# Anyone else disappointed by the end to the Hunger Games Trilogy? (Spoiler Alert)



## smallblondehippy (Jan 20, 2012)

I've just finished reading Mockinjay, the third book in the Hunger Games trilogy and I'm feeling very disappointed. Anyone else read it? What did you think of the ending?



Spoiler



I enjoyed the first two books and was looking forward to brilliant climax where Katniss confronts President Snow and finally has to choose between Gale and Peeta. And we do get the build up. Katniss is with Gale and Peeta, working her way through the Capitol, almost at the president's manison, almost reached her dream to kill the president, we are expecting a big all-action showdown, and....splat. Nothing. She gets knocked out, wakes up, and everything is over.



Did anyone else feel that this was the worst anti-climax ever? What was the author thinking? And what were her editors thinking letting the story end this way?


----------



## Linjeakel (Mar 17, 2010)

I know you refer to "the end" in your topic title but I think you need to at least warn people that you're giving away the end of the book and preferably use the spoiler feature to black that part out for people who don't want to know.

Edit: Thanks, Geoffrey.


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

I was disappointed as well. It felt as if the author was giving the readers would want rather than what the story needed.


----------



## Stan R Mitchell (Feb 26, 2012)

Definitely disappointed. 

The first Hunger Games book is one of the best books I've read in a long time, but book number two was a let down, and by the time I finished book three, I wished I'd never read either book two or book three.


----------



## smallblondehippy (Jan 20, 2012)

Linjeakel said:


> I know you refer to "the end" in your topic title but I think you need to at least warn people that you're giving away the end of the book and preferably use the spoiler feature to black that part out for people who don't want to know.
> 
> Edit: Thanks, Geoffrey.


Ah, forgot to do the spoiler thingy. Thanks for sorting it.


----------



## bordercollielady (Nov 21, 2008)

Oh - where do you want me to start?


Spoiler



I think Katniss's whole personality changed.


 I'm still thinking that someone else wrote the third novel!


----------



## jeffaaronmiller (Jul 17, 2012)

Yes, I was disappointed. I enjoyed the first two books immensely. The third book was a let-down. Without giving anything away, mostly I didn't buy the character arcs of a couple of main characters throughout the third book.


----------



## SuzieHunt (Sep 12, 2011)

The first book was definitely the strongest, but I thought the personality changes in the third book were a pretty accurate representation of PTSD.

However, the entire


Spoiler



hidden district 12


 thing made no sense, plus as you say the climax was pretty un-climatic.


----------



## sheiler1963 (Nov 23, 2011)

I guess I don't see it the same as some. I agree that book 3 wasn't as engaging, but the ending made perfect sense to me.Katniss realizes that not everything is how it seems at first and President Snow may have had motives she hadn't been aware of.


Spoiler



She also realizes that the new regime is just as corrupt as the old regime and takes out it's leader (who was planning on eliminating her).


 The Hunger Games wasn't the greatest book I ever read, but I wouldn't call it a disappointment. It held my attention to the end, albeit it wasn't 'sitting on the edge of my seat' kind of attention.


----------



## Stan R Mitchell (Feb 26, 2012)

sheiler1963 said:


> The Hunger Games wasn't the greatest book I ever read, but I wouldn't call it a disappointment. It held my attention to the end, albeit it wasn't 'sitting on the edge of my seat' kind of attention.


That's a fair point. I guess I did finish them, which is saying something since I often don't finish books.

Maybe I'll amend my point to be that Book 1 rocked so hard, that it set unrealistic expectations in my mind. And that furthermore, it seemed the series was set up to go a certain way.

I bought Book 2 expecting that direction, and it didn't happen. And the two books didn't quite meet the level of Book 1, IMO. Regardless, the author made a ton on them, and in the end, I'm a nobody critiquing the works of a genius (based upon results).

So, I will shut up and not be the typical critic that so often drives me crazy.

P.S. Since I may seem hypocritical about being a critic, let me say that I usually am more critical of very successful stuff since the authors have "made it." I try to never critique newer authors. Lord knows our confidence usually can't take it.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

No, it really did not bother me at all.  Then again, I think there are always going to be people disappointed in he end of a series that they get very involved in.


----------



## charlesatan (May 8, 2012)

Sure, it was it anti-climatic, but I think that was the point. In fact, I applaud of the ending (and the consequences after that scene), because it follows through with the ramifications of the politics that Collins established in her setting.

The problem of Book One for me for example was that it only skimmed the surface of the setting that Collins hinted at, and played it very safe. The succeeding books explore the established details and makes the characters face difficult and inconvenient choices.


----------



## tahliaN (Nov 6, 2011)

Stan R Mitchell said:


> Definitely disappointed.
> 
> The first Hunger Games book is one of the best books I've read in a long time, but book number two was a let down, and by the time I finished book three, I wished I'd never read either book two or book three.


I felt the same, and I didn't read number 3. I asked my daughter what happened and went - meh. I really don't want to read that. My daughter was disappointed.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

I was torn....
It was a realistic, real life ending
(Look at the results of the "Arab Spring" in Egypt)

But real life is not as much fun to read.....


----------



## SuzieHunt (Sep 12, 2011)

charlesatan said:


> Sure, it was it anti-climatic, but I think that was the point. In fact, I applaud of the ending (and the consequences after that scene), because it follows through with the ramifications of the politics that Collins established in her setting.


In what way? It's not like o


Spoiler



nce one (or two) leaders get killed, there isn't going to be anyone else to take their place. You actually can't fell an entire political structure by killing one person; and that district was well established and seemed to have a hierarchy of power


.

I admit, I found it hard to buy the idea that the


Spoiler



Capitol would allow the 12th District to just remain for so long, WMD or no, when they proved themselves so ruthless in other ways. I also felt that by skipping the 12 years or whatever between the collapse of what was basically an entire society and her adult-ship missed out what should have been the most powerful chapters of the book, those questions about how a culture/society recovers from something like that. Instead we just get a standard 'the children will get over it' type ending.


----------



## charlesatan (May 8, 2012)

SuzieHunt said:


> In what way? It's not like
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Oh, I definitely agree with your criticisms, although with certain caveats. (And that's not to say the book isn't problematic; it is.)



Spoiler



To the first, yes, that's true, and perhaps that's one of the problems of the books. The system is still in place, but with the toppling of the masterminds, arguably there's room for change. I think there's a drastic reform that's going to happen for The Capitol (they lost the war, after all). With District 13, not so much.

For me leaving District 13 alone (I assumed it was a typo) was acceptable; It's a stalemate situation and seemed to preserve the new status quo at the start of the series.



But if Collins didn't attempt to tackle them, then it would have been a much weaker set of books. I don't think Katniss was forced to make any difficult choices in the first book for example. Nor did her winning (in the first novel) spur changes to the system. The third book made an attempt to address that.


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

I was so disappointed that I didn't even have the energy to review the book #3 anywhere 

The first one was cool, although too close to "Battle Royale" for my comfort (and simpler / sillier than Battle Royale). But as of book #2, I was almost angry reading the stuff. Just not good. I wish I could forget them, so only the memory of the stronger book #1 remains in my memory.

I've been wondering why Hunger Games became such a hit, while Battle Royale didn't.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, I appreciate the efforts everyone is making