The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins

I hesitated reading this book because it has received mixed reviews and Collins has been accused of copying Battle Royale, but when I saw that Stephen King had given it a raving review (who write a similar book titled The Running Man) I decided that it must be good.

And it was. I have to admit I didn't have all that high of expectations but this book met them, even exceeded them in parts. Many of the reviews that I read were negative because they didn't like Katniss. She is described as selfish and unlikeable.

Really? A girl that volunteers to take her sister's place in a fight to death is selfish? I also don't entirely understand why she was seen as unlikeable. Some say it was because she was too hard on her mother, but after her father's death her mother failed to step up to the plate to be a parent. Katniss had to hunt illegally or let herself and her family starve. She risked being sentenced to death for illegally hunting and trading. Yet many still call this girl selfish.

In the games themselves, Katmiss teams up with the youngest contestant to help her survive. Then later teams up with Peeta, the boy also from her home of District 12. While I can see how many would label some of her behavior with Peeta as selfish, the truth was she did what she had to do so that they both could survive. Was it morally questionable? Certainly.

But I think that is what makes this book so fascinating. How can you remain moral when you are forced into a game ran by the government where you must kill 23 other kids? Is there right and wrong when it comes to survival?

Another aspect of this book that seemed to rarely talked about is how Collins does an incredible job of describing Katmiss's post traumatic stress disorder. Towards the end of the games, Katmiss quite literally starts to lose her mind. After the games is over she suffers severe post traumatic stress disorder.

Now don't go and accuse me of spoiling the book and giving away that Katmiss wins. The book is told from the first person point of view, so you know from the very start that Katmiss wins.

Another reason Katmiss could be seen as selfish is because she doesn't quite handle the love triangle she finds herself in with tact. However, I found this to be very realistic. I know most people read romance to see two people live happily ever after but this book shows that like real life, love isn't always tied up with a big bow or guaranteed. God forbid fictional romance should be like real life, right?

My biggest complaint about the book is that Katmiss and Peeta never actually stand up to the government that they hate so much. Instead of using the moment to give the government what for, Katmiss chooses to take the safe route and avoid pissing them off. I suppose again, this is the way reality really is, but considering the theme of the entire book the one thing you want more than Katmiss to survive is to tell the Capitol off.

A minor complaint is that the first half off the book comes of as kind of narcissistic. Perhaps this is another reason people see Katmiss as being unlikable. She acts like she's hot shit for a bit but I blame the writer not the character. Collins makes the story too focused on Katniss during the first half. The theme "everything is about me" gets old fast. It isn't until the games begin that Katmiss stops talking about herself so much. The writing Collins does is much better once the games actually begin.

Another minor complaint is how the book ends. But it makes me want to read the next book in the series. See after winning the games, you must become a mentor to those that are in the future games. Also the Capitol may still be pissed off at Katniss. And lastly, the issue of the love triangle isn't exactly resolved. I also wonder if Katniss continues to suffer from post traumatic stress disorder and what her life will be like after the games.

Indeed, the blurb for Catching Fire indicates that some if not all of these questions are answered. Or maybe they aren't all completely answered until the third book Mockingjay. I know I will read them both. I also greatly enjoyed this genre and think I will add a dystopia reading challenge. It's not normally a genre that I read.

My rating I was tempted to give it only three stars because of the ending but I was so impressed with how Collins included the post traumatic stress disorder that I bumped it up to four stars. I can't wait to see the movie!

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo by Steig Larsson

I started out loving this book. And then I disliked it. And then I hated it. The last fifty pages were dreadful. In the end, I honestly think the book was a lot of hype.

First of all, the mystery of Harriet's disappearance wasn't that hard to figure out. I knew what had happened to her from the very beginning. And I'm not good at solving mysteries. It's a fact that I have never won a game of Clue in my life. So the mystery of what happened to Harriet was pretty weak.

