Main > Everything Else

Hunger Games

<< < (15/22) > >>

Hoopz:
Grisham's first few novels were great.  Thought provoking, deep and entertaining.  The Chamber, in particular, stands out in his first set.

Once he started popping books out every couple of weeks, they turned to fluff.  Just garbage.  The last couple I read, I kept waiting for the arc in the story.  Never happened.

Dan Brown's are worse.  The stupid helicopter scene in Angels and Demons is just idiotic.

ChadTower:

--- Quote from: shmokes on April 03, 2012, 11:43:30 am ---I doubt this. While I haven't read The Hunger Games, I think the concept of Harry Potter, an 11-year-old kid who finds out he's a wizard, is far more juvenile than the dystopian future of the Hunger Games. The Harry Potter books, while not especially literary, are pretty well written, far moreso than Dan Brown's novels or most John Grisham.

--- End quote ---


Helped you out a bit clarifying your position on the Hunger Games' quality of writing.

Not to mention that I was talking about the difficulty level of reading it and not the content involved.

Malenko:
I prefer the original:

ChadTower:

Let's be real about this.

Trip:

--- Quote from: ChadTower on April 03, 2012, 11:29:53 am ---Content doesn't address reading level.  Her books aren't any more advanced than the Hunger Games books.  They're just better stories.

--- End quote ---

JK does have a much better grasp at storytelling, she could use a lot of work on her battle sequences though.  Her stories lost a lot of steam when it came time to write a battle.  The movies did some better and some worse than her version, so they didn't do much better overall.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version