Book Review: MOCKINGJAY by Suzanne Collins

Warning: As always, I try to stay relatively spoiler free. But it doesn’t hurt to proceed with caution. (Also, if you haven’t read THE HUNGER GAMES or CATCHING FIRE yet, you’re welcome to skip this, as it will pretty much give both endings away.)

 

Rating:  Five Stars—ajklsdflk (when words fail to describe how wonderful a book is) 

 

I’ll admit, the first time I read Suzanne Collins’s MOCKINGJAY, right after it came out, I didn’t like it. I didn’t like the way Katniss is broken and her country is fractured and nothing is as it should be. But I think, deep down, I didn’t like it because it struck so close to home, because it told the truth about Katniss’s psychological state and her world when I wanted it to present a rose-tinted version for my sake.

So, when I finally worked up the courage to reread it a while ago, I realized just how much my view point has changed. This time through, I crazy loved MOCKINGJAY. It’s one of those few novels capable of wringing a few (measly) tears from my cold, Vulcan eyes. And I’m sure—at least, I’m pretty sure—that this one might be my favorite book out of the trilogy. At least it’s the most powerful.

That said, let’s talk about why I loved it.  

District 13. Without giving too much away, I love that District 13 doesn’t turn out to be a perfect save haven—it isn’t some utopian otherworld, set apart from the shambles of the rest of Panem. (I mean, otherwise, the story would have such an anticlimactic end.) In many ways, District 13 is even more broken, because at least the people in the other districts know they are oppressed—at least the government of Panem doesn’t hide its cruelty. Elsewhere, the ideologies that trap the people are obvious and undeniable—not so in District 13.

The Capitol. We get to see more of the Capitol and its citizens, and I might have accidently fallen in love with the poor, messed-up darlings. All the civilians are so shallow and pampered—I doubt they’ve ever had a true taste of life. And while Panem is all one country, the Capitol has its own culture entirely, built on the shoulders of the districts and yet somehow separate.

Plutarch and the Rebels. I’m still not sure what to think of Plutarch. On the one hand, I want to like him, since he is technically on Katniss’s side. But he also is on his own side, and that’s why I love, if not him specifically, at least his presence in the novel. Unlike so many others, he doesn’t worry as much about reform and freedom—before all this, he already had a certain measure of liberty and wealth (if you ignore the fact that no one is really free, no matter how rich, when they live under a tyrant). Despite the fact that he classifies as one of the good guys, you could argue Plutarch is only in this because he sees it as just another arena and just another Games. His cold mind doesn’t care about the body count so long as the action is amusing and flashy and television-worthy.

Johanna. I hands-down love her. She’s snarky and slightly mental and very difficult to like. She’s lost everything she’s ever cared about, but she survived. And despite her fragility, she’s still so strong, even though she no longer has the capacity, at least for the moment, to taken an interest in others. Actually, though, that is what I love the most about her, because it’s believable. Once you’ve lost almost everyone you ever loved, you reach a point where you no longer care because it isn’t worth it, because it hurts too much—and if you’re going to survive, you have to cut out that part of you that feels, at least for the time being.

The Way Suzanne Collins Breaks Peeta. I love Peeta. He has always been one of my favorite characters in the series because he loves Katniss’s unconditionally, because he bears with her so patiently, and just because. And I don’t think I ever appreciated him as much as I did in this book, since (like Katniss) I only realized how special he is when Collins breaks him and forces him to remake himself.

Prim. Just, Prim. Read the book, and you’ll understand.

Cressida and the Rest of the Propaganda Team. Cressida is basically a rock star. She might be just a director for propaganda clips, but I’m pretty sure she’d win her own Games if she ever found herself as a tribute in the Arena. And even though she’s a citizen of the Capitol, that doesn’t make her a product of their values and their ideals.

Along with Cressida, we have the rest of the propo team, and while none of them become hugely fleshed out, they all form a single entity—a valuable presence in the novel. I’m pretty sure, whether she recognizes this or not, Katniss would be a hopeless wreck without them.

