Hunger Games

[Scarlett]

Disclaimer:  I haven't read the books or watched the movies.

 

My dss14 who is in 9th grade public school, just told me they are reading this for their literature class.

 

What do you all think of that?

[GinaPagnato]

I think it's a waste of time better spent on real literature.  :leaving:

 

Seriously though, I've read it and watched the movie. Entertaining, no doubt, and obviously very popular. Is there some value to reading the book for the sake of cultural relevance? Sure. But for a school to assign it rather than a kid reading it on his own, or over the summer for fun...not a fan.

 

There are a hundred more worthy books to read imo, in terms of literary value. Just my .02.

[Spy Car]

Disclaimer: My son begged me to read the Hunger Games when he was in Second Grade. I agreed to read it along with him with the proviso that I would and could terminate the read if I felt it were becoming objectionable (which I though was highly probable).

 

Instead, I really liked the book. The boy took away the right messages. which include the main character putting herself in harm's way to save her beloved little sister.

 

There are moral complexities in the novel, as there are in life. I found it a positive read.

 

I'd have no issue with 14 year old 9th graders reading the Hunger Games.

 

Bill

 

 

[Cottonwood]

What do I think of it being assigned in school?  There are far richer books IMO for this.  And just as personal opinion, I personally don't like how much violence there is ...and not only violence, but violence against children, by children. So for us it would open up discussion about that. We are probably in the minority about that, but I encourage the kids not to feed their minds with things that go in that direction.

[Scarlett]

My issue wasn't with a 14 yo reading the book, but rather it being a literature course study.  I assumed it was twaddle. 

[Scarlett]

I remember analyzing The Scarlet Letter in high school literature class.

[GinaPagnato]

From a literary standpoint, I think it *is* twaddle.

 

There are some marginally good conversations to come of some of the thematic elements, but those same conversations can come from reading The Lord of The Flies, for example.

[myfunnybunch]

I think Hunger Games falls somewhere between Great Literature and twaddle. It has some pretty big ideas and commentary on modern society, and carries on some of the classic dystopian lit themes around power and dissent. If I were assigning it, I'd likely pair it with some other dystopian literature. Lots of food for thought/discussion/comparison there.

[Scarlett]

On the bright side I taught my dss14 a new word--twaddle.  ;)

 

[Spy Car]

My issue wasn't with a 14 yo reading the book, but rather it being a literature course study.  I assumed it was twaddle. 

 

On that ground, I wouldn't disagree that there are many books with greater literary value. I think schools struggle with a generation of kids who tend not to be big readers, and shape book lists to those most will find "entertaining" as a way to inspire more reading. 

 

I have mixed feelings on this front, both understanding the reasoning and being grumpy about serious worthy books being so limited in school reading lists. I'm dealing with this at the moment in my home. Some of the twaddle and/or too easy for grade level books that just came home with the boy's 6th Grade reading list made my head want to explode.

 

I like quality literature. I do think that the Hunger Games, while not at the top of the heap of "quality literature" by any measure, still has enough thought provoking aspects that make it an interesting read.

 

It was on our list (optional) this year too.

 

Bill (who'd prefer Moby Dick)

[Leav97]

I think Hunger Games falls somewhere between Great Literature and twaddle. It has some pretty big ideas and commentary on modern society, and carries on some of the classic dystopian lit themes around power and dissent. If I were assigning it, I'd likely pair it with some other dystopian literature. Lots of food for thought/discussion/comparison there.

 

:iagree:

 

I agree.  It's a good, easy read.  But, has plenty of talking points.  There are better books out there but, that isn't the only goal in choosing lit.  The ability to 9th graders to read a book is part of the consideration in most schools.

[ajfries]

I think most on a classical homeschooling board would consider it twaddle. BUT it does have some good talking points and it is also the kind of book that kids who hate to read would be more likely to enjoy.

[JumpyTheFrog]

I think that people who complain about the violence often have only read the first book. Completing the series gives way more of the story. The point of the whole book is that violence and war, while sometimes necessary, are never good. I believe the author has stated that she was inspired by the Iraq War. So many people in our culture cheer war and the book shows how even though Katniss's side won, she became broken by it. The whole point is to show that war isn't glorious like some people think.

