Review: The Dream Thieves (!!!!)

Hi, Ronan. Looking super tormented there, aren't you?

★★★★★

I'm still a little bit in shock that I got this ARC, but I will put forth a valiant effort to make this review coherent (and spoiler-free... we'll see how that goes).

Only, it's not going to seem so much like a *review* as an enumeration of the things I love about this book, this series, and these characters. Yeah? Yeah.

The Dream Thieves starts off a little bit after where The Raven Boys ended, though it doesn't specifically say how long it's been. It's summer in Henrietta and the search for Glendower is still on, though it seems all of its participants have a different reason for wanting to find the Welsh king. Adam wants to find freedom, Gansey and Blue want to find something more, and Ronan's just along for the ride-- he's got his own demons to face, anyway, related to that thing? That thing that happened? At the end of the first book? Yeah, that.

Dreams and nightmares collide with reality in The Dream Thieves, making it everything I ever wanted and feared in a book. The series takes an unexpected turn-- monsters-- but does so in a cohesive way that, instead of seeming totally out of the blue (sorry, Blue), feels right. I mean, of course there's going to be bigger magic in the second book. The first book was largely setup for this one: a small Virginia town with complicated characters who have distinct histories and personalities, with a dash of magic sprinkled in to tell you where it's all going. Book two is about taking you there and playing out the consequences of what happened in book one. And oh, are there consequences.

Dream Thieves centers much more on Ronan than Raven Boys did, and I wouldn't have it any other way (okay, perhaps I'm hoping the next book is more about Gansey. But I have a soft spot for Gansey that is currently controlling all of my thoughts). That's not to say the other characters didn't play just as big a role as they did in the first book, it's just that it's Ronan's turn for some character development. Ronan has been steadfastly Ronan, no hesitation to express his feelings with fists rather than words, and a self-hatred that ran so deep you'd need a pickaxe and a flashlight to actually see it.

If you're a Ronan fan, this is your book. He is essentially the main character this time around, and while he doesn't change so much as learn like the rest of them, his character development is staggering. Plus you learn A Thing about him that might make you go WHAT? (but if you're like me, you'll love the Thing).

Oh, and since the bad guy in Raven Boys died at the end of that book, we need a new one. And we get one. A few, actually, but I'm going to focus on the one. Because I actually love him, and not in a love-to-hate-him-because-he's-the-bad-guy way. I mean he is not just a villain but a character, with emotions and a past. He's such a character that he's barely a villain. He's so not-really-a-villain that I just replaced the word "villain" with "bad guy" twice in this paragraph. Bad Guy Boy #2, by the way, seems like he came straight from Blue's head, as he is everything she hated about raven boys before she actually knew any raven boys.

Moving on. What's that? The masses want to know about Blue's prophecy? The vision tree visions? Are Blue and Gansey going to fall in loooove? Well, suckers, I'm not telling you *George Lopez voice* NOTHING! I'll just say that, yes, there is kissing, but no, it is not what you think. Remember. Blue is sensible. She's not going around kissing boys who could die because of it. I'll also say that there were parts that made me squeal and bury my face in my hands, and immediately following the squealing came collapsing in despair, yelling CURSE THIS UNFAIR WORLD.

Which is how I like it. 

Once again the writing, setting and tone are just flawless. You've never read books like these before and you probably never will again. It's a calculated mix of creepy, mystical, comedic and gothic, which is a gross oversimplification but it almost gets the point across.

Finally, I feel like the most important thing in these books is the friendship element. The characters are so complex that their relationships have to be pretty malleable to fit all of their pieces at the same time-- and sometimes they aren't. Sometimes something breaks and someone gets hurt. But they move on. They're those friends who are so comfortable with each other that anyone else feels isolated on the outside of the bubble, looking in. They have big, explosive fights when they can't see something from the same point of view, but they're too close and they need each other too much to dwell on it. That is something I find so rare in YA lit that I want to hug Maggie Stiefvater for making these characters act like real people.