The Propaganda. Because why fight a war with weapons and bloodshed when you can strike the first blow with propaganda? Seriously, though, never underestimate this tactic.

Katniss (Again). Suzanne Collins has it in for Katniss, I think. Maybe someone should take away her writing privileges until she can be nicer to her characters.

Moving on.

As I’ve said before, Katniss’s emotional/psychological state is quite believable. Having seen the start of a war (twice), and losing my home, my possessions, my friends, and my country (twice), I think watching Katniss work through some of the same things was a little too hard for me at first. I wanted her to be okay, because I needed to be okay. Now, with a few more years and a little more distance under my belt, I’m glad that Collins was honest and believable, that she didn’t just reach down with her magical authorial hand and fix everything for her.

That Epilogue. It’s the perfect bittersweet ending to a traumatic series. It balances the long-lasting scars with the promise of renewal, and it doesn’t leave its readers with the lie that life will turn to cotton candy when the battle is over. Instead, it leaves us with the reality that life is rough but we can survive.

 

Okay, enough with the inspirational stuff. Now I’d love to know if you’ve read the series, what you thought of it, and which book was your favorite. Also, what was your opinion on the love triangle, and are you happy with how Collins resolved it? Have you read any Hunger Games-like books you felt were better/worse?

BATTLE ROYALE vs. THE HUNGER GAMES

Caution: This post contains spoilers for BATTLE ROYALE, THE HUNGER GAMES, and CATCHING FIRE.

So, I’ve seen a good deal of debate as to whether or not Suzanne Collins copied Koushun Takami’s cult classic BATTLE ROYALE when she wrote her immensely popular HUNGER GAMES trilogy. Earlier, I was hesitant to weigh in with my opinion, since I hadn’t read the book. So I quickly remedied the situation.

Before I hop into this discussion, though, I’d like to point out that Collins claims she had never heard of BATTLE ROYALE until she turned in the final draft of THE HUNGER GAMES. And who am I to call her a liar? That said, I do intend to compare and contrast the two books, but only for fun, not to make any judgments.

There are, however, some strong similarities, so I’ll start by taking a look at those.

 

THE HUNGER GAMES and BATTLE ROYALE parallels:

A girl and a boy pair up—one has a crush on the other, and the other isn’t sure what to think of the one with the crush. The one with the crush has an injured leg and gets very sick, possibly with blood poisoning.

 

When separated from a potential ally, the characters plan to contact each other using smoky fires and bird calls. (However, in THE HUNGER GAMES, the smoky fires are supposed to be a distraction, rather than a means of communication.)

 

One psychopathic, slightly crazy guy goes around mowing people down while a ferocious, evil girl takes the award for Second Most Terrifying Character.

 

In BATTLE ROYALE, the results of the fight are shown on TV as an intimidation tactic. In THE HUNGER GAMES, the entire event is televised (again, to scare people), and the final cut is aired after the Games.

 

***SPOILER: The main characters have to face-off against the psychopathic dude in order to win. In the end, we have two victors instead of one.***

 

CATCHING FIRE and BATTLE ROYALE parallels:

In BATTLE ROYALE, one student is a victor from a previous game, while in CATCHING FIRE, all the tributes are victors.

 

Some students plan to blow up the school where those in the charge of the games are located (similar to the tribute’s plan to blow up the arena).

 

As you can see, we have some distinctive similarities.

So, on the one hand, I want to respect BATTLE ROYALE because it came first. However, I also don’t see any reason to change my opinion of THE HUNGER GAMES as a piece of literature just because it may or may not be a rip off.

In my review, I mentioned I liked several aspects of BATTLE ROYALE, but I’ll include them here just so we’re on the same page. In BR, we get to see into everyone’s minds, so we get to experience the games through various viewpoints, various emotions, and various personalities. We get to understand most everyone’s hopes and fears, what they plan to do if they survive, how they intend to justify killing others, etc…

With THE HUNGER GAMES, we are limited to a single, first-person point of view. We don’t get to watch Cato as he goes around killing people—we don’t get to peek over Foxface’s shoulder as she works out her strategies, follows people around, and navigates the minefield to steal food. We don’t get to experience what Rue feels as she travels alone to light the fires Katniss has set up. We don’t get to camp out with Thresh as he hides and waits for everyone to kill each other. With all these different viewpoints, the book would have been much longer, and perhaps richer, but I don’t know if it would have been better. For that matter, I actually enjoy it when some things are left to the imagination.

