|
Post by Dante on Aug 8, 2011 8:37:11 GMT -5
It seems like a sensible production chain, actually - base resources are farther away, and as they're shipped to the Capitol, they pass through districts in which they can be processed. In addition, the districts which produce or gather essentials are most needed by the Capitol, and therefore have to labour hardest and be controlled the most - therefore, they're the most likely to revolt, and the Capitol would want any revolutions to be situated as far away as possible so the Capitol can't be stormed. That's how I rationalise it.
|
|
|
Post by csc on Aug 8, 2011 14:25:37 GMT -5
So, that last chapter left us in quite a cliffhanger huh? How do you guys feel about Peeta joining the Careers? And him "finishing" that girl? I found that very suspicious, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by Songbird on Aug 9, 2011 12:04:42 GMT -5
I don't really have an issue with Peeta joining the careers, it's about survival at the moment. By the way we are now discussing up to chapter 12, and if you want to reference something please include page numbers so we know where to find what you're talking about
|
|
|
Post by csc on Aug 9, 2011 14:05:56 GMT -5
I sorry, it's just that I downloaded it online, on amazon, and the pages don't have a number. I know that it's about survival, but I can't help not feeling he's doing something terribly wrong and cruel.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Aug 11, 2011 16:22:11 GMT -5
Time for some new discussion topics, I think - although people are always welcome to return to the old ones with new thoughts! As the plot continues, that may well be a good idea.
I'm interested in the way that events and situations are contrived to maximise public interest, such as by intervening at slow moments with lethal gimmicks, or forcing the Tributes to play in a certain way or observe certain rules. Do you think the Tributes are slaves to the narrative being written for them, or can they exploit and control it?
In addition, what do we think of the varied forms the Games can take - if you were an omnipotent sadist with no respect for human life, what kind of Games would you design? Do any of you have an answer to the criticism, and it is a potential one, that the set-up of the Games permits the author to introduce whatever plot devices she likes and create unrealistic landscapes without needing to consider logic or realism... or is that part of the point?
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on Aug 11, 2011 20:26:58 GMT -5
I'm interested in the way that events and situations are contrived to maximise public interest, such as by intervening at slow moments with lethal gimmicks, or forcing the Tributes to play in a certain way or observe certain rules. Do you think the Tributes are slaves to the narrative being written for them, or can they exploit and control it? Surely the Tributes are in a better position than anyone else to exploit the cruelty enforced by the Capitol - the question is, at what cost? There's a sort of unspoken agreement between the Tributes and the Gamemakers, I think. Well, less of an agreement than an underlying threat; no Tribute we know of has yet challenged any aspect of the Game. As a dystopian novel, The Hunger Games can safely introduce elements nonexistent in our world and still be believable. But like any work of fiction, those same elements must be explained or validated at some point in the work; otherwise one might assume the addition is pointless, and instead of enhancing the setting, it weakens it. The novel doesn't have to follow the rules of our world, but it certainly must follow it's own. To illustrate the point: a talking kitten in this book would be thoroughly out of place, but we wouldn't be surprised to come across, say, a swarm of toxic beetles. By the same logic, unrealistic landscapes and wild plot devices still must conform to some set of standards to maintain the lifelike quality of the story.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Aug 13, 2011 15:19:03 GMT -5
Surely the Tributes are in a better position than anyone else to exploit the cruelty enforced by the Capitol - the question is, at what cost? There's a sort of unspoken agreement between the Tributes and the Gamemakers, I think. Well, less of an agreement than an underlying threat; no Tribute we know of has yet challenged any aspect of the Game. Can we question why there'd be any kind of unspoken agreement between the Tributes and the Gamemakers? Perhaps it's out of fear - if anyone speaks out too much, would we assume that the Gamemakers would not only censor them, but actually position the traps to take them out early? Whereas the Tributes might also be afraid of their potential victory being jeopardised, if they attempt to rebel within the Game while still with the intention of winning. It's just hard to see what anyone except the Career Tributes has to gain by co-operating - or rather, by accepting. The talking kitten example is an interesting one given some of the inhabitants of this world we'll later see (note: This isn't a spoiler, there are no talking kittens (although I haven't read the third book yet, so who knows I guess)). What I mean is that the Games seem to provide a free pass for unrealistic landscapes and wild plot devices because of the apparently omnipotent terraforming power the Gamemakers seem to have, and the unnatural variety of artificial traps that have been arranged around (I'm not sure quite how far we are in the book yet, but I imagine people have read on a little farther than Chapter 12 by now anyway). Actually, that is a point. How far are people through the book at this point? If we're all a bit farther than the designated point, we can move on with some new discussion topics.
|
|
|
Post by csc on Aug 13, 2011 15:23:15 GMT -5
I am now reading MockingJay .