I mean, when one eats around the fruit at the bottom of her yogurt cup because she doesn't like it, another one will say, "but that's the best part!" and finish it for her. When one of them can sense that another is feeling tense, he will make jokes about pigeons to make it better. Even when two of them don't get along 90 percent of the time, they have an unspoken understanding to be there for each other because the common enemy is anyone outside the bubble. That's how it works.

Basically, I love this book as much as the first book, if not more. I haven't decided yet if I like it *more* because I've now read the first book three times and I'm so familiar with it that it feels like a part of me, while I've only read this one once and it's still a strange alien entity. Here, have a chart:

★★★★★

That is actually one million stars, but it looks like five.

P.S. The Gatsby references are still relevant.

After a year of waiting, Insurgent:

Finally.

I've discovered that I'm not so good at writing reviews or talking about books in a completely spoiler-free way, but I'm going to do my best with this one because it only came out yesterday so the majority of people haven't read it yet. That said, anything spoilerish, I'm going to hide behind the Read More cut at the bottom and label it with a number. You can choose to ignore the number, or you can choose to click on the Read More and see to which thought the number corresponds. But the numbers DO indicate spoilers, so be warned.

So. Let me start off by saying that this is not a bridge book. It is the second book in a trilogy, but it is not a bridge book.

By "bridge book," I mean a book that mainly serves as a vehicle for character development and not much else. Sometimes the second book in a trilogy can lean this way because the third book is going to be completely explosive and epic, but a lot gets put on the backburner in the process. Sometimes the second book completely changes the set of characters from the first book, to stage their comeback in the final installment. [Heck, sometimes the second book even changes narrators, or adds a new narrator-- I'm looking at YOU, Timepiece and Crossed]. Sometimes there's a new setting, unfamiliar to both the characters and the readers.

Insurgent does none of the above. The only missing characters are the ones who died in the first book, and frankly, I didn't care much about them anyway (1). It starts off pretty much where Divergent left off, so there's not really time for the entire set of characters or the setting to change, and it wouldn't make any sense to change the narrator. 

What this book DOES is move the story along. There is so much happening in this book I found myself having to reread pages because I wasn't sure which storyline we were talking about (2). It turns out, the pages pretty much turn themselves when you have no idea who you can trust and who you can't. Not to mention, we got a deeper look at the other factions that we didn't really see in Divergent: Candor, Amity and Erudite. Learning the good and bad traits of each one is really interesting, and it says something about Tris as a narrator that she can see that Candor may not know how to fight when fighting seems useless, but they also know how not to get carried away. That she realizes that while Amity may be selfish in remaining uninvolved in pretty much everything, there is a peace to their lifestyle that none of the other factions have. That she acknowledges that Erudite may have members who use their knowledge against everyone else, but they're not all like that, and their existence is necessary for the survival of the other factions.

[Side note: Tris + Amity "medications" = hilarity.]

I absolutely loved the characterizations in this book. I cannot tell you how many times I wanted to scream at Tris, but you don't have to agree with a character in order to like them or respect them. She is one of the most respectable characters since Katniss Everdeen (3). I love that she won't stand for anyone else underestimating her, even when she sometimes underestimates herself. I love that she's selfless, smart and brave, but still has her weak moments-- that's what makes a good character. People are weak sometimes, but it doesn't change who they are.

And Four-- GOD, Four. Sometimes I wanted to yell at him too. But even though he wasn't the one narrating the story, I often felt like I understood his motivations better than I understood Tris's (4). Still, Tris and Four balance each other out well. Even when it's not all roses and rainbows between them, they're there for each other. Their relationship develops so much in this book, I can't even. (5) They both realize where their faults are in their ideas of each other, and it all culminates at a point where you're kind of teetering on the edge. If it goes one way, it means the third book is going to have a lot of repair work to do, and if it goes the other, at least that is resolved.