On the whole, I feel that THE HUNGER GAMES does more with the idea. BATTLE ROYALE is, first and foremost, pulp fiction. It lingers more on the action and the gore, the violence and the fear. Sure, it has a deeper message—that the government is messed up—and it takes time to explore human responses to situations like this. But it doesn’t go a whole lot further than that. Most of what we see is what happens in the arena, along with tidbits about the kids’ pasts.

With the HUNGER GAMES trilogy, in essence we get to see the whole of Panem. Though we don’t actually visit each and every district, we get a pretty good understanding of what they and their people are like. We get to see the stunning contrast between those in the Capitol and those throughout the rest of the country. We encounter all the unfairness, the injustice. And we get to meet the man behind the madness—President Snow himself. But more than that, we get a vivid picture of how the Games have impacted the culture over the decades, how they have become ingrained in the general psyche, and how they have become a constant shadow hanging over everything.

In BATTLE ROYALE, the games are not as established. Junior High classes are picked at random and without warning, and the rules of the games are explained when the kids wake up in the arena. Also, this isn’t just a matter of 24 tributes—there are 42 kids in the featured class, yet about 2,000 kids are claimed by the games every year. I’m not terribly great with statistics, but with the reference to a falling birthrate in Japan, I have to wonder how many generations it will take before the government doesn’t have any more new legs to stand on.

But the main thing is that the games in BATTLE ROYALE are more like a viper—you could end up as a random victim, and you never know when the snake is going to strike. Whereas, with THE HUNGER GAMES, the Games are so embedded in the culture, they dominate everything. And I feel like that’s, if not more realistic, at least more powerful. It comes across as more calculated and less reckless.

THE HUNGER GAMES gives us more emotional depth because we get to feel the fear as the Games and the Reaping approach. We get to witness the painful goodbyes, the seemingly pointless training, the build-up and the fanfare that would make for great Reality TV. But we also get to experience the aftermath—how, for the survivors, the Games are never over. How even when you win, you still lose.

So, while both novels are good in their own right, I prefer the HUNGER GAMES trilogy, because it’s not just about the blood and guts. To me, BATTLE ROYALE focuses too much on the body count and too little on what makes the killing awful and important. I guess what I’m trying to say is that, BATTLE ROYALE contains a lot of potential, and THE HUNGER GAMES realizes that potential. But you’re welcome to disagree with me, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on the issue.

Dystopian Discussion: Part Three

Disclaimer: I do not necessarily recommend every book I mention.

If you’re wondering why I decided to do three posts on this subject, I have two answers. The official one is that I had so much to say, I wanted to take enough time to deliver it properly without rushing things. The unofficial—and probably more accurate—explanation is that there are about a gazillion dystopian TRILOGIES out there, so I figured, why not go with the flow and write a trilogy of blog posts about it? Lame, I know, but I have to amuse myself somehow.

So, to sum up, last Wednesday I covered (briefly) DELIRIUM by Lauren Oliver, 1984 and ANIMAL FARM by George Orwell, DOVE ARISING by Karen Bao, BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley, WOOL by Hugh Howey, THE CITY OF EMBER by Jeanne DuPrau, FAHRENHEIT 451 by Ray Bradbury, and THE KNIFE OF NEVER LETTING GO by Patrick  Ness. Before that I discussed THE HUNGER GAMES by Suzanne Collins, BATTLE ROYALE by Koushun Takami, DIVERGENT by Veronica Roth, LEGEND by Marie Lu, THE GIVER by Lois Lowry, and MATCHED by Ally Condie (which I reviewed on Monday). All in all, I’ve discussed fifteen dystopian books/trilogies, and it’s a little terrifying to consider how many more there are out there.