[KungFuPanda]

I wouldn't choose it, but I can understand why the teacher did. The kids can start off the year with something popular that's easier to understand and the discussions will flow freely. The first writing assignments should go fairly well. I wouldn't complain unless the year is full of modern, YA selections. She's likely lulling them into a false sense of security so she can spring 1984 on them then compare the two.

[Guest]

I think that the primary value in analyzing something like The Hunger Games is that it shows that you, as a reader, can really wring meaning out of what you read. Not JUST be entertained by it.

 

A lot of kids aren't really exposed to that. They are NOT going to jump right into picking apart The Scarlet Letter and applying lessons learned there to their lives.

 

There's a lot of good to be wrought from The Hunger Games that way, especially if you read the whole series. The nature of power, for example. Why people fight for just causes (and why they may not). What happens when the glory of war is over. How experiences and choices shape a person. So on.

[Hen]

I think they are worth reading. I decided I would use The Hunger Games instead of 1924, the Hunger Games had hope, 1924 did not.  I don't think they are twaddle, maybe not a "Great Books" standing, but I think well written, with a good message and will appeal to teens. I don't think a waste of time to study.

[Spy Car]

What's 60 years between friends? :D

 

Bill

[texasmama]

I think Hunger Games falls somewhere between Great Literature and twaddle. It has some pretty big ideas and commentary on modern society, and carries on some of the classic dystopian lit themes around power and dissent. If I were assigning it, I'd likely pair it with some other dystopian literature. Lots of food for thought/discussion/comparison there.

This is exactly my take on it.  

 

Since your son seems to be in 9th grade by his age, I think that The Hunger Games could be used to do analysis on an approachable work as a means of learning to do literature analysis.  As I recall, your son does K12, which represents more of a public school at home approach to homeschooling.  I think this is pretty close to what one might find in a 9th grade public school class around here, from what I understand.

 

So yes, there are better works to analyze.  But no, this is not the bottom of the barrel by a long shot.

 

ETA:  Both of my sons have read the first book, and I asked them what they thought of the writing.  My 14 year old found it to be "atrocious" and recommended the Divergent series as more well-written.  He tends toward hyperbole so take it as you will.

[shage]

The Hunger Games can be un-twaddled by having the students read Shakespeare's Julius Caesar first.  The author based many of her dystopian premises on ancient Rome, and Shakespeare's characters in particular. 

 

I have moral objections to The Hunger Games in that there is no strong pacifist stance taken--as in, pacifism seems to be confused with passiveness.  However, the books have a strong cautionary theme to them regarding violence.  Everyone who participates pays a price and is somehow broken.  They are thoughtful books in that way. 

 

It is interesting that the author grew up in an Air Force family.  I find many Air Force officers and offspring to be more thoughtful and cognizant of the limitations and price of war compared to most civilians.

[Carol in Cal.]

It's not Great Literature, but it is well written and engaging, and has a lot of food for thought/topics for discussion.

In ninth grade I remember studying Romeo and Juliet (abridged) and Antigone, plus The Most Dangerous Game.  (I know there were more, but can't remember what.)  It was a mix, but what stayed with me were the works that I had to wrestle with, and that had significance.  

 

I avoided The Hunger Games for years because I hated the premise (kids killing each other for survival) so much, but once I read the first one I went right out and purchased the second and third in hard cover because I wanted to keep going.  So, it IS engaging, and far better written than its premise would seem to imply.  I generally agree with its morals as well.

 

So in summary--it's a little light but useful and engaging and agreeable, and if there is some 'meat' in the mix, then I think it's just fine.

[lmrich]

It is a book with bigger ideas. If she is in a regular PS (not honor's) English, I think Hunger Games is a great book for the kids to discuss; at least most of them would be able to join the conversation since they have seen the movie. Remember trying to motivate kids to read and like literature is 1/2 the battle. If she started the year with Great Expectations, most kids would never read it.