Oh, and I have to mention Peter. Peter, the sadistic pansycake. He is one of those villains that I love to hate, because it's so much fun. And also... he has his moments. [Oh, Peter, you may be a ruthless, butterknife-yielding psychopath, but I like your style. Careful, though: an eye for an eye means you're going to be wearing an eyepatch soon.]

Other characters from Divergent make their returns, and I won't tell you who they are, but it's good (6).

As for the plot, um, yeah, I already mentioned that it hooks you. But the end is my favorite part. I can't tell you about that though (7).

And the setting... it is a bit different, because we get to see every faction. Personally I liked the Dauntless headquarters as a setting because it was exciting, but it makes sense that, because this book was no longer about Tris's initiation, it couldn't solely take place there.

One thing I just want to get off my chest: the Abnegation names. I'm sorry, I just really hate them. I don't want Tris to be Beatrice (not that she is, really), and I don't want Four to be Tobias, because frankly I'm not even sure how to pronounce that. Ugly names are distracting when you're reading a book. Plus, their Dauntless names say something about who they want to be. They can't go reverting back to who they once were, no matter how much more intimate it is to call someone by their real name. [Side thought: it would've been really cool if Tris had started going by Six. But I get that that wasn't really possible, because everyone already knew her as Tris or Beatrice.]

But that's probably my least favorite thing. Everything else is... let's just say, I want the third book now. Unfortunately it doesn't even have a title yet (unless you want to go with V. Roth's working title Detergent). My bet: the third book will be called Emergent.

"'We don't need you as an ally,' says Tori. 'We're Dauntless.'" 

"By the time the fight dies down, my clothes are more paint-colored than black. I decide to keep the shirt to remind me why I chose Dauntless in the first place: not because they are perfect, but because they are alive. Because they are free."

Let's just pretend it ended at 6 seasons.

So after four solid seasons, two decent ones and three unnecessary and indulgent ones, One Tree Hill is finally over.

I expected the series finale to make me bawl like a little baby, honestly. Because that's how series finales are supposed to go-- they are the last time you're ever going to see these characters you've loved for X number of years. In real time, at least. You'll get to watch reruns, but you never again wonder what's going to happen to them. You never get to learn with them or experience things with them again, because you've learned these things and experienced these things before, and it's not the same if you're just watching them do it all over again.

But the thing is, the One Tree Hill finale didn't make me cry. Not once. The only time I got teary-eyed was when Gavin DeGraw was singing "I Don't Want to Be" ...and I don't even think that was because it was the end of One Tree Hill. I think it was because that was Lucas's song, and Lucas wasn't even there. It was like the finale completely ignored the fact that the show was originally about the other Scott brother. The one who walked across the bridge dribbling a basketball in the opening credits, while Gav went on singing about how he's tired of wondering who he's supposed to be when all he wants to be is himself. The show was about the broody blond kid who was traded by his jerkwad father in favor of the Good Life. Who met the broody blond girl who drove a Comet and had an awesome 'tude, and happened to be dating said jerkwad's other son, who ended up falling in love with broody blond kid's best friend.

NOWHERE IN HERE DO I MENTION BROOKE DAVIS, YOU SEE?

I'm sorry. I am just freaking sick to death of Brooke Davis. This show is not and never was about her. I am so angry that they basically made the last season about her-- cutting Nathan out of half of the episodes and focusing on Brooke's issues with Xavier and her parents and her rival and her children and GAH. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike Brooke. I even liked her for most of the seasons. But these days she is just so annoying and it seems like she thinks everything that comes out of her mouth has to be profound or something and I'm tired of it. I wanted the finale to be about the same people the pilot was about, and I was severely disappointed.

Oh, and the Julian-buying-Brooke's-old-house thing. How did he do that without her knowing? He's got like magical credit powers or something. The whole thing was just a little ridiculous for me. Talk about living in the past, BDavis. You're so intent on not being high school-Brooke, and yet you go and live in her house? Really?