As I mentioned in Part One, it’s hard to be wholly original in this and any other genre. I think it’s especially difficult when you have books that seem to stand out and define the genre, like TWILIGHT for paranormal, THE LORD OF THE RINGS for fantasy, and of course, THE HUNGER GAMES and 1984 for dystopian. (I realize there are other big names as well, but these are the ones I’ve seen referenced the most.)

I’ve thought long and hard about why books like THE HUNGER GAMES stand out while others seem to languish in relative obscurity. And I have a theory, though two days from now I may change my mind entirely and decide on something else.

THE HUNGER GAMES impacted me hugely because of the frightening (yet hopeful) picture it presents. On the one hand, you have a Capitol full of people so callous they enjoy watching children fight to the death on television (which sounds a lot like the gladiator games in Ancient Rome). And on the other hand, you have a government so precarious a handful of berries can take it down. The contrast between the poor and the rich, coupled with the infectiousness of hope, along with many other nuances, make THE HUNGER GAMES more than just an entertaining story. You have those who would watch others die, and those would die to save others, and overarching the entire plot is the question, “How did we get to this point?” Strip away the dystopian elements, and the book deals heavily in humanity.

 

 

 

DIVERGENT also delves into human nature as it introduces the crumbling faction system: Abnegation, Amity, Candor, Erudite, Dauntless—each based on a virtue, each missing the point. As Tris struggles to find her identity, she learns more and more about how it is important to be both brave and selfless, how focusing on one aspect is too narrow-minded, and how—even with the best intentions—it is impossible to escape the law of entropy which says that everything crumbles.

1984 centers on the uglier aspects of humanity—betrayal, cruelty, lies, fear, despair. But it also touches on love, hope, and wishful thinking, however futile.

I know I’m recapping a little, but only because I want to stress my point. Books that deal honestly with human nature—the good bits and the ugly bits—seem to leave a bigger impression on me (and others) than books that focus only on the coolness of a rebellion or the neatness of a despotic governmental system that no one has ever thought of before. Now this isn’t a hard and fast rule, and it isn’t the recipe for instant success. But I wonder if originality, however great an idea, is too small a goal—if depth and truth are more important.

 

For instance, MATCHED was too shallow, too unrealistic to stick with me—while it had decent aspects, the setup felt too contrived, put there mainly for the sake of the plot. I didn’t feel that I learned anything more about what it means to be a human—I didn’t gain anything from the story beyond the entertainment aspect. I wasn’t left with anything to ponder, any moral or psychological question to sort through. LEGEND, while interesting, lacks the emotional resonance of THE HUNGER GAMES, DIVERGENT, and 1984 because it dwells more on what the government is doing and less on the people. (And the character relationships, when viewed below surface level, are not overly realistic.)

Dystopias are tricky, and in a way I’m glad the genre is cooling off for the time being. George Orwell wrote 1984, not because he wanted to amuse people, but because he wanted to warn them about the horrors of the Socialist movement. He wanted to frighten people so much they would do anything to escape the grip of Big Brother. Now the smaller parodies seem to cling to the frightening image of an all-seeing government and miss the other aspects that were just as essential to the story—the potency of despair, the ugliness in the human heart, and tragedy of what has been lost, along with the burning questions that leave people searching for answers. And, if writers no longer focus on what made these books so big, I worry they might do more harm than good. After all, dystopias that inspire people to rise above the awfulness they have read about are great. But might it be dangerous when all a dystopia does is entertain? If the shock of evil wears off, will we become desensitized to the danger of a horrible government? Shouldn’t we work on improving our culture, rather than dwelling on the worst?

First and foremost, stories are important because they say stuff, because they point the finger at humanity and mirror our own lives to whatever extent. And you don’t have to write a dystopian novel to accomplish that. So, in my opinion, I think it’s time we start focusing on what makes books like THE HUNGER GAMES and 1984 so powerful, rather than what we think makes them cool. Hopefully literature will be all the better for it.

But hey, these are just my thoughts, so take them or leave them.

