Talk:The Hunger Games (novel)

Katniss's Page

I'm working on a separate article for Katniss. Please help!! Here is the work-in-progress link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Glimmer721/Katniss_Everdeen --Glimmer721 (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the character is notable enough for a separate article. Seems like the entire page will just be information from the books, and nothing from any third-party sources. Andrea (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

uhhh, what do u mean not notable enough??!! the book is ABOUT HER for christs sake!!! duuuuuhhhh. Abbigaleloise (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC) abby

With help I think it can grow...I put both artcles up a while ago. Also, I was wondering, well, I've looked though all the videos on the Scholastic website, but I couldn't find anything where she talked about how she came up with the character.--Glimmer721 (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Characters

It would be wonderful if we could include every character in the book, but we really can't – and really shouldn't. Characters like Caesar Flickerman really don't play enough of a role in the book to warrant inclusion in the article. Sure, the interview that he conducts allows Peeta to announce his love for Katniss, but he personally doesn't do anything – it's what Peeta (and Katniss) say in that scene that is important to the plot. Caesar "putting nervous tributes at ease" is hardly noteworthy; the story would remain almost completely unchanged without his character, and there is no reason to believe he will play a more important role later on in the series. Leaving him in is just an invitation to add a dozen more characters who appear in one scene and play incredibly minor roles. I am thus removing Caesar once again, and invite anyone who disagrees with his removal to discuss their reasoning here. Andrea (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I also believe Cato shouldn't be there. Despite being a threat to Katniss and Peeta, he wasn't as important as, say, Haymitch or Rue. Or even Effie for that matter. This article definitely has to be expanded a lot, and the writing cleaned up. I'll be back later to see if I can add anything. I've already cleaned up the spoilers in the Cato's description, but I don't feel right just deleting his description without asking for some other people's opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.41.159 (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that we should have a separate page for the major characters, like Katniss and Peeta. Many book serieses do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glimmer721 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that certain major characters need their own page. I think Rue should be one of these. She is the entire reason that Katniss joins the Revolution in the first place. I think a role that big deserves some recognition, dont you? Without Rue, Katniss wouldnt have had the boost of hope and joy that she despretly needed in the arena. Rue's likeness of Prim set off that spark that Katniss needed to become The Girl on Fire and the Mockingjay. So i really do think that Rue needs her own website!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.152.151 (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that Cato should be included somewhere. Maybe have a pages for the minor characters? Or maybe even a page for just the Career tributes?? That way every character gets the recognition that they deserve. I do think that Cato is a HUGE character. He killed Thresh meaning that Katniss wouldnt have had to do it. You know how hard that would have been for her! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misa Mockingjay (talk • contribs) 12:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Rue

I do believe Rue should be mentioned somewhere in the summary. 24.99.117.200 (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitaly. Rue was a character that played a huge part in helping Katniss win the Hunger Games. They worked as a team, and considering Katniss was new to the Games,(as would be any other tribute) and didn't know if it was really smart to have an ally, taking on Rue was a big step for her. It worked out well. She also is mentioned a lot in Catching Fire. I do agree that Rue should be mentioned in the summary.

Rue should TOTALY be mentioned. she is the BACKBONE of the seiries. Rue, Haymich, Gale.... no one but Peeta and Katness are mentioned. You Should unlock the thingy. The important people should be put on. ESPECIALY Rue.Foxtail Diana (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I put Rue in the Synopsis.-Pandawing$: (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC) I love Rue, she is such a strong character! (ever though shes so tiney!) i just cant wait to see who plays her in the movie!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misa Mockingjay (talk • contribs) 01:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Me too. I find myself skipping the part when she died when I read The Hunger Games.-Pandawing$: (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Hunger Games Movie

