Remember how I liked The Hunger Games? The sequel is better. It should be. Again, it's well-written, 60% plot-driven, 40% character-driven. A few of the sentences I would have written differently, but it works to carry the story.
I would say the best thing about this book is how it logically builds off the first book. Sequels don't always do that. This took what one knew and went from there. It could almost be a stand-alone book.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, it felt rushed in parts. Maybe not even rushed so much as I wanted more information than was given. It's about the same length as The Hunger Games and I wonder if Ms. Collins' felt pressure to keep this one about the same length. Most of the time when a week or so is skipped, it doesn't bother me. A couple times, though, why? I felt that lack of information in the ending especially. It wasn't needed to entice someone to read the third book; the hook for that was set quite well.
Other than that, this book lacked the backstory bits of the first book. Plenty from the first book is explained, enough that someone could just read Catching Fire. People who read the first book don't need that. A little bit is okay. Other backstory, though, that was missing.
Overall, of course, I really liked the book. It's well written with relateable characters, but the characters are solid enough that someone can't project themselves. I would like some more strength to them, but they've built from the first book, personalities expanded and that is excellent.
I suppose my greatest question is how Ms. Collins meant this series to be read. Did she just write a captivating story? Is it meant to make people think about our political systems and the shallow way first-worlders look at the world? Is it meant to be a nudge to consider such a rebellion, if not now, then in the future?
Cheers,
-Genni
No comments:
Post a Comment