Dystopian Discussion: Part Two

Disclaimer: I do not necessarily recommend every book I mention.

 

All right, so last week I discussed (briefly), THE HUNGER GAMES by Suzanne Collins, DIVERGENT by Veronica Roth, LEGEND by Marie Lu, THE GIVER by Lois Lowry, and MATCHED by Ally Condie. Now for this week’s dystopian selection.

 

In many ways, Lauren Oliver’s DELIRIUM reminds me of both THE GIVER and MATCHED, in that the societies they present are a softer dystopian. Or, to put it another way, the bad guys look a lot like good guys which makes them—in my opinion—much scarier. As I said last time, it’s worse when you don’t even know you have an enemy.

With DELIRIUM, were you to tweak just a few details, you would find yourself in a society much like ours. As in DIVERGENT, those in charge have highlighted what they consider to be humanity’s Achilles heel—in this case love—and have discovered a way to eliminate that issue (how coldly terrifying). Unfortunately, this is like slapping a Band-Aid over a person’s eye when they really just stepped on a nail. If they weren’t cranky before, they’re cranky now. Curfew and regulations aside, that’s what this book boils down to—a failure to understand one of the most basic human emotions, and a failure to diagnose the true problem. Despite the fact that other books have used similar themes (including THE GIVER), I still feel Lauren Oliver added a unique touch.

 

 

With all this talk of dystopian literature, it’s high time that I mentioned ANIMAL FARM and 1984, both by George Orwell. (Note: These are adult novels, and 1984 contains some content inappropriate for younger people.) These books are valuable for their historical perspective, as well as for the needed dose of horror they offer as a warning for the future. Basically, Orwell wanted to depict how awful this sort of government could be—and while YA dystopian novels can be adventurous and exciting, Orwell paints a far bleaker picture than any other I have found. His society introduces the famed Big Brother (who is always watching), and delves into brainwashing, revisionist history, torture, and more.

I reviewed DOVE ARISING by Karen Bao a while ago, but it fits with the context, so I’ll mention it again. As I said before, DOVE ARISING seems to share a great deal with DIVERGENT, 1984, and THE HUNGER GAMES (though not as much for that last one, and I’m not saying all of this was intentional—but some of the similarities are rather striking). Aside from the lunar setting, it is not especially unique, and while I enjoyed it, I don’t feel it added anything to the current dystopian cannon. *sad face*

Aldous Huxley’s BRAVE NEW WORLD is perhaps even more disturbing than 1984 or THE GIVER when you consider that the characters will never have a chance to fight back. In giant labs, babies are grown in bottles and engineered for various levels in the social strata. Some are allowed to become intelligent; others are stunted—even poisoned—in order to dumb then down. As they grow up, workers brainwash and condition them until they cannot think any other thought but what they have been trained to. Humanity has sunk so low, there is no climbing out of that pit. But it gets worse. They have no regard for life, morality, or family. Those who are not promiscuous enough are frowned upon—ideas like husband, wife, father, mother, etc… are considered obscene and ridiculous. In the end, the people have nothing left worth living for, and when they are not working or enjoying entertainment, they are drugging themselves so as to escape reality. (Note: I love this book for the frightening picture it gives, and it’s definitely well-worth reading, but I wouldn’t recommend it to everyone. As with 1984, it’s an adult novel with some content that would be inappropriate for younger people.)

 

 

Both WOOL by Hugh Howey and THE CITY OF EMBER by Jeanne DuPrau deal with subterranean civilizations, yet in different and complementary ways. WOOL, an adult novel, portrays the inhabitants of a silo who live out their lives ruled by fear, protected from the polluted air but not from the secrets that threaten to destroy them all. THE CITY OF EMBER, a children’s book, follows Lina and Doon as they discover the original purpose of their underground city. I would label both these cases as pre-dystopian, because while the governments have grown a little big for their britches, the situation doesn’t feel as extreme as it does in THE HUNGER GAMES and 1984. Also, both novels delve into the various issues that arise when small groups of people are dependent upon each other for survival.

