What a clever title, eh? IT WORKS ON SO MANY LEVELS!

Making it in at number 3 on my Kindle reader is the HUNGER GAMES (preceded by Treasure Island and The French Revolution: A Short History [post soon to come]), a book with which all of the writers of this blog are familiar and one which no doubt (!) shall inspire some spirited conversations (at least it better, or I'm quitting this thing for good). Alrighty then! ON TO THE DISCUSSION!
First off, the pros:
I loved the context of the story. A dystopian America where some materialistic capitol in the Rocky Mountains (undoubtedly Denver [where are the Broncos?!]) has control over undefined border regions and exercises that dominion ruthlessly and popularly, an annual exercise of game theory where a completely random selection (not entirely actually, as the author takes great pains to emphasize) of the subjected populace is forced to duke it out in a ever-varied battle royale, and lots and lots of conflict. It is really difficult to imagine a cooler setting for such a story and Suzanne pulled it off in a believable but still ethereal fashion.
The heroine of the story was initially very very very cool. She was independent, very capable, and driven to good works despite a treacherous and unforgiving environment. She hunted, killed, cared for her family, and provided a character very much worth rooting for. HOWEVER, I felt like Suzanne did a little too much to make Katniss more teenage(ish) and more popularly pliable, and the absence of those characteristics were exactly what I found most engaging about the character in the beginning. Further elaboration shall follow, but let me list one more strength.
The action was awesome. Whether Katniss was putting an arrow through her opponents throat or listening to the butchering of a nearby opponent, I felt like I was watching an action movie through my mind, and that is always a treat. Suzanne definitely did not fail to keep you in suspense.
The cons:
The very very stupid love triangle. Lame. Forced. Shallow. Predictable. I wish the element of the love triangle would have been thrown out two paragraphs after being penned, but such dreams turned fanciful in the face of an increasingly hollow love story where I think we have to admit that the author tried way too hard to fabricate something that was completely unnecessary to an otherwise strong story.
The teenage element. I know this is a weak criticism due to the pop-teenage nature of the novel, but I still hold to it. I felt like the author would deviate from her strengths in suspense story-telling to over-emphasize some feature I'm sure she felt needed shoring up, and these seemed to particularly concern the nature of Katniss' feelings. It seemed like there were two Katniss characters, the action hero and the teenage girl, and they didn't seem to be two sides of a single coin so much as substance and shadow.
The predictability of the novel. I know you all agree, but this novel was pegged from pg. 20. The moment you are introduced to a character you know whether they'll live or die (and most of the time in what order [comparatively speaking]) and you also know what the story shall unfold to. It's kind of like opening a present whose contents are mostly known, it just becomes a matter of which flavor.
So there. It was overall a good book, but it could have been better. Much better. I don't feel like I wasted time reading it but I don't feel overly enthused to read the sequels (though I'm certainly more excited to read them than the Harry Potter books)....




have seen Pinocchio and think anything which is an enemy of Monstro is a friend of man. I watched a short clip of Monstro's awakening and realized that as a kid I truly couldn't imagine a terror more real than being trapped at sea with an unstoppable leviathan bent on my consumption. Monstro was so terrifying in part because he was portrayed to be so completely evil. You are shown no emotional side of Monstro, only the workings of a creature bent on destruction. He's bad. Very Bad. And Free Willies the world over have suffered a cruel rap at the hands of this villain's image.

6. Queen Grimhilde. Vanity, thy name is Queen Grimhilde. This villain was brought to ruin by

3. Cruella de Vil. While Cruella de Vil doesn't take home the prize for top villain in my list, I cannot deny her ubiquitous presence in the ethos of Disney villainy. She is by far the most recognized of the Disney villains, her tribute song is the most well known (it has its own jingle for crying out loud!), and her polar bear fur coat insures that she will continue to be hated as our society grows increasingly environmentally conscious (at least we tell ourselves we're more environmentally conscious). I wish I enjoyed 101 Dalmations more. I'm sure that if I did Cruella could have reached that infamous apex reserved for the best Disney villain.
in my estimation. He perfectly personifies everything that we hate in villains: he's brilliant, ruthless (even to the point of killing his own brother, and attempting the lionicide of his nephew), he beats on women, subjects all to his will, and sings a piece featuring prominent Nazi and North Korea allegories throughout! Not only that, but Jeremy Irons delivered such a flawless performance that it was difficult at times to not root for Scar out of sheer love for his animating personality.