Speaking of living in the past: Nathan with the Cracker Jack bracelet, Haley with the secret box of wishes, Naley with the making out in the rain, Mouth with the Edwards-Scott (should have been Scott-Edwards) Scholarship Fund, Julian making a TV show out of his wife's high school years... Move along, people. We all realize those seasons of OTH were better, but we can watch old episodes if we want. Give us something new to work with.

Another thing that bothered me about the finale was that all of the characters seemed to know the show was ending. Which is funny because they're not even supposed to know they're on a show. They were all making these big conclusive statements and decisions and acting like they were getting their happily ever after, but when has anyone on One Tree Hill really even believed in happily ever after? It was like they were all saying, "It's really over now, so I'm suddenly going to become obsessed with talking about life." Give me a break.

Also, the thing at the end? SO. NOT. BUYING. IT. So you expect me to believe that all of these people look exactly the same approximately 7 years later, when Jamie is about 17? Um, no. Putting extensions in Haley's hair does not make her look older. And that was the only effort they made! And Millie is pregnant NOW?? Nathan and Haley have a 17-year-old son and Mouth, who is the same age as them, is only having a kid now?! THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS FIRST, PEOPLE. It does not add up. Not to mention, Quinn and Clay never had a kid of their own? What?

I won't get into how cheesy the whole basketball-cheering-yay-Jamie-woohoo crap was.

There were three redeeming things in the whole episode: 1. Clay's son calling Quinn "Mom" and them getting married and being a-freaking-dorable. 2. SKILLS AND BEVIN REUNITED AND IT FEELS SO GOOD! HALLELUJAH! and 3. Chris. Keller.

A quick letter to Chris Keller:

Dear Chris Keller,

Thank you for always being Chris Keller. Even if nobody else likes it. Even if people don't understand it. Thank you for not changing. Thank you for being the best character on the entire show and, well, knowing it. Thank you for talking in the third person and being an egomaniac, but also for doing the right thing 100 percent of the time. Thank you for fixing things when nobody else tried, when everyone was too caught up in their own drama to see the simple solutions. Thank you for not caring how anyone but Chris Keller feels about Chris Keller. Thank you for being a big softy with a prickly, repellent exterior. Thank you for being the guy who helps the people who think they hate him. Your work here is done.

So basically, this was not an episode of One Tree Hill. Nothing bad happened, the characters acted more like fortune cookies than themselves, and it was cheesy. And I don't completely believe that one second after they all walked out of Jamie's basketball game, someone didn't get shot or hit by a car or attacked by a psycho stalker.

I'm having fun imagining the possibilities.

My Victors Village guest post!

Click here if you want to see it on their website
Otherwise, click "Read More"

Book Survey!

