Catching Fire Casting!

Yesterday the first official casting announcement for the Catching Fire movie was announced on www.catchingfirecasting.com - Philip Seymour Hoffman as Plutarch Heavensbee. My burning question is: Will he sport a funky beard to rival that of Seneca Crane?


Though it's not officially official yet, entertainment sources are saying Jena Malone is tapped to play Johanna Mason.  I can see it - totally.

But who is going to play Finnick? I must know!

Looking forward to seeing the whole cast come together in the coming weeks.

Any casting predictions? Hopes and dreams?

Are the Games Believable?

Recently, author Nancy Kress—of whom I’m a big fan, btw—blogged that THE HUNGER GAMES trilogy disturbed her. She praised many things about the books: good writing, excitement, and an appealing heroine. And, the violence didn't particularly disturb her. What got Kress was the "psychological implausibility" of the premise:

We're expected to believe that torturing their children keeps parents passive, rather than as enraged as a she-bear with cubs.

I don't believe it. Parents would not passively send twelve-year-olds, year after year, to torture. An entire population would not watch these televised Games without a resistance movement arising sooner than 75 years.

Does she have a point? Wouldn’t parents do everything to protect their kids? We’d certainly like to think we’d go all “Mama Grizzly” when anyone came after our cubs.

So, why didn’t the parents become enraged she-bears in THE HUNGER GAMES?

Let's start with the back story. The Capital has thrust the games on the populace as a measure of control. The games are supposed to demoralize the people, who are already living at subsistence levels (at least in most of the districts). And, an earlier uprising resulted in the obliteration of District 13. So, under the fear of reprisals—which may also include becoming voiceless slaves in the Capital—parents grudgingly stand by while their child is selected for the Games. Certainly, some parents must fight back or hide their children, but hungry and scared people will do things we well-fed citizens of democracy may shudder at—just to keep the rest of their family alive.

What about our world? Kress writes that “not even Rome had child gladiators.” Maybe not. But here and now, thousands upon thousands of children are trafficked for:

• Soldiers
  
• Sex slaves
  
• Labor (e.g., diamond mines)
  
• Sports (e.g., camel jockeys)
  

Today’s child gladiators are wielding AK-47s (or whatever is the gun of choice). Very often the kids are abducted; in other cases, though, the children are sold by their families. (Yes, I know these are the horrible exceptions to the proverbial rule. And I do think most parents in the world are decent parents, but, let’s face it, we humans are capable of doing some crappy things to our kids.)

So, I'm willing to suspend disbelief and buy the premise of the Games. And so are many, many other adult readers.

However, does it really matter if THE HUNGER GAMES trilogy is psychologically believable from our perspective? Is the experience of the Games really about what might happen in the future? Or is the story more about being a teenager now? Maybe the story resonates—and is thus psychologically believable—because it’s about the feeling trapped in a system outside your own control (like school) and being forced to compete with your peers.

What do you all think? Is the premise of Suzanne Collins’ fantastic trilogy plausible—psychologically or otherwise? Do the Games need to be believable for both adults and teens? Discuss.

Getting Ready for Book Club (and Mockingjay)

Next week, we’ll be discussing Suzanne Collins’ books THE HUNGER GAMES and CATCHING FIRE. (And don’t forget the MOCKINGJAY giveaway!) So, this week I thought I’d give everyone who hasn’t read them (or needs a little reminder) a brief run-down on both books. I’ll try to stay clear of the spoilers as much as possible.

Hunger Games

In the ruins of what was once North America, the nation of Panem is divided into twelve districts, with the Capital controlling all with a very tight fist. Katniss Everdeen (16) lives in the 12th district. She and her friend Gale hunt and forage for food in the forest surrounding their impoverished mining district. Both of them provide the main source of food for their families. Life is hard in most of the districts, and the Capital makes it even harder once a year. During the Reaping, two teenage tributes from each district are chosen by lottery to fight to death in the Hunger Games. When her baby sister, Prim, is chosen from District 12, Katniss volunteers to take her place. Along with Peeta, the baker’s son, she travels to the Capital and competes in the games.

Catching Fire (Spoilers!)

Katniss wins the Hunger Games (and saves Peeta) with an act of defiance against the Capital. She and Peeta travel back to District 12 as victors. However, the Capital isn’t done with them. The President sends them on a rather cruel Victory Tour of the districts. And, every 25 years, the Capital can add a special twist to the Hunger Games. The Capital announces that the 75th Hunger Games will pit past victors of the games against each other. Katniss and Peeta will have to fight in the games again. Meanwhile, talk of rebellion is spreading through the districts.


For those of you who have read the books, what District would you represent? (Being from Southwest Virginia, I’m pretty sure I’d be in District 12, aka the Seam.) What were your favorite parts of either book? Why do you think these books have become so extraordinarily popular?

btw, don't forget to register for the Mockingjay giveaway! Please don't sign up more than once, though.

August Book Club Selection

Since MOCKINGJAY will be coming out at the end of the month, August's Book Club selection is the HUNGER GAMES / CATCHING FIRE by Suzanne Collins. So, read one or both books (as if you haven't already), and swing by the blog during the week of August 23rd to discuss!