I consumed “The Hunger Games,” whose fans by now are legion, over Labor Day weekend pretty lickety-split. No matter if it’s meant for young adults or not, the novel is an action-filled, post-apocalyptic survival test that’s hard to put down.
The first in a trilogy, it’s set in the future, where the country Panem rules what was once North America. Every year, its capital forces the country’s 12 districts to send two young people to fight to the death in the popularly televised and watched Hunger Games, somewhat reminiscent of gladiator events in Roman times.
The protagonist is 16-year-old Katniss, who takes the place of her younger sister when she’s picked to compete. Along with the baker’s son, Peeta, from District 12, Katniss goes up against stronger tributes of other districts who have been training for the Games their whole lives. It’s a battle to the death, that makes for quick page-turning, and also sets up Peeta’s and her friend, Gale’s vying affections for the tough, independent Katniss. Does this sound a tad Twilight-ish?
The novel is well done and very visual. Perfect for a movie adaptation — so hopes Lions Gate, which is launching the film due out March 23, 2012, and betting its pennies that it will take off like “Harry Potter” or “Twilight”; see the L.A. Times story. Filmed in North Carolina, time will tell if actress Jennifer Lawrence can live up to the character of Katniss in the book. Admittedly, I fell for the fantasy-action novel pretty much hook, line and sinker but am just a little concerned the two follow-up books, “Catching Fire” and “Mockingjay,” won’t live up to it now that these Games are over. Am I wrong?