One rule: You can't use the same answer twice.
1. What book are you currently reading?
Well, I'm between books. I'm waiting for Pandemonium to get to my house on Tuesday, and I finished The Unbecoming of Mara Dyer yesterday (review to come).
2. What is your favorite book?
The Hunger Games and Catching Fire (I say this not because Mockingjay isn't also my favorite, but because I saved it for a later answer)
3. Who is your favorite character in any book?
Augustus Waters.
4. What character are you most in love with?
Peeta Mellark.
5. What character are you most like in personality?
Katniss Everdeen.
6. What character do you look like?
Tris Prior. Small, with a plain face that competes with blond hair and blue eyes.
7. What character do you wish you were more like?
For some reason I want to say Alaska Young, even though I know she's all tortured and whatnot. It's the self-assured thing.
8. What book do you think is underrated?
Mockingjay. Severely.
9. Favorite bad boy character?
Noah Shaw. Because he actually did earn his reputation.
10. Favorite bad girl character?
Mara Dyer. She crazy. (Those two are such a pair)
11. Favorite English character?
Etienne St. Clair ("But he's not English! He's American! And he lives in France!")
12. Favorite author?
This is such a hard question to answer. Because my favorite books are The Hunger Games books, Suzanne Collins. Because he and his books are both made of awesome, John Green. Because I agree with her on everything and I love her books more than is probably healthy, Stephanie Perkins. Because she talks to her fans more than any author I've seen, and treats them like their questions are worth her time and their theories are valid, Cassandra Clare. And because she's completely crazy, Maureen Johnson.
13. Name a character with a psychological problem that you share (be it serious or not).
Anna Oliphant, obsessive compulsive.
14. Name a character you will/would defend to the ends of the Earth.
Will Herondale.
15. Favorite redheaded character?
Finnick Odair.
16. Favorite love triangle?
Will/Tessa/Jem.
17. Favorite blue-eyed character?
Cricket Bell.
18. Name a character people wouldn't expect you to love, but you do.
Gale Hawthorne.
19. Favorite book you've read this year?
The Fault in Our Stars
20. Favorite villain?
President Snow.
21. Name a book you could/would not finish.
Incarceron.
22. Name a book that made you angry.
Imaginary Girls ...I'm still not over what a waste of time that one was. I want to wring the main character's neck, as well as her sister's, as well as EVERYONE ELSE'S.
23. Name a book that made you happy.
The Statistical Probability of Love at First Sight
24. Name 5 books you're looking forward to.
1. Insurgent, 2. Mara Dyer #2, 3. Promised, 4. Isla and the Happily Ever After, 5. Clockwork Princess
25. A random fact about your book preferences.
I am fascinated by books involving secret societies (especially within schools) or factions, i.e. the Loyal Order of the Bassett Hounds in The Disreputable History of Frankie Landau-Banks; the territory wars in Jellicoe Road
26. Favorite childhood book?
Well, I didn't really read that many books as a child. There was the Series of Unfortunate Events, but I was 11 when I started reading those. In 4th grade I read this book Wait Till Helen Comes and I loved it (early sign of my taste for the dark and twisty).
27. Bad book habits?
Lately I have not been timing my book-reading correctly, so I'm left without one to read for a couple days until I get back to my dad's. Also I buy them instead of, like, getting them from a library, so I have a lot of books and not a lot of money. Also I buy them on Amazon instead of from real book stores :/
28. Do you have an e-reader?
No.
29. Do you prefer to read one book at a time, or several at once?
One at a time. I feel like I'm cheating on them if I don't do it that way.
30. Have your reading habits changed since starting a blog?
No.
31. How often do you read out of your comfort zone?
My comfort zone is pretty expansive, so not often.
32. What is your reading comfort zone?
YA.
33. Can you read on the bus/in the car?
No, unfortunately.
34. Favorite place to read?
Don't have one.
35. Do you ever dog-ear books?
No.
36. Do you ever write in the margins of your books?
Only school books.
37. What makes you love a book?
Above anything, I have to care about the characters and they have to be interesting. And then the plot has to be interesting. And then the writing has to be awesome, obviously.
38. What will inspire you to recommend a book?
Depends on the person I'm recommending it to.
39. Favorite genre?
Don't really have one, other than YA.
40. Genre you rarely read?
Adult. haha
41. Have you ever read a self-help book?
No
42. Most inspirational book you've read this year?
Considering I already said TFiOS, probablyyy... The Sky is Everywhere
43. Favorite reading snack?
Pretzel M&Ms
44. Name a case in which hype ruined your reading experience.
Daughter of Smoke & Bone. I kept expecting it to get better instead of appreciating what I actually did like about it.
45. How often do you agree with critics about a book?
I don't have exact percentages, but usually I do.
46. How do you feel about giving bad/negative reviews?
I'll only do it if I really, truly hated the book and want to stop people from wasting their time on it. If I'm lukewarm about it, I'll usually give it 3 stars and try to focus on the things I did like.
47. Most intimidating book you've ever read?
I don't really read intimidating books. Buuuuut I just had to read one about the politics of the Swat Valley for political anthropology, and it was not fun.
48. Books you're most likely to bring on vacation?
Ones I haven't read yet. If it's a beach vacation, summer books. Obviously.
49. The longest you've gone without reading?
Recently? Probably a weekend.
50. What distracts you easily when you're reading?
My FATHER intentionally TALKING TO ME when he can see that I'm REALLY INTO a book.
51. Favorite film adaptation of a novel?
Water for Elephants. I liked the movie better than the book, I think.
52. Most disappointing film adaptation?
Twilight. Obviously.
53. The most money you've ever spent on books at one time?
Huhuhuhuhhh... about $220.
54. How often do you skim a book before reading it?
Well I never just buy a book on a whim. I make sure I'm interested first, either through reviews or reading the first chapter on Amazon.
55. What would cause you to stop reading a book halfway through?
Only boredom can do that.
56. Do you like to keep your books organized?
I like to keep everything organized.
57. Do you prefer to keep books or give them away once you've read them?
If I liked them, I keep them. If I didn't, I try to sell them.
58. Are there any books you've been avoiding?
That I already own? Yes. That's all I'm willing to say on the matter.
59. A book you didn't expect to like but did?
Birthmarked. I avoided it for a while but got it for Christmas and was surprised by how much I liked it.
60. A book that you expected to like but didn't?
Tiger's Quest, the second in the Tiger's Curse series. It was pretty horrible.
61. Favorite historical fiction book?
The Book Thief
62. Hardcover or paperback?
I don't care. A book is a book.
63. Favorite book nobody has heard of?
Well, I know people have heard of her, but I feel like Deb Caletti is seriously overshadowed by the likes of Sarah Dessen. So anything by her.
64. Favorite classic book?
The Great Gatsby
65. Write something that only people who have read a certain book will understand.
Okay.

