Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 10438 Location: On the run! (With Sandor)
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:17 am Post subject:
HobbitRockGod wrote:
What makes the Hunger Games stand out for me is the fact that the heroine is a girl who isn't driven by love for a man, but by love for her sister, and the fact that this story is just not really one that's been told before.
Oh yeah, here I definitely agree! I think that's what a lot of fans appreciate: Having a really strong and independent heroine for a change! It was about time, too, though. Twilight created a less than favourable picture of the main female character and while I love Hermione Granger with her courage and her sharp mind, she was almost always second to Harry Potter. Harry would never have gotten really far without her, but he's still the hero of the saga.
I don't want to say too much but I think you guys would really enjoy Chaos Walking. This trilogy is truly my happy place in the YA book universe! _________________
Hey Karolina would you mind PMing me the main theme of Chaos Walking.
Eryn; I agree with you about eerything you said.
Some of my issues are I'm not in love with the book/story yet. I'm hoping that once I get more into the Games (They've just started) I'll like it more. And I wish she'd do more character devolopment.
This generation doesn't really have a 'strong female character' and when I say that i don't just mean can kick someons's ass really hard. I mean they're strong in personality; witty, intelligent, and so on.
Like I grew up lucky. I grew up with characters like Murphy Brown, Designing Women, Buffy, Alias, Cagney and Lacey, and of course Dana Scully.
Joined: 25 Nov 2007 Posts: 16336 Location: Searching for Middle Earth
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:13 pm Post subject:
I feel like Bella has kind of damaged the idea of "strong female character," which is a shame because Meyer COULD have made Bella a good character, she just made the decision not to. However, I think characters like Katniss and Hermione make up for it! There are also a fair number of strong female characters on shows I watch, but you're right in that there's no Buffy anymore, Brooke. But at the same time, I feel like we don't need like ONE outstanding female character to mark a generation. There are a lot of really strong women in literature and on TV; you kind of just have to be willing to find them. (Besides, Buffy's pretty timeless. Buffy the Vampire Slayer started airing when I was prolly like 4 and I'm just now watching the series and loving it!)
One of my best friends is reading the Hunger Games now! LD She just finished the first one and she's going out to buy Catching Fire and Mockingjay today. We're planning on going to see the movie again next week, so I'm hoping it's still just as great upon a second viewing! _________________ art by me&tammy
Bella really did hurt the idea of strong females. And I’m not saying romance novels/books are bad…they’re not. I enjoy reading them. BUT that doesn’t mean that the lead female character has to be weak either. I agree with you; Meyers had a lot of potential and didn’t use it.
Buffy for instance; her love for Angel; it was girlie but she was still a bad ass character female. I didn’t watch Buffy until season 4. Best idea ever. Oh…Dollhouse. They had some great female characters; especially Adelle Dewight my favorite character; I wasn’t a huge fan of Dollhouse as a whole it was only a few characters that made it worth my while.
We don’t need one outstanding female character; but we really don’t have many either. Not considering the past female characters through out the years; it seems we’ve gone more down hill with strong female characters then up.
I’m sorry I’m all chatty. I have nothing to do right now…
That’s awesome. I plan on re-watching the first movie after I get the book read. I’m on chapter 17. I also saw it at the midnight showing and I’m usually asleep by then so…I was exhausted during the movie.
I finished Catching Fire and I really liked it a lot better then the first book. I thought even with the Reaping/Games that nothing happened. I thought the first book dragged a lot.
The second book had a lot of character development; and I love character driven stories.
My friend is mad that I'm steal a Gale fan she thinks he's I'm just not a fan of Peeta; I love the nice guys...but they've made him TOO perfect in a damaged world like that. I wanted to see some flaws because we ALL have them; and he comes off just annoying to me. And whining too. I just don't see the appeal. I could care less if she chooses Peeta; do I prefer her with Gale? Yes. But I could really care less.
My friend doesn't like that I'm still a Gale fan; she thinks he's an a**hole. I just can't help it. I don't like Peeta. There's things about him that just rub me the wrong way; and I'm not saying this because I like Gale; if Gale wasn't in the picture I still wouldn't have enjoyed Peeta's character. I think Peeta's too 'lovey dovey' in an annoying and unrealistic way. He comes off really fake in a really gritty story. He just comes off as the most realistic out of the whole story.
I thought the Gale/Peeta/Katniss triangle was weird in this book. Parts seemed unnecessary.