[Chris in VA]

At least it's not the crap my dd was offered for Summer Reading--

Secret Life of Bees. UGH.

 

 

I firmly believe no one should read only the first book in the Hunger Games trilogy, because the author's point does not become clear until the absolutely devastating effects of the violence are played out in the third book. I found it absolutely heartbreaking. I don't know enough about literature and style to say it's great writing, but it is impactful writing, with rich and thought-provoking themes; I also happen to agree with the POV.

 

I agree that it would be a good book to compare to other books--you could go in the dystopian direction, or the war direction.

[PeachyDoodle]

Thoroughly enjoyed it. Wouldn't call it literature.

 

Stick to the classics.

[Pen]

Disclaimer:  I haven't read the books or watched the movies.

 

My dss14 who is in 9th grade public school, just told me they are reading this for their literature class.

 

What do you all think of that?

 

I assume that with several kids in the age range that are reading/seeing these, or would already have done so, that you unfamiliarity means you are against it at least to some degree?

 

I'm wondering what you said to your dss?

 

Seems like an opportunity to say you have not read it and ask him what he thought of it and whether he thinks it is worth your reading it, and why or why not, and then if you decide to do so, discussing it with him.  

 

 

 

I did not allow my ds to read the books/see the movies till he turned 13, but think 9th grade is old enough for it.  And I think whether it works well for a literature class all depends upon what is done with it. 

[Scarlett]

I assume that with several kids in the age range that are reading/seeing these, or would already have done so, that you unfamiliarity means you are against it at least to some degree?

 

I'm wondering what you said to your dss?

 

Seems like an opportunity to say you have not read it and ask him what he thought of it and whether he thinks it is worth your reading it, and why or why not, and then if you decide to do so, discussing it with him.  

 

 

 

I did not allow my ds to read the books/see the movies till he turned 13, but think 9th grade is old enough for it.  And I think whether it works well for a literature class all depends upon what is done with it. 

 

 

When the books first came out my son was about 11 I think.  Maybe younger, but I remember older teen friends of ours reading them about that time.  I thought he was too young for the violence and the general theme...Dss saw the movies when at his mom's.  

 

So it isn't that I was against it so much as I just thought my son was too young...and of course dss we don't get to say what he is allowed to watch.  

 

I told my dss14 that it was twaddle and I couldn't believe they weren't studying something more substantial.   :)

 

Edited to add:  But I know he didn't read the books...and he and I will talk about the differences and what he is getting out of the book.  They are reading it IN class...following along to an audio reading.

[Professormom]

I think it's a waste of time better spent on real literature. :leaving:

 

Seriously though, I've read it and watched the movie. Entertaining, no doubt, and obviously very popular. Is there some value to reading the book for the sake of cultural relevance? Sure. But for a school to assign it rather than a kid reading it on his own, or over the summer for fun...not a fan.

 

There are a hundred more worthy books to read imo, in terms of literary value. Just my .02.

:iagree: The books are interesting enough, but I see it exactly as this pp. Many better choices.

[Guest]

 

They are reading it IN class...following along to an audio reading.

 

Now this, otoh, is weird and strikes me as an enormous waste of class time.

[Mergath]

I think there are some people who consider anything written in the last fifty years to be twaddle, and they're missing out on a lot of great books.

 

As far as modern YA lit goes, Hunger Games is pretty good. I'd rather read the HG trilogy than some of works people consider "classics" just because they're old. Like G. A. Henty. Yuck.

[No More Perfect]

Wasn't the whole purpose of Ms. Collins writing those books to show the effects war and violence have on children? The books are definitely not great literature, but there are so many good conversations to be had from the various elements, even beyond those showing violence. I can't go into what I think those conversations are without giving any spoilers. . . 

 

I do not have plans to add them to our literature lists. I wouldn't call the books twaddle necessarily because they aren't something I would encourage for leisure reading, but they are not examples of excellent writing. They are are somewhere in between to me.

[Carol in Cal.]

  They are reading it IN class...following along to an audio reading.

Now THAT is brutal, and total waste of class time.  