I'm feeling Divergenty tonight.

I should clarify: "Will" is not Will Herondale. Different series.

This is wrong for so many reasons.

1. Will is a pretty unimportant character.

2. Peeta... Peter... Peeta... Peter.

3. He would be going backward, from a LEADING ROLE in a GIGANTIC movie to a medium-sized role in a medium-sized movie.

4. I am pretty sure there is no description of Will that says anything like "Will looks exactly like Josh Hutcherson."

5. Josh Hutcherson DOES NOT DO ANYTHING EXCEPT ADORABLE. I will not stand for it.

On the first day of the Hunger Games, Lionsgate gave to me

A new poster to look at for the next 98 days!

I just have to take a moment to talk about this. My first reaction to it was OHMYGODTHAT'SSOCOOL, probably just because it shows more than the mockingjay pin on fire and it's NEW and SHINY. But now that I'm looking at it longer, I'm not sure how I feel. I mean, I like the general idea of it, with Katniss and Peeta and how it looks like they're eyeballing the flaming mockingjay and whatever. But then there's the "The world will be watching." Um, wrong. That is more of a reference to the fact that this is a movie, than a reference to the movie itself. The world doesn't watch the Hunger Games; only Panem does. We don't know anything about the rest of the world. And then there's the fact that there is an audience on either side of what I'm guessing is supposed to be the Arena? What? Maybe it's not the Arena, but then why is Katniss wearing her Arena clothes? And if it is the Arena... there's not supposed to be an audience. There are supposed to be cameras.

And oh, now that I think about it more, why is the mockingjay symbol in the sky? I like that it kind of seems like it's replacing the Capitol seal, but then again the pictures of the dead tributes go in the sky right after the Capitol seal. Putting the mockingjay symbol where the dead tributes are supposed to be... it seems a little bit like saying that what it symbolizes is dead too. Which it's not.

But either way I still like that there's a new poster. Makes it seem CLOSER.

Ignorance is the most frustrating quality.

So, in my fiction class we're reading Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen. We were talking about how the main character, Catherine assumes that the proclaimed "hero" of the story, Henry doesn't read novels, because novels are generally frowned upon. Especially by males. But Henry, he says he loves novels and has read hundreds of them. So my professor asks the guys in my class, "Do you guys think you could, like, go on a plane and read-- without getting any strange looks-- like.... [long pause].... The Hunger Games, or something?" The reactions were as follows:

1. "What do you mean?" To which my professor said something about it being "girly" (I am already trying to block this out of my mind, even though I am about to rant about it)

2. "I've never heard of it." -___-

3. "BUT IT'S SUCH A GREAT SERIES! Of course they wouldn't get funny looks for reading it!"

