data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/24eae/24eaef9128ebda3a2fef8c5b1023a5f0323f57cd" alt=""
I managed to hold out from reading this book for almost two years. For some reason, I kinda don't like reading books that everyone else and their dog likes (yes, I'm talking about you, Harry Potter and Twilight). They never seem to live up to the hype. I read them and I think, sure, this is a good book, but I don't see why people are so obsessed with them, because I've read better.
And, honestly, that's pretty much how I felt about "The Hunger Games." Yes, I think it was a good book. Yes, it kept me interested. But, no, I don't think it lived up to all the hype. I really wanted "The Hunger Games" to be as phenomenally good as everyone has been saying it is, so when it turned out to just be your average good book, I was kinda disappointed. Which is sad really. I think if I hadn't been expecting so much of it, I would've been happy with it being a good book, instead of feeling let down because it wasn't as awesome as I hoped.
And maybe it's not even "The Hunger Games"'s fault that I liked instead of loved it. It's action based, and I prefer books that are more character based--maybe it's just a matter of personal preference. I never really connected to Katniss, the main character, and I didn't fall in love with the love interest, Peeta--he was too much of a useless, lovesick sap for my taste. (All you Peeta lovers, please don't hate me for saying that . . . I will admit that he does have some good qualities too.)
But anyway, I still recommend "The Hunger Games"--I did like it after all, and I'm about to start the second one and will probably read the third. I just can't help feeling slightly disappointed.
I preferred the bits that were out of the arena to those bits in it... I still haven't read the other two books but I really must!
ReplyDelete