What in the world is the teacher thinking?

[Scarlett]

Yeah, I think I might buy the whole set and let ds read them now.  

[Scarlett]

Now THAT is brutal, and total waste of class time.  

What in the world is the teacher thinking?

 

 

Probably that she won't get them to read it any other way.  Very small, backwards public school.  

[JumpyTheFrog]

When I was a kid, in 9th grade we went through "Romeo and Juliet", which I liked. In 10 grade, the first book we did was "The Scarlett Letter." We spent an entire month talking about it and I found it all to be to tedious. That, and the other selections that year, turned me off to classics (except Shakespeare) almost instantly. To this day, I tend to assume a classic must be stuffy with little in the way of plot.

 

I guess my point is that the early books analyzed by kids in school have the opportunity to turn on or off their interest in literature. For most people, even those who like to read, I think the interest is turned off. So maybe there should be room for non-classic books that still have stuff to be analyzed, in order to whet the appetite of teens.

[Scarlett]

When I was a kid, in 9th grade we went through "Romeo and Juliet", which I liked. In 10 grade, the first book we did was "The Scarlett Letter." We spent an entire month talking about it and I found it all to be to tedious. That, and the other selections that year, turned me off to classics (except Shakespeare) almost instantly. To this day, I tend to assume a classic must be stuffy with little in the way of plot.

 

I guess my point is that the early books analyzed by kids in school have the opportunity to turn on or off their interest in literature. For most people, even those who like to read, I think the interest is turned off. So maybe there should be room for non-classic books that still have stuff to be analyzed, in order to whet the appetite of teens.

 

 

Interesting.  When we did Scarlet Letter in 10th grade it generated interest in me for the classics.  Maybe I had a great teacher.  I remember that class so fondly.

[Pen]

... :)

 

Edited to add:  But I know he didn't read the books...and he and I will talk about the differences and what he is getting out of the book.  They are reading it IN class...following along to an audio reading.

 

This is interesting. To me it suggests more than just perhaps a fun, approachable start into more demanding high school literature.  

 

I wonder if the teacher could be using it, and this system, to deal with reading difficulties among the class members, or even to figure out if there are reading difficulties without having anyone get lost or embarrassed.  Is it a full inclusion class room?  Or a class room with kids with reading difficulties, perhaps? Do you know if they stop to discuss it or if they are just working on reading it all the way through?

 

I do not have as negative a feeling about reading during class time as some here seem to have, because I have seen the afternoon and evening homework loads that many public school kids locally have.  If everything in school is discussion or lecture or interesting project time they come home with an hour of "literature" reading, an hour of math, an hour of history, an hour of science, and maybe other things as well to do, on top of a school day that starts at 8:15 and ends at 3:15 with only a half hour lunch, and I think it ends up too much.  Too little sleep, too little physical recreation, too little down time, too little free time.  If in addition some children have slipped through to 9th grade as essentially not actually able to read, and this system may allow the teacher to discover that even for kids who manage to squeak by on standardized tests, I would say that is a good thing.  IMO it is better to spend time during class working on the reading itself, and even for quite good readers having an excellent narrator model good oral reading is not such a bad thing. We listened to some of Hunger Games on audio, and as I recall it was well done.

 

It could be interesting for your 15-year-old to read it too and have the ability to discuss it as a family group.

[shage]

I read aloud (still) to my teens.  It produces deep and insightful conversations in a way that reading individually and then meeting later to discuss does not. 

 

Also, snacks.

[Butter]

I love the Hunger Games books.  All four of us who have read them in my house love them and my parents love them, too.

 

The ones who read it in school here are in middle school, not high school.  There are certainly many discussions that can come from The Hunger Games.  I'm rather surprised there are enough kids who haven't read HG to actually take the time to read along to the audiobook in class.

[Pen]

When I was a kid, in 9th grade we went through "Romeo and Juliet", which I liked. In 10 grade, the first book we did was "The Scarlett Letter." We spent an entire month talking about it and I found it all to be to tedious. That, and the other selections that year, turned me off to classics (except Shakespeare) almost instantly. To this day, I tend to assume a classic must be stuffy with little in the way of plot.