In Ray Bradbury’s FAHRENHEIT 451, the government does not bother to restrict everyone’s liberty; instead, the people have taken it upon themselves to do away with literature and wisdom and thinking and all the things that would make them truly free. So many dystopian novels, it seems, feature oppression from above, so I find it refreshing to read a story where oppression comes from within. (And Bradbury’s writing is so beautiful, I could cry.)

Finally, we come to THE KNIFE OF NEVER LETTING GO by Patrick Ness. Excuse me while I pause for a moment to contain my fangirling. When I bought it, I told myself I was going to take it slowly and make it last—you know, maybe fifty pages a day, or something. Of course, that didn’t happen—I scarfed that book up like it was the last chocolate bar on earth. Since I’ll be reviewing it soon, suffice it to say my cold Vulcan heart wept a little when I came to the end. TKONLG (not the most attractive abbreviation ever) is dystopian, but not in the way you might expect. After all, a dystopian society is just a society that is considerably less than perfect. Which means you aren’t limited to writing about a Socialistic government or a president that makes children kill each other or an emotionally-deprived people group.

In THE KNIFE OF NEVER LETTING GO, the men and animals of Prentisstown can hear each other’s thoughts (all their women are dead), and there’s no way to block out the constant stream of sound. The information overload is nearly unbearable. But amidst the maddening chaos, Todd Hewitt stumbles upon a patch of silence—a girl whose mind he cannot read—and soon he begins to realize he knows far less about his planet and his people than he previously believed. (I mean, how cool is that? If I could, I’d PAY you to read this book.)

 

I realize this post was long (actually, most of mine are), and perhaps a little dry. But now that I’ve covered all the books I’d planned to, I’m on track to wrap up this dystopian discussion next week (it’s about time). I’ve also been nominated for the Unpopular Opinions tag, so I’ll do that the Wednesday after next.  And, just as a heads-up, my goal is to post a book review each week (along with my usual Wednesday Weirdness), starting next Monday, so we’ll see how that goes.

 

All book photos from Goodreads.

Dystopian Discussion: Part One

Disclaimer: I do not necessarily recommend every book I discuss.

I could be wrong, but it seems that when dystopian literature is mentioned, the first example that comes to mind for many people would be THE HUNGER GAMES by Suzanne Collins. Even almost seven years after its publication, I still find it stocked in the highly selective Walmart book sections. But there are so many other dystopian novels out there, the market has become flooded, and publishers are less willing to buy these works unless they stand out above the rest. Let’s face it—it’s a small subgenre with only a limited amount of room to breathe—even the most creative specimen is going to share traits with its fellows. So the goal, for writers, is to give their work a fresh twist that makes it unique.

 

 

In THE HUNGER GAMES, every year the government mandates that twenty-four kids (a boy and a girl from each of the twelve districts) must be forced to fight to death in an arena until one survivor remains. These Hunger Games are televised for all to see—both to entertain those in the free capitol, and to intimidate those who live in the oppressed districts (in order to prevent another uprising).

I have heard and seen many people speak of THE HUNGER GAMES as though it is the end all be all of dystopian literature. I agree that it is a remarkable piece, and I have read it multiple times. I’m desperately in love with the feel of it, especially the arena itself. However, staunch supporters of the HUNGER GAMES trilogy who claim that Veronica Roth borrowed from the series when she wrote DIVERGENT, INSURGENT, and ALLEGIANT, might want to pause and think before complaining too loudly. Because, unfortunately for Suzanne Collins, fans of Koushun Takami’s BATTLE ROYALE may have the same thing to say about THE HUNGER GAMES. And rightly so.

 

 

 

While BATTLE ROYALE is much gorier (and I’m going on summaries here, like this one, because I haven’t read the book yet), and while it is set in Japan rather than North America, the basic premises are shockingly similar. After all, BATTLE ROYALE centers around a bunch of school children forced to fight to the death in an arena—a fight that is eventually televised in order to intimidate those who might have considered rebelling. Sound familiar?