There is officially going to be a Hunger Games movie. Lionsgate did officialy buy movie rights, and Suzanne Collins will be helping with Screenplay. It is supposedly to be coming out in early 2010. So excited! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.147.106 (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that there may be some information about The Hunger Games movie on iMDbPro, but I am not a subscriber, so I can't add the info. Anyone with an iMDbPro account, please add some more info about the movie.(if there is any). Thank you Danitnt (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Without Rue, the entire rest of the series woudld be ruined. I think a character that big deserves a special reconition, dont you? Rue is mentioned numerous times throughout the books and its a shame how underappreciated she is! She gave Katniss that boost of hope and joy that she needed during the Games in the first book. Without that boost, who knows what would have happened to Katniss??!!! Rue is one of the biggest reasons that Katniss fights for freedom from the Capitol. She is the spark that Katniss needed to really become The Girl on Fire! And without her important role, there would be no Mockingjay. Katniss wouldnt have had the proof that she needed. So yes, Rue HAS to be in the summary!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.152.151 (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Reality TV Connection?

Removed this from the Themes section: "Another interesting theme is the connection between a connection to reality TV, very much like today. It is important to understand some of these themes expressed throughout the story, most importantly that which relates to humanity in our society." We need a citation for this. Roseclearfield (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

Looks like you've done a nice job here. I haven't read the entire article, but one thing I've noticed is the character names should be unbolded per WP:MoS. Will swing by again once that's done, and assess. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I unbolded the names and added bulllets instead. --Glimmer721 (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Characters

Personally, I don't think that Thresh, Clove, Glimmer, Foxface and Avox Girl are really "main" characters. They are mentioned quite a few times but do not really add much to the story. Maybe Thresh could stay, but the others probably should go. Derild4921☼ 22:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you!! I think we should make a separate article of just the caracters in the series--then we can have a section for the tributes in both Games, as well as other characters. --Glimmer721 (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

...Currenly working on it.Please help, everyone! Found at User:Glimmer721/List of Characters in the Hunger Games trilogy. --Glimmer721 (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think only zee Avox girl should go —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtail Diana (talk • contribs) 17:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Why in the world should the Avox girl go??!!! Sure shes a minor character, but she plays a big role in the story. She shows how terrible the Capitol is and what they do to those who contradict them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misa Mockingjay (talk • contribs) 01:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Characters short-list??

The "characters" section of this article only talks about Katniss, Peeta, and...Cato? I know there's the "See also" for the separate article, but Cato isn't really that major of a character. I would add Haymitch at least, and remove Cato. --Glimmer721 (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should have a consensus on whether or not the character section should stay. The plot section gives most of the information section about Katniss and Peeta in the book and a see also section can be used for the rest of the characters. Derild4921☼ 22:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I support removing the Characters section entirely. It doesn't add anything to the article that isn't already in (or couldn't be added to) the plot summary. Most of what is in the section right now is overly detailed for what should be in this article. Andrea (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I would remove it, basically because the main threat in the book is the government, not Cato. --Glimmer721 (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Cato is a major character. If you've read the book, you'd understand. 68.204.47.18 (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have read the book, and Cato was not the main antagonist. He was a big threat in the arena, but the bigger threat is the government, which does not classify as a character. The section has been removed anyway, for the better. --Glimmer721 ^talk 15:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree totaly. He is important. He is a treat for the moment, he is one of the main causes of guilt on Katnesses victory toar in book 2. He is important. He is the only person in the way of Katness and Peeta winning before the capital announces that only 1 may win. And as for "Cato was not the main antagonist", Does being an important charactor mean that you have to be the main antagonist? No it does not. Yeesh.Foxtail Diana (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC) I agree with glimmer she never said Cato wasn't a main character and if you were competent enough to look behind the cover of the book and think you people might see what glimmer was talking about Cato is NOT the main threat it is the government, if you would look it is actually the government that forces tributes like Cato to fight.

I didn't say that he was not a main character! I just said it was strange to have those three and only those three under the characters section! Please be civil! --Glimmer721 ^talk 02:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Cato is soooo a main character! Without him, Katniss would have had to kill Thresh herself, and you know how hard that would be for her! I do agree though that Cato isnt the main antagonist, but in the first book he is one of them! Im just wondering who theyre gonna find to play him in the movie! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misa Mockingjay (talk • contribs) 13:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead Links

There are three dead links. How could we remove them? --Glimmer721 ^talk 15:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well we need to find either new links to the same articles, or else new sources that can be used as references for the same information. Andrea (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What to do

This article has recieved a peer review from User:Jappalang which is found here. Here is what he had to say:

• Please fix the three dead links in the article.

