how the hell am i going to do that?

Yesterday, I went to the last of Denison's Beck Lecture series, which are a series of talks given by writers from different genres and all walks of life.  What made this lecture so much more important is that it was given by Peter Grandbois, my fiction writing professor from last fall (and a creative writing professor in general).  He just wrote a new book called Nahoonkara, which sounds amazing.  He talked about how he has written fiction, creative non-fiction, flash fiction, novellas, and stage plays.  It was he who said, "If I don't think, 'Now how the hell am I going to do that?' before I start writing, I just don't have any fun."  And currently, I ask myself that question everyday.

Anyway--on to more critiques.  In the past few weeks, I have finished the last two books in the Hunger Games trilogy by Suzanne Collins, The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman, and Chasing Redbird by Sharon Creech.  I recommend all of these.  But let's start with Mockingjay.

I know I have said in previous postings that these are not my favorite books.  They aren't.  But I couldn't put them down.  I read the last one in a day.  What does that mean then?  Well, I have decided it means two things.

1.  My devotion to Harry Potter leaves very little room in my heart for a new series.
1.5.  It is not as good as Harry Potter.
2.  My writer self is getting in the way of my reading self. In other words, reading like a writer is getting in the way of reading like a kid.

So, here are my issues, now that I've finished.  Also, beware there are MAJOR SPOILERS.  STOP READING LOGAN!!!

1. The first book was by far the best one.  It had the best plot, believable twists, and great tension.  The second book... well.  All that happened was they escaped.  They didn't go back into the arena until over halfway through the book and then they were saved rather quickly and without much drama.  And calm down--yes I realize there was a lot of drama in that they were trying to kill each other, but I mean relatively speaking.  They didn't have any problems with the Capital, which I find to be a little hard to believe.  They should have had to fight off some other people.  Making her pass out is a bit of a cop out.

2.  I was more upset for the cat than I was for Prim.  Here is what I think happened--all of this is tied back to the Gale/Peeta issue.  Instead of giving Katniss a decision to make, Collins needed to make it for her.  She made Gale into a heartless war monster who created weapons.  Weapons that most likely destroyed her sister.  Which, again, I am annoyed by, because there should be no debate between Team Peeta and Team Gale.  She tried to do it, but then chickened out.  She didn't want to break his heart.  At least in Twilight, it was Bella's decision.  (And you know I'm super annoyed when a sentence starts "at least in Twilight... I hate those books.)  So, to get her character out of a sticky situation that would actually give more insight into her developed sense of self, she has Gale ruthlessly take down a mountain and trap people inside. Not to mention he is the one that devised the weapon that destroyed her sister.  At the end, there is no possible way she could be with Gale.  Team Gale no longer exists.  It never should have existed in the first place.  But back to my first sentence.  Well, I'll make this another point.

3.  I don't give a flying monkey's ass about Prim.  Don't care about her one iota.  Why?  Because apart from hearing about her from Katniss, we hardly see her.  She is just the mother's helper in the second book.  She has one scene in the third where we get to know more about her.   I understand that killing her off was necessary for Katniss' anger problems to continue, but I really had no other emotion than, "Oh Lord, Katniss is going to lose it."  There was never even any mention of, "But I did it all for her... It all seems pointless now."  Cause that would be a logical reaction.  But no, she had to die so that Katniss could never stay with Gale. Also, I think Collins knew the readers wouldn't care, because what does she do?  She introduces the cat into the picture.  As I said, I'm more sad when the cat is lonely at the end than when Prim dies.  The poor cat.  Not the poor Prim.  The cat is a device.

4.  At the end, when all of the surviving victors are sitting around the table with Coin, Katniss says she wants there to be a last Hunger Games with the powerful people's children.  I honestly do not understand.  She was fighting to get rid of the games.  You don't believe me?  Well, looky here:

"Was it like this then?  Seventy-five years or so ago?  Did a group of people sit around and cast their votes on initiating the Hunger Games?  Was there dissent? Did someone make a case for mercy that was beaten down by the calls for the deaths of the districts' children?  Then scent of Snow's rose curls up into my nose, down into my throat, squeezing it tight with despair.  All those people I loved, dead, and we are discussing the next Hugner Games in an attmept to avoid wasting life.  Nothing has changed.  Nothing will ever change now.
    I weigh my options carefully, think everything through.  Keeping my eyes on the rose, I say, 'I vote yes... for Prim'" (370).

Okay... So.  Here is what I think.  A) It was not a necessary plot twist.  B) It makes zero sense.  It just goes to show that she has learned absolutely nothing from everything that has happened.  I don't care if she wanted revenge and is depressed.  She would NEVER want this revenge on children. Her kid sister just died--why would she want more of that? She's known capital people who she's liked.  She would not want revenge on the children.  For Prim, she'd just want revenge on Snow.  She would not want revenge on children. Of course, she gets revenge on both Snow and Coin.  But she would not have said yes. I would actually LOVE to hear other people's interpretations of why she would want another hunger games, because it actually makes no sense to me.  SHE WOULD NOT WANT REVENGE ON CHILDREN!!

5.  This entire book, Katniss doesn't actually do anything.  And by saying that, I mean that she makes nothing happen.  Sure, she is on TV rallying the troops, but let's be honest--they would have won the war at the exact same time if she were taken out of the story.  Even her fake mission is fruitless, as the real rebels come in and win it without any of their help.  I'm serious.  Re read it.  She does nothing except go on a stupid photoshoot which leads to a fake mission which gets Finnick killed. What?  AND she for some reason is then really blood thirsty and kills a random woman in her home. What?  Let me also point out that she hadn't really done much killing at all.  In the second book, I'm pretty sure she killed no one.  She killed a few in the first book, but it nearly killed her to do that. So how does she all of a sudden shoot a woman in the heart and not feel the slightest amount of guilt or pain?  I will give her that she kills Coin.  That is the one thing that, without her, would not have happened.  I think that Collins spent too much time on the "propos" and not enough time on having her main character drive the narrative of the novel.

6.  Why do they let her off for killing Coin?  Why not have her take the stand and be present for the trial?  Why not give her something to do?  Again, she is just a pawn in the plot, instead of actively defending what she did.  

So those are my major issues.  But, all that said, I couldn't put them down.  They are good books with a strong female protagonist.  Which you all know I like.  And frankly, I cannot wait for the movie--let's be honest, I'm going to like looking at Gale and Peeta, and who knows?  I may even end up on team Gale.  Although it's likely that I'll be on Team High King Peter the Magnificent forever. 

All those books I've read in the past two weeks have something in common.  Death.
Read a book, and death will bring you to life.
Well, look at that.  That was quite profound. Maybe I should write a book.  Now, how the hell am I going to do that?

LR Ogden