4. "It was recommended to me by my 13-year-old cousin... so..." (to which I said "that doesn't mean anything" ...the first thing I have said out loud in that class all semester)

and finally, 5. "Um, I actually don't think it's girly at all. I mean, they like... kill each other." (this was the same girl who said the thing about the 13-year-old, so I forgave her)

Now, I was extremely pleased with the number of people who came to the defense of my beloved Hunger Games because my professor has obviously not read it. One girl I know to be a Harry Potter fan went all jumping-up-and-down-in-her-seat and talking about how great it is, and the girl next to her (the one who brought up the series earlier in the semester) was the one yelling about how GREAT a SERIES it is! So yes, everyone in the class who has read it attests that it is not girly and that guys would like it just as much as the rest of us do. And everyone else has never heard of it, which I suppose is okay, because it's one of those things that I like to keep to myself even though I know it's going to be huge (*pouts*). I only tell people I really like to read it, because everyone else will either a) not read it, b) read it and claim they don't like it, or c) read it, like it, and act like they discovered it.

I guess despite all of this acclaim in my class for the characters and the story, I can't get over my teacher insinuating that it is "girly." I have heard it called "dark" both negatively and positively; I have heard it called "gruesome" and "intense." Never once has the word "girly" even crossed my mind or seemingly anyone else's to describe this series.

Since when are fights to the death girly? Since when is sacrificing yourself for someone else "girly"? Since when am I "girly" (I say this because the main character is just like me)????? Since when are rebellions girly?

But no, it has a female main character so that means it is obviously a girly book. Seriously, that is the only reason I can think of why anyone would consider THIS series girly and not Harry Potter. Harry Potter has magic and violence; The Hunger Games has starvation and violence. Harry Potter has a boy with a group of friends who will do anything for him; The Hunger Games has a girl with ONE friend who has to take care of her family for her while she's off fighting for her life. The 3 main characters in Harry Potter have either dead parents, or parents who are alive and care about them; The Hunger Games has 2 main characters with one dead parent and 1 main character whose parents don't care about him or believe in him. Harry Potter lives here:

Katniss Everdeen lives here:

And Harry Potter has just as much romance as The Hunger Games does. While Peeta and Gale are both technically swoon-worthy, they have faults. They are not idealized figures for any romance novel-lover to latch on to. What each of them have with Katniss can hardly even be described as "romance." Their relationships are more a result of the need to survive than they are of the desire to be with each other (which of course changes, but I'm saying that they didn't come to know each other only because of some kind of attraction).

I just can't tolerate it when people say things like this, because it's going to make even more people automatically assume it's like Twilight, which it's not. That's probably my biggest fear about this movie coming out: that it will become the next Twilight. Except with Twilight, people have valid reasons for making fun of it. If they make fun of this, it's because they are ignorant and can't bother to learn what it is actually about.

And as for the argument about it being for 13-year-olds: I do not understand this at all. Yes, young teenagers can probably read it without being too disturbed by it, but they will not get it. They will only see it for what it is on the surface, without acknowledging all of the deeper things that make me love it as much as I do. Everyone should just listen to what John Green said about its being under-appreciated critically. Honestly, you would never catch John Green praising anything about Twilight critically-- the most positive things he has to say about it are the world-building and the "beautiful lie" that true love conquers all.

The Hunger Games is not about true love. But it's not just about kids fighting to the death either. I don't know how many times I've said it, but I'll say it again: it's about standing up for what you believe in, not letting anyone-- no matter how powerful they seem-- turn you into a piece in their games. And it's about appreciating what you have, realizing that this world really isn't that bad, and having the will to do what's right.

To sum up, the things that make The Hunger Games not-girly

-Katniss is not girly. (see picture above, notice bow and arrow AND knife, the fact that she is wearing pants-- note also that she is not a fan of dresses-- and does not seem to be phased by the fact that there is a giant gash in her leg. Accurate depiction.)