Now, Collins claims she had never heard of BATTLE ROYALE before she turned in her own story to the publishers, and I know that it is very easy to rip off another writer’s work without realizing it. After all, we’re swimming in a vat of idea stew, and there’s more than one chunk of potato floating in here with us, so let’s not hit each other over the head with our soup spoons until we find the facts. Personally, I have no opinion on whether Collins is being perfectly forthright or not, because it really isn’t any of my business, and I’m not sure we’ll ever know for certain either way. I’m only mentioning this because it annoys me when people call DIVERGENT a rip-off and act as if THE HUNGER GAMES is the last word in dystopian originality.

Speaking of DIVERGENT.

 

 

In the world of Veronica Roth’s DIVERGENT, we don’t have the Big Mean Government breathing down everyone’s necks. Instead, we have a system devised by flawed individuals in an attempt to fix the human race. By splitting society into five factions, each based on an important virtue, people believe they can maintain peace and harmony. Unfortunately, human nature has begun to exert itself.

What I like about DIVERGENT is that, while it’s based in a dystopian setting, that isn’t the main point. Boiled down, the story is really just about a girl trying to find her place and discover who she is. And I appreciate Roth’s originality in not succumbing to the Big Brother theme. While I enjoy novels that delve into the repercussions of a Socialistic construct, I dislike the tunnel vision of so limited a focus. There are hundreds of ways for us go wrong, and Socialism is only one of them.

Another set that came out around the same time as the DIVERGENT trilogy is the LEGEND trilogy by Marie Lu.

 

 

 

 

LEGEND centers around a boy accused of murder and the girl assigned to track him down. Both are horrendously smart, and both are on different sides of the law. Though I felt the LEGEND trilogy shared too many themes with some of its forebears regarding the construct of the government itself, I appreciated the whole LES MISERABLES vibe I got from the first book, as well as the inclusion of the plague (because I like stories that feature some sort of plague). Also, I expected the sequels to leap onto the “let’s take down the government” train that seems to wend its way through many dystopian novels (see what I did there?). But instead, Lu threw me when she took a different direction altogether (but I won’t tell you what happens because that would ruin the surprise). So, while I would only give that trilogy three stars over all for various reasons I won’t go into for lack of space, I wouldn’t say LEGEND was a cheap knock off.

But now let’s look at Lois Lowry’s THE GIVER and Ally Condie’s MATCHED.

 

 

 

In THE GIVER, we have a different sort of dystopian construct, one I find even more delightfully disturbing than the Roman-inspired gladiator-style fights of THE HUNGER GAMES and the Big Brother style government of LEGEND and the faction system of DIVERGENT. In the GIVER, the evil of tyranny is masked as kindness. In blatant dystopian governments, it’s all out there; you know, for the most part, who your enemy is. But at first the characters of THE GIVER don’t even know they have an enemy. In fact, from the outside looking in, this close-knit society could be viewed as a virtual paradise. Until you look closer, that is. Rather than rebellions and massacres, we’re dealing with things like euthanasia, emotional control, etc. While the higher ups are always watching, people don’t necessarily live in fear since they have been led to believe this is for their own good. (Also, they can’t see color, so now you know you HAVE to read the book. See, I can be very persuasive.)

Unfortunately, it would seem Ally Condie decided to paint a strikingly similar portrait when she wrote MATCHED. While the idea of arranged marriages as a way of life is interesting, it’s hardly original. Aside from the love-triangle, MATCHED uses multiple themes from THE GIVER, it would seem, including euthanasia and constant surveillance—not to mention, the bad guys appear nice, and the society looks the picture of perfection. (Too much happy!) There are other parallels, I realize, and other reasons why MATCHED didn’t feel fresh and exciting, but I’ll get into them later when I actually review the book.

 

So there you have it. I’ve covered the first five books/trilogies on my list, and next week I’ll discuss the next bunch (plus, if all goes well, I’d like to share a few more thoughts concerning dystopian literature in general). Also, just as a heads up, I can’t promise anything but I expect to be a little less busy starting in late July/early August, and I hope to write a bunch of book reviews during that time (my regular content won’t change; you’ll just get to read my yammering more often).

 

All book photos from Goodreads.