The mystery of the serial killer they end up solving because they were investigating the disappearance of Harriet was pretty awesome though. I loved that part of the book. I happen to be fascinated by serial killers. So I'm making a mental note...well written now...to only get mystery novels about serial killers. (And hopefully unlike this novel, there isn't a dreadfully boring frame story about taking out a crooked businessman. More on that later.)

One of my complaints is that it was far too easy for Lisbeth to get information. I understand she's one of the best hackers in the country but is there ever any information that she can't get? It was also never explained how she was able to come up with extremely personal information. For example, did Mikael email about the many women he has slept with a full decade before the internet was invented? Lisbeth is a socially backwards and unapprochable person, so certainly she didn't go around interviewing people about who she was investigating. I just find it seriously unbelievable that she could dig up all the personal information simply by hacking.

I did appreciate the fact that it wasn't her that finally made sense of the clues and was Mikael who was hired to solve the mystery. I honestly thought Lisbeth would end up solving the mystery instead.

The character of Lisbeth is absolutely fascinating. I would to love to read a book about her that just focuses on her life story that isn't a mystery. Those are the kinds of books that I prefer to read. I may attempt to read the sequels simply for that storyline.

One thing that I thought was completely unbelievable was that the serial killer, who had gone to extensive lengths to hide all evidence of any of his crimes for decades, carelessly left some of his tools and some blood in a place where other people could have had a key. I suppose over a period of decades he would be bound to slip up eventually but this slip was just completely unrealistic and unbelievably convenient.

So the mystery of Harriet was solved and the mystery of the serial killer was solved, but the author decided to spend the last 50 pages telling how Mikael saves his magazine, takes down his arch nemesis (the crooked businessman), and regains his credibility as a journalist. Who freaking cares!? I have to be honest. I skimmed the last 50 pages because I was bored out of my mind.

Another thing I didn't like about the book was how Mikael had no shame that he was having an affair with a married woman. Is this not morally reprehensible in Sweden? Is it normal to just tell a person you're meeting for the first time that you keep a married woman as an occasional lover?

Speaking of morally reprehensible, the decision that the family makes after solving the mysteries and what to do with the information about the serial killings is questionable to say the least. I can imagine that some people in book clubs and the internet have gotten into some serious arguments about whether or not what they did was acceptable.

The entire theme of the book seems to be about what is morally acceptable and what isn't. Is it morally acceptable to know about a serial killer but not share that information with the public? Is it morally acceptable to break the law to get information about a businessman that is breaking the law? Is it morally acceptable to continue a book for another 50 incredibly boring pages after the mystery has been solved?

My final complaint is about the incredibly weak climax. They had finally tracked down the serial killer and there is a faceoff between the killer and the team of Mikael and Lisbeth. Now most thrillers have some sort of epic battle. Maybe I have been spoiled by over the top fight scenes in Hollywood thillers but the climax in this book was so underwhelming. Not to mention that Mikael gets captured in the first place because like a dumbass he knocks on the serial killer's door to confront him. After the killer tried to hunt him down and shoot him! WTF? How stupid can you get?

Overall I hated this book more than I loved it. My rating

This might be one instance when the movie might actually be better. (I'll post that part of the review at a later date.)

2012 Book2Movie Reading Challenge

Martina Bookaholic is hosting the 2012 Book2Movie Reading Challenge. The cool thing about this challenge is that it is international.

Here is more information:
The goal for this challenge is to read a book/ watch a movie in each of the 12 categories, which are further down, during the year of 2012 (01.01.2012 – 31.12.2012) + 1 bonus category, if someone can’t find a book in one of the 12 categories.

This means: 12 books + movies in 12 months, as a result 1 book/ 1 movie per month. (Book can be read/ movie can already been watched – but just one of each)

You want to join?:
Then please write me an e-mail to: martina.bookaholic@gmx.net with your book choices with the category #number and your blog address and the name, which I should use in this post.

Blogger Info:
Please; every one of you has to put on every review which is made for this challenge or on the sidebar of the blog, the ‘Book 2 Movie’ Button which should be linked back to this MAIN POST on my blog. Thanks