-the romances are not exactly romantic

-there are awesome genetically-engineered creatures, like giant wolf things with human eyes and monkeys and birds that sound like humans and so on

-um, the main character gets set on fire twice. As does another main character once.

-a lot of people die, including main characters. Generally death is not considered girly.

-there are highly advanced weapons. WEAPONS. Pods that do unique and awesome things, bows and arrows, machine guns, bombs, human-sized snares, tridents (TRIDENTS!), and so on.
-none of the books even have pretty titles.
-the villain is just a man with too much power, not a jealous female who wants to kill the main character and only her. He kills anyone he wants (or rather, has them killed). And his mouth is full of sores because he drinks poison so his enemies won't suspect him, so his breath smells like blood. And he has a beard.

-there is a song about a murderer who wants his love to come commit suicide with him.

-there is torture. Actual, psychological and physical torture. Memory altering torture. Torture that results in death, or having one's tongue removed.

Am I getting my point across here? Because if you still don't believe me, you could... you know, go READ A BOOK.

Villains

If you disagree, I unapologetically tell you: TOUGH COOKIES.

I just listened to a version of Hank Green's song "This is Not Harry Potter" that I haven't listened to before, and in this one he slams books closed as a drum beat. One of the books he uses is Mockingjay, but no, I am not about to complain about him abusing the greatness that is Mockingjay.

I am going to complain because one of the lines in this song says "President Snow is no Voldemort," implying somehow that President Snow isn't quite as malevolent or cruel as Voldemort, which is NOT true. I realize posting this publicly will probably make *someone* disown me as a friend. I hope that *that person* can see it from my perspective, though. :)

Yes, Voldemort is evil and cruel and selfish. Yes, he kills people for reasons similar to Hitler's reasons for killing people. HOWEVER, Voldemort has people who support him for reasons other than fear. He has a pet, which generally requires some bit of care. Now I'm not saying that he is the one who takes care of the snake; maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I'm just saying that the snake is his pet and he loves it (granted that is probably mostly because the snake holds part of his own soul). He believes that what he is doing is for the greater "good," no matter how convoluted that seems. He doesn't enforce laws that squash the quality of life; he doesn't take from the poor and give to the rich. The worst things he does are kill some people and make others live in fear.

President Snow does this and worse. He does not love anything but himself. He doesn't hesitate to kill anyone he perceives as a threat to him and his system. He is so cruel that even the system he has created is cruel by nature. The minority reap the benefits of the majority's suffering, and he benefits the most of all. His only loyal followers support him because they fear him, not because they believe in what he's doing. He doesn't just kill people; he tortures them. He gets inside their heads, takes away the things they love, forces them to become people they're not, and lets the whole country watch while it happens. He'll tell someone to do something, and then when they do it, he'll use it against them to make them do something else (I cannot explain this without giving away probably the biggest spoiler ever, but trust me it proves once and for all that he is an evil genius). He will willingly drink poison in order to trick his enemies into drinking it. He has people's TONGUES REMOVED if they disobey him... that is, assuming he doesn't just have them killed.

Oh, and here's the kicker: he forces TWENTY-FOUR CHILDREN TO FIGHT TO THE DEATH ONCE A YEAR ON LIVE TELEVISION. YEAH, I KNOW, WTF, RIGHT?!

And the worst part is that he's a human being. He's not a wizard, he's not a master of dark magic, and he doesn't have seven pieces of himself waiting to keep him alive if he's ever defeated. Because he truly believes he is invincible. And, honestly, when you believe that strongly that you are invincible, other people start to believe it too. And people stop believing they can change anything... which is kind of the worst thing you can do to someone. President Snow does that to a whole country.

In my opinion, Voldemort is a perfectly sufficient villain, but President Snow is the villain of all villains. His blood and roses kind of make Voldemort's wand look like a cat toy.

Hank, I think you need to reevaluate your definition of a proper antagonist.