 

I guess my point is that the early books analyzed by kids in school have the opportunity to turn on or off their interest in literature. For most people, even those who like to read, I think the interest is turned off. So maybe there should be room for non-classic books that still have stuff to be analyzed, in order to whet the appetite of teens.

 

 

I generally agree with you.

 

But some books whether "classic" or current "popular" do or do not resonate with someone reading them, as well as the possibility that the teacher was able to bring R&J in a way that you liked it, and Scar. Let. not.

 

One person may love Hunger Games and find it rich with meaning and parallels to world, another may feel "meh" or even "yech" about it. Like you,  I think more USA teens currently will find that more about Hunger Games resonates than The Scarlett Letter. But I think some will prefer Scarlett Letter.  After Hunger Games, if a class read Scarlett Letter, they could perhaps do things like compare the letter that must be worn in the latter, to things like the tongue amputations or other things that are done to people who do not comply with what the Capitol wants in the former, or how attitudes toward love and marriage are dealt with comparatively, or in both cases compare themes like the individual versus society.  Or at least I think so. My knowledge of Scarlett Letter is from long ago and not all that sharp at this point, while Hunger Games has been recently read in our household.

[Sarah CB]

My issue wasn't with a 14 yo reading the book, but rather it being a literature course study.  I assumed it was twaddle. 

 

I don't think it's twaddle.  I think there are a lot of deeper themes in it that can be explored and I think a literature class would be fantastic for that.  The whole reason I make my kids wait to read the series is because I want them to be mature enough to have some serious discussions around the themes in the book.  

 

You can get into sacrifice and poverty and government policy and freedom and peace and the price of peace and consumerism and reality shows and entertainment and mining and manufacturing in poor areas with no regard for who is actually doing the work, etc, etc.  

 

Twaddle generally doesn't make me think as much as The Hunger Games did.  I tend to read twaddle, enjoy the ride, and then forget about it.  THG still has me thinking and noticing things years after reading it.

[Wishes]

I enjoy classical literature and the Hunger Games. While I don't think that the Hunger Games falls in the realms of great literature, I do think it has thematic and literary elements that could lead to interesting discussion. As was suggested, pairing with great literature could be very easily done.

 

Thematically: love, friendship, honor, the horrors of war, etc. The whole "star-crossed lovers" aspect could lead to a discussion of what that means and jump into Romeo and Juliet and compare it to Katniss and Peeta; how it does and doesn't apply to them. The quote about power: â€œPower tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.†and how it relates to President Snow could lead to comparisons to The Lord of the Flies. The trilogy also explores the idea of the media and reality TV (which is what the Hunger Games really is) and how that effects people and leads to the exploitation of others. The whole idea of "Panem en Circuses" (Panem is the name of the whole country) was that if you fed people and entertain them, they will keep the masses content which is exactly what the districts supply to the Capitol.

​Besides thematic elements there's the whole idea of a first-person narrative (paired with The Outsiders maybe?) and how it effects the story. I don't think that people understand how unreliable a narrator Katniss is unless they read the whole trilogy. At first it's little things; like misunderstanding Peeta's intentions but then you realize how much her unreliability effects what we understand of the story. <spoiler alert> Haymitch, who has pretty much been portrayed as a senseless drunk, is a major part of the rebellion. How long has he been part of it? How much of his drunkeness was an act? We never know. Later we find out the Finnick, in direct opposition of what is expected happens to victors when they win (rich and happy for the rest of their lives), was actually required to "sell his body" as per President Snow's orders...and he wasn't the only victor required to do so. 

The vocabulary and sentence structure aren't as strong as the classics, but I think it has enough elements to be analyzed. I probably would use it more at the seventh/eighth level and save the classics for high school. 

[chocolatechip]

I think that's a waste of time. The Hunger Games does not qualify as literature IMO.

[Greta]

Interesting. When we did Scarlet Letter in 10th grade it generated interest in me for the classics. Maybe I had a great teacher. I remember that class so fondly.

