than to sway the public opinion toward their cause, rather than any actual military objective. It's not outright said that he came up with the plan and essentially pulled the trigger on it, but it's strongly implied to the point of Katniss essentially saying "Well, I don't KNOW for absolutely sure that he did it, but yeah, he did it, and I'll never forgive him, BUT WE WILL ALWAYS BE BES FWENDS despite the fact that he outright murdered my sister and dozens of others for what amounts to popularity." It does end up being the final turning point of the war, but that doesn't change the fact that he willingly and knowingly fucking murdered childeren to aid his cause. I mean, WHAT THE FUCK. You don't be best friends for life with that person, you fucking put them before a firing squad./text