The most shocking wasn't The Games; but the fact that the Head Gamemaker was planning that!!! I loved that Finnick survived. He was a total douche in the beginning but he made up for that. I really didn't think he was going to kill Katniss/Peeta he had plenty of advantages to do it earlier; and if he wanted to he'd have done it. I also thought Johanna was interesting. And I loved Nuts and Bolts or was it (Voltes?)
And again the most shocking was when Gale tells Katniss "Katniss there is no District 12." HOLD THE PHONES.
Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 10438 Location: On the run! (With Sandor)
Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 9:58 am Post subject:
Glad you enjoyed the second book, Brooke. My personal favourite is the third book. I'm curious to see what you'll think about that one.
I'm with you here on the Peeta/Gale thing:
I preferred Gale much more almost throughout the whole story. I like nice guys, too, but like you said: Peeta was almost TOO good and kind for his own sake.
Things change a lot though in the third book though! I can't tell you more than that without spoiling it for you. Just wait and see
And FINNICK!!! I love Finnick!!!! He's my favourite character next to Cinna! _________________
I know that Prim dies, Gale may or may not have been the reason she died; he made the bomb that possibly was used to kill her. And that Katniss has chosen Peeta...I get spoiled easily; and I dwasn't even looking for those.
I feel like Bella has kind of damaged the idea of "strong female character," which is a shame because Meyer COULD have made Bella a good character, she just made the decision not to.
I think her mistake was not giving her a strong non-Cullen reason for wanting to become a vampire. It would have been great if there was some issue she was passionate about that being a vampire could make her do better. That way she's not sacrificing everything for a guy.
Brooke wrote:
Bella really did hurt the idea of strong females. And I’m not saying romance novels/books are bad…they’re not. I enjoy reading them. BUT that doesn’t mean that the lead female character has to be weak either.
I totally agree, although I've been working for awhile on a series of original fiction stories that are romances, and I'm learning that it's actually quite tricky to have both. The general rule, I think, is that the female character can't make a decision because of a guy, or more to the point, because of her love for a guy. But sometimes the impetus isn't that it's a guy that she loves, but that he's a person, if that makes any sense. Like, say you have Elena on The Vampire Diaries, and someone is about to kill her vampire boyfriend Stefan, and so she offers her life for his. It would be easy for people to call her weak and say she's sacrificing herself for a guy or for love, but what if it has nothing to do with it being a guy that she loves but because she doesn't want to let another person die if she can prevent it? Like--she would be just as likely to make that same exchange if it were an old woman, or some random adult stranger, etc. But, in a romance, of course it will have more drama and tension if it's the love interest she has to save--but then people can't separate out that she made the sacrifice because he's a person rather than because she loves him. It's so super tricky.
HobbitRockGod wrote:
Buffy the Vampire Slayer started airing when I was prolly like 4 and I'm just now watching the series and loving it!
I totally agree, although I've been working for awhile on a series of original fiction stories that are romances, and I'm learning that it's actually quite tricky to have both. The general rule, I think, is that the female character can't make a decision because of a guy, or more to the point, because of her love for a guy. But sometimes the impetus isn't that it's a guy that she loves, but that he's a person, if that makes any sense. Like, say you have Elena on The Vampire Diaries, and someone is about to kill her vampire boyfriend Stefan, and so she offers her life for his. It would be easy for people to call her weak and say she's sacrificing herself for a guy or for love, but what if it has nothing to do with it being a guy that she loves but because she doesn't want to let another person die if she can prevent it? Like--she would be just as likely to make that same exchange if it were an old woman, or some random adult stranger, etc. But, in a romance, of course it will have more drama and tension if it's the love interest she has to save--but then people can't separate out that she made the sacrifice because he's a person rather than because she loves him. It's so super tricky.
I'd say there is a difference in risking your life for someone you love (Because if a guy dies for his love one he's a 'hero' if a girl does it she's 'weak and emotional'.)
Now; I don't read Twilight; but the way I'm getting it is that she had no strong reason to become a vampire; only that Edward was one too.
Like Bones; I feel on Bones they are trying to make Brennan change for Booth. That in my opinion isn't love; you shouldn't have to change who you are; opinions; or anything for a guy. Especially not when your 35 years old.
All times are GMT Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
I mean they're strong in personality; witty, intelligent, and so on.
However, I think characters like Katniss and Hermione make up for it! There are also a fair number of strong female characters on shows I watch, but you're right in that there's no Buffy anymore, Brooke. 
But at the same time, I feel like we don't need like ONE outstanding female character to mark a generation. There are a lot of really strong women in literature and on TV; you kind of just have to be willing to find them. 
(Besides, Buffy's pretty timeless. 