My high school English teacher stands out vividly in my memory as one of the best teachers that I ever had. She was tough and demanding. We read the classics, not more modern or easier works that she thought would be more likely to hook us. She did little to make her lectures fun or entertaining, but they sure were insightful. And though I didn't appreciate her at the time, or even for several years later, I now have to give her lots of credit for planting a seed which took root, and generated within me some love of the classics. (But I make no claim of being so reformed that I don't still love some twaddle too :) )

 

I guess what I'm getting at is that I do believe that the right teacher can make all the difference. I don't know anything about HG - never read it. But it doesn't give me much hope to hear that she is playing an audio version in class. Yikes.

 

Edit: I would feel differently if she were reading it aloud herself - whether that feeling is justified or not, I can't say. I had a teacher in elementary school who read E.B. White aloud to us every day after lunch, and that is bar none my best memories of grade school. But listening to a recording just seems so much less . . . engaging.

[goldberry]

I think most on a classical homeschooling board would consider it twaddle. BUT it does have some good talking points and it is also the kind of book that kids who hate to read would be more likely to enjoy.

 

This.  I have a non-reader and Hunger Games was one of the few books that engaged her. At a certain point, I just gave up on Scarlet Letter and Shakespeare, ya know?

[Pen]

Yeah, I think I might buy the whole set and let ds read them now.  

 

 

Or maybe see if your library has the audio versions, or if you can get those, which would allow both you and your ds to listen and to have an experience more like dss?

 

After reading or listening you may still think them twaddle, or maybe you will have a different opinion.  You might also want to consider if you still think them "twaddle" if that is a real judgement or confirmation bias.

 

Edited

 

PS I do not think they are "great literature," but do think they are better than "twaddle." And I am in the camp that wants my ds to enjoy reading and literature, so I do not distinguish between current popular fiction and classics particularly...   Moby Dick, Gulliver's Travels, Hamlet, Henry V, Harry Potter and Hunger Games are all entertaining adventures that can also be used to consider deeper ideas.  OTOH I do not think he would like The Scarlet Letter and at least so far am not inclined to suggest books that I think he will not like.  Sometimes I suggest one that I think he would like and am wrong, though.

[Jenny in Florida]

I think the Hunger Games can be an excellent door to discussing dystopian literature. It's accessible, definitely not twaddle in its own right, and introduces themes that are present in many, many classic novels.

 

I've read the series, more than once.

[maize]

The part of the third book where they are trying to get through the booby traps in the capital read like a narration of a video game to me.

 

The writing in general drove me crazy.

[Excelsior! Academy]

Doesn't the series parallel the fall of the Roman Empire?  A classically educated person or one that has a good grasp on ancient history should be able to pull more from the series than average.  The ending helps readers see that one can fight the system and engage in whatever necessary to accomplish that, however no one walks away unchanged.  Not even the "hero."

[amsunshine]

I suppose it depends on what kind of literature class for which the book is being read.  If the class was an honors or advanced placement type of class -- Hunger Games would not be a good choice.  If it's just a regular, non-honors lit class, then maybe it's ok as an introduction to the dystopian genre.  I would personally pick Animal Farm over Hunger Games for a class like that, but that's why I homeschool -- I get to choose.   :thumbup1:

 

 

[Sneezyone]

I think there's value in the Hunger Games series and also took away from it many of the parallels with modern life-- war, peace, reality TV, divide and conquer politics, etc, etc. but I do think it's better at the middle school level than high school. It's not something I would object to though (other than the reading in class!).

 

I think its helpful when kids develop not just familiarity with the 'classics', many of which I find distasteful and/or boring, but with the literary phenoms of our own time. There's nothing sadder, IMHO, than having a lovely conversation with someone about history or old literature and then realizing they have no familiarity with modern or common-man takes on the same themes.

[Hen]

What's 60 years between friends? :D

 

Bill

 

Ha!  uh, mistake there.  But, maybe it would have been a better book if it took place in 1924.  This is the one book I have thrown across the room when I finished it.  I really, really thought he'd find a secret, happy community somewhere and get out....