• Elizabeth Bird's article is not at the link presented.

 Done (I love WebArchive!!) Glimmer721 ^talk 00:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Lede

• "It was originally published in hardcover ..."

  This is a fairly standard practice for novels...

 Done--Glimmer721 ^talk 00:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• "It was originally ... It is the ... It introduces ..."

  There is a repetitive statacco here.

Themes

• What is the point of a single sentence section? Is there any more that can be found about themes? Publisher Weekly's Megan Whalen Turner certainly sees some more things into the items presented by the novel and the context of its portrayal.

 Doing...--I'm searching and adding. --Glimmer721 ^talk 20:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Publication history

• "Citation needed" tag present

Cover

• PW: "the winner and 100 runners-up will also get an ARC of Catching Fire and a mockingjay pin (the bird featured on the books' covers)." How does this give rise to 'This is an image of the pin given to Katniss by the Mayor's daughter, Madge Undersee, as the image matches the description of the pin that is given in the book, except for the arrow: "It's as if someone fashioned a small golden bird and then attached a ring around it. The bird is connected to the ring only by its wing tips. I suddenly recognize it. A mockingjay."' This would be original research (and synthesis by using a statement in the story) since no source states the image on the book is that envisaged by the author.

 Done, found better source that mentions it's the pin she wore. --Glimmer721 ^talk 03:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Critical reception

• The section reads to me like the collection of blurbs on the author's homepage http://www.suzannecollinsbooks.com/.

• Personally, the premise of the plot strikes me as a copycat of several tropes and I am surprised not to read notable authors failing to spot this. But King's review does mention that and I wonder why this is not mentioned in the article, nor is his classification of the love triangle a standard trope in the genre. Without such criticism, King comes off as overwhelmingly positive over the title (despite the B). John Green also mentions the lack of originality, as well as the lack of power behind the words.

 Done--Glimmer721 ^talk 21:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

See also

• What is the point of putting these here without context? If they do have context (as pointed above), then they would have been linked earlier and thus not needed here.

Image

• File:Hunger games.jpg: While it can qualify as an identifying image, the rationale for why it can do so still needs beefing up. Furthermore, the size of the image should be reduced.

Sources

• How is jabberjays.com (fansite) a reliable source?

 Doing...—I made this a reference because it was a link from an Entertainment Weekly article; however, according to a website which Wikipedia wouldn't let me post for some reason, it was a false alarm. Yet there is still the EW article. Perhaps we should only use the NextMovie ref and ignore the EW. Thoughts? --Glimmer721 ^talk 00:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• What influence does the Cybil's Awards have? Is it a notable award recognised by the industry?

---

Request added 12.15.11---- Please add a synopsis without a the full plot before your page's plot section. This way whoever is reading this page looking for a brief synopsis of the book can read that and not read onto the plot section and have the book's ending revealed.

Edit request from Jadenbo, 18 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In the synopsis section it states the practical ending of the book- I would have edited that but I was not allowed to. Please I was reading to figure out what I should do for my book report and it ruined it. Please change "but both Katniss and Peeta are able to evade death" to something more practical like "will both Katniss and Peeta be able to evade death?" Jadenbo (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done. Please read WP:SPOIL (particularly, "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot."). Andrea (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

---AGREEMENT with Edit Request--- I agree with Jadenbo. I think it is quite wrong that this page gives away the entire plot of the book. I would think the author would be quite displeased. This page just ruined the chances of many people wanting to read the book because now there will be zero suspense on what happens in the end. I suggest an edit similar to what Jadenbo suggests. As you can assume, I have never even attempted, nor known you could do these edits to wikipedia and I use it all of the time, so for me to actually do this says a lot about how disappointing this page is.

