Post History
Not sure if this is along the lines of your question exactly, but: The first book was great (mostly about the games), The second book was good (more politics, but still plenty about the games) ...
Answer
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T02:12:55Z (over 4 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/5137 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
by
MGOwen
·
2019-12-08T02:12:55Z (over 4 years ago)
Not sure if this is along the lines of your question exactly, but: 1. The first book was great (mostly about the games), 2. The second book was good (more politics, but still plenty about the games) 3. The third book was disappointing (all about politics). I guess if I were to improve the series, I'd simply have found some way to resolve things in book 2, honestly. (I think Collins did try to find a scenario that could "condense" or "focus" the wider conflict in book 3 like the games did for book 1 - that's what the guerilla fighting, especially through the capitol, seems to be trying to do, but I don't think it really worked).
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2012-03-01T22:52:48Z (about 12 years ago)
Original score: -5