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Aug 13, 2011 16:17:13 GMT -5
You have even read farther than me, then! I haven't managed to obtain Mockingjay yet. I keep on forgetting. How about everyone else, then? Hermes is still away for a couple of days, as is Songbird. Nominatissima? Anyone else who'd care to join us?
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on Aug 13, 2011 16:20:00 GMT -5
Can we question why there'd be any kind of unspoken agreement between the Tributes and the Gamemakers? Perhaps it's out of fear - if anyone speaks out too much, would we assume that the Gamemakers would not only censor them, but actually position the traps to take them out early? Whereas the Tributes might also be afraid of their potential victory being jeopardised, if they attempt to rebel within the Game while still with the intention of winning. It's just hard to see what anyone except the Career Tributes has to gain by co-operating - or rather, by accepting. Seeing as the point of the Games is to remind everyone of the Capitol's total control, rebelling as a Tribute would have a certain irony to it. Although that raises another question: Does anyone really ever win the Hunger Games? Ah, yes. That was a bad example. What I meant was that some elements would still be out of place, even if the nature of the Games allows for more spectacular features. Come to think of it, it's hard to envision an environment that couldn't be placed in the Games and be called unbelievable. I still think it should be justified within the novel, but I don't disagree that there's much to explore in this area. And I've finished the book as well.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Aug 13, 2011 16:25:23 GMT -5
Although that raises another question: Does anyone really ever win the Hunger Games? I think this should be our next key question. Remind me - winning Tributes don't get protection for their families, do they? For a Career Tribute, they can probably win because they're psychopaths, apparently. The things they've seen and done aren't something to live with, they're something they don't care about and probably enjoyed, and it's hard to imagine them really caring about anyone. A winner who has a heart is no winner at all, though.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Whatever on Aug 13, 2011 16:26:34 GMT -5
I finished! I'll save my overall impressions for when the discussion moves forward. Regarding the environments set up within the games, it reminded me of artificial environments like Wild Blue Yokohama. So they seemed more than possible to me, such simulated environments of great variety are commonplace in industries like shipping, where their equipment is tested for everything from Arctic ice to tropical hurricanes. We can assume that the Games is an enhanced version of that, probably propped up off today's technology. It seems that if you progress long enough in history, every essential invention will eventually get used for recreation, however gruesome.
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on Aug 13, 2011 16:32:54 GMT -5
Winners don't get protection for their families; possibly because the Capitol doesn't see the point, or possibly because they want to glorify as few people as possible. I think Haymitch's lifestyle is a reminder of the true nature of the games, though. There's more to lose than gain.
Edit: It's interesting about the inventions, too, nominatissima. That the Gamemakers would take advantage of such technology doesn't seem improbable; they're clearly not on a budget.
|
|
|
Post by csc on Aug 13, 2011 20:30:11 GMT -5
I don't think that Songbird would be too happy if she saw we were discussing topics further on the book when she returned, so, for now, I'll just mention things everyone has already seen- or at least, by now, should have seen.
Am I the only one intrigued by the conection Haymitch has with Katniss, like when she was dying of thirst and knew she must be close to water by him witholding it from her? Its definetly one of the highlights of the book and, as we later see, it evolves on something evidently bigger than the search for water. The two of them think alike, only Haymitch shuts himself out and has a severe drinking problem. Also- do you think that the fire caused by the Gamemakers is not only an attemp of killing Katniss but a way to add a little humor to the Games? (We see that on chapter 13- Okay, I went a little out of what we should be discussing- the girl who was on fire, on fire once more)
And Dante, I do recommend MockingJay. Even though I haven't finished it yet, I have enjoyed what I read so far.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Aug 14, 2011 2:52:28 GMT -5
I agree, Fredy, that the almost psychic connection between Katniss and Haymitch is fascinating, and it suggests they have to understand each other quite well for it to work - Katniss has to be able to gauge his actions to predict what she needs to do, and Haymitch has to be able to rely on her to understand and get it right. For a man with no self-control he has a very strong rule here, giving Katniss no breaks and no room for error. Probably because there's very little he can actually do; it's implied that every paltry offering he can provide is the result of a lot of hard lobbying and expense.
And I definitely think that we will keep on seeing that the Gamemakers have a rather ironic approach to Katniss's nickname. That's part of the media manipulation, the customisation of the field and of the story being created, like in any good reality TV show; they're working with every element they're given to create a plot with plenty of resonance, and the author is doing the same thing through them.
|
|