Link

Possibly useful. Andrea (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Glimmer721 ^talk 18:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Reality TV Show and the Iraq War....really? Not Battle Royale, an ultimatum from her book agent, a bottle of whine and the self destruction of her self respect?

Who exactly does she think she's kidding with these books? A reporter somewhere must have asked her if she just novelized Battle Royale for the drooling hoards of half-diabetic, half-literate US pre-teens that think Stephanie Meyer is Hemingway. This page is just a sad marketing spectacle until someone gets a source that references this seemingly obvious fraud and get this "writer's" take on it. - Gwopy 16:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

Do you understand what these discussion pages are intended for? Hint: it's not for criticism of the SUBJECT of the article, but for the article itself. There are other places on the web for you to contribute your opinions on the author. Please find them. 76.126.38.210 (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As much as I agree with you that this book's plot is outrageously similar to Battle Royale, this isn't the place to be posting such criticism. Also - Battle Royale was originally a novel, then it was made into the manga and the movie. 20:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkXymphony (talk • contribs)

Criticism by ONE Reviewer?

In the intro, it says that one reviewer criticized the editing. With a book that's had this many copies published, I think any criticisms listed in the intro should be things that several reviewers have commented on. Mentioning what ONE reviewer thinks gives that reviewer undue weight- if it's a particularly famous reviewer, they should be mentioned by name. If there are themes that have emerged from various critics, could someone please add them? (I didn't read the rest of the article, because I haven't read the books, and I don't like to know too much about the plot before I read something.) Thanks! 76.126.38.210 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I removed the whole sentence. Andrea (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Themes

The article notes that the "Themes" section requires expansion. No one has apparently stepped up to the plate on that (yet,) and it is understandable as the series is so layered and dense with thematic material that readers will likely focus on those that matter to them and disregard or minimize others. Hunger Games can be read on many levels-- as a classic coming-of-age story, as a love/love triangle story, as a dystopian fantasy world story, as a spiritual metaphor, as a political tract, as sociological commentary-- and that is one of its great strengths. Different themes are critical to different readings.

Rather than soliciting a single essay, or pulling together quotes from book reviews to explore the themes, how would it work to do a compendium based on quotes from reader reviews at various sources-- quotes related to thematic material or discussing perceptions of theme within the story arc? ArgyleBoots (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the exact distinction is between the options you mention, but a compendium of quotes would work as long as they are from reputable sources. I can't tell from your statements whether you're aware of this, so forgive me if this something you already know, but reliable sources are very important for statements made on Wikipedia, and "themes" section always have a tough time with this. Basically, you have to find someone reliable who has said that "such-and-such" is a theme in Story A before you can list "such-and-such" as a theme on Story A's article. The very short themes section currently in the article does a good job of this part of it, as every statement is cited. As the section is expanded, this would need to be continued. So it's important that the reviews are from reviewers who have some sort of reputation and not just random people on Amazon. But as long as that is taken into account, then including quotes from reviews would be a great thing for this section.

There's a bit of helpful information at MOS:NOVELS#Major themes, although it's not the be-all end-all. I hope this was at least moderately helpful; I'm sure other editors will be answering your question as well. Princess Lirin (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Wireofficer, 1 May 2011

The budget for the film adaptation has been raised to 75 million. Wireofficer (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that confirms this? Andrea (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Jabberjays, Mockingjays, Tracker Jackers, and Muttations

Jabberjays are first mentioned on page 42. Mockingjays are first mentioned on page 43. Tracker Jackers are first mentioned on page 185. Muttations are mentioned first on page 42, but then on page 331 with the wolf-human things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.213.173.30 (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sliders Ep 3.01 Rules of the Game similar plot of Hunger Games but in 1996?

