Review: The Hunger Games (novels)

 I'm back at last! And I finished my novel 😊 Now for a review of a series I reread recently.

Why do dystopian novels always feel the need to shoehorn in a romance (or "romance") subplot? Not even 1984 was exempt from this. There are some genres where romance is just plain out-of-place. This is one of them.

The Hunger Games is a trilogy of novels by Suzanne Collins, published between 2008 and 2010. The books have been adapted into a series of films. A prequel was published this year. I haven't read it yet, and after reading the summary I'm not sure I want to.

Almost everyone knows the basic story by now. A dystopian government forces teenagers to fight to the death for the people's entertainment. It's done this for years, and finally someone does something to stop it.

My opinion of this series has changed every time I read it. When I first read the books shortly after they were published I loved them. Reread them a few years later and I was amazed at how boring they were. Now I've reread them for the third time, and I'm torn between both past opinions.

On the one hand, the depictions of the dystopian world of Panem and the fight to overthrow its evil government are riveting. On the other, every few chapters the plot grinds to a halt because Katniss can't decide which of her love interests she likes best. And that's the real problem with this series -- and with far, far too many others. Not only do many authors believe books have to include romance, they seem utterly convinced that there has to be a love triangle. Doesn't matter that hell has broken loose around the protagonists; they have to stop to angst over their romantic woes.

The Hunger Games isn't quite as bad an offender as certain other series. But it still has a pointless love triangle. Especially pointless because Gale and Peeta have virtually no distinguishing characteristics. There were times when I couldn't remember which of them I was reading about. By the third book I didn't even bother to read their scenes. This meant I didn't understand all of the plot, but it was that or be bored to death.

I like the books' world-building, plot, and (some of) the characters. If there was a version of the series that removed the love triangle and only focused on the story it would probably be one of my favourites. Unfortunately as it is, it's just average. I don't expect I'll reread it for a while.

Is it available online?: Not as far as I know.

Rating: 6/10.

Review: 1984 (novel)

Is this a novel or a newspaper?

1984 is a 1949 novel by George Orwell. Along with Animal Farm it's one of his most famous works. Parts of it have become entrenched in the English language (even if people don't realise where they come from). "Big Brother" and "thoughtcrime" are among the most recognisable. The novel has been adapted into at least two films and several radio versions.

The story follows Winston Smith, who has a job rewriting history for the Ministry of Truth (a misnomer if ever there was one!), as he tries to oppose the monstrous government he's living under.

Honestly, Winston, Julia, and all the other characters are the least interesting part of the book. What truly interests me is the horrific world they live in -- a world that every day looks more and more like ours. Mass surveillance? It's here. Propaganda? Everywhere you look. The "Clap for Carers" mania is essentially two minutes' hate without the hate (yet). Censorship? Videos criticising the lockdown have been removed from YouTube. An oppressive government? Reality has surpassed the novel; every single government has become Oceania in all but name.

I didn't enjoy this book. It was a tremendous struggle to finish and I don't want to read it again. But it's a book you absolutely should read. It'll terrify you, and hopefully it will make you think.

Rating: I honestly don't know how to rate it. 7/10 or 8/10, I suppose.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.