You can watch the Sliders Episode 3.01 "Rules of the Game" on Hulu. "http://www.hulu.com/watch/77601/sliders-rules-of-the-game" Is it possible Hunger Games comes at least in part from this episode? First, there is a game involving booby-traps and automated defenses. Then a mention of the current game being popular with an "audience". And a near civil war which initiated the games. The episode is especially reminiscent of the final part of Mockingjay in the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.187.53.173 (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

North America

It's inaccurate to say "where North America once existed" and "after the destruction of North America", because if North America wasn't there, there wouldn't be a continent for Panem to be located on. Also, Katniss makes it clear that the Appalachian coal mines are the same ones that exist today, so the continent hasn't been obliterated. Shrunk a little thanks to rising oceans, yes, but not gone. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying the physical land is gone, but that land is no longer known as North America—it's Panem. To say "United States" ignores Canada (and potentially Mexico, though it doesn't seem like any of the districts are located there). Andrea (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it would be WP:Original research to state that it's no longer known as North America, unless something past where I've read states that the whole continent has been renamed, and that other English-speaking countries (unless we bombed the rest of the world, and that's District 13) refer to it by the new name. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Many sources state that North America is not known by that name anymore, including Scholastic's official site ("In the ruins of a place once known as North America lies the nation of Panem..."). And by your logic it's also possible that the rest of the world still refers to the United States as "the United States", since we never meet any characters from outside of Panem. Andrea (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Your first link says "The United States is gone. North America has become Panem" -- in other words, NA is still there, just called something else. Same for "In the ruins of a place once known as North America". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, it's called something else...that's what I've been saying. I did not say the piece of land is gone, but it is no longer "North America". One of the lines in the article should thus say, "...in the country of Panem where North America once existed." That is the same as saying the land used to be "North America", but now it is not. Panem is not only where the US existed. Andrea (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Battle Royale comparison

It's a fairly popular observation -- I came up with it myself about 5 chapters in. Other sources mentioning it include Reuters, the Portland Mercury, the Irish Times, and the New York Times. I'm willing to assume that Collins really hadn't run into the earlier story -- it's not exactly a household word -- but the comparison is definitely made in reliable sources. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's notable, then mention of it can be re-added with those sources. I have heard the comparison made as well, but the information was added rather sloppily (and with a clear bias) and so I removed it. Andrea (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that as it was phrased, that addition was unusable. I just wanted to see if I could come up with refs for it -- all I could find were refs documenting the comparison, not any denial. I think the current "See Also" link is probably sufficient, barring links showing Collins addressing the issue herself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Tossing people out to fight for survival, even having to kill off their rivals, all while being watched by an audience, is found in many works of fiction. The Running Man, Battle Royale, various films where a large arena had weapons about for them to rush through and use to kill each other, etc. I wrote a story about the same thing as this, only with criminals tossed out to fight for the amusement of the crowd, years before I heard of any of these sources. Its just a common sense thing to come up with. Just like every time someone has an alien spaceship in a work of fiction, you don't claim they all got the idea from the first person who came up with that. Dream Focus 19:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think the big difference is that Battle Royal consists of 12 teenage boys and 12 teenage girls fighting to the death in an attempt to control teenage strife (where as Running Man or Series 7 is about people who choose to do this), is very much like 12 teenage boys and 12 teenage girls fighting to the death in order to reduce strife in their district. I know that this isn't a forum for discussion, but Battle Royal isn't mentioned anywhere on the page. I don't think it matters if the writer has noted it, but if others in the literary community have. 99.92.76.100 (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"See Also" section

To be quite honest, I don't see any point for a single link in that section. They all seem to just be plot lines that are similar to Hunger Games. Battle Royale should not be included b/c it's linked in the article, and the rest are unrelated. Anyone else agree? PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 18:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Andrea (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, too. I think this was mentioned in the PR a while ago... Glimmer721 ^talk 23:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Should the ending be given away like that?

The article has a plot section which gives away the ending. Doesn't that sort of ruin the surprise for people? Dream Focus 19:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That's normal for wikipedia articles on books or movies. Since this is not a review site, but rather an online encyclopedia, it's appropriate to include 'spoilers' in the plot sections of these kinds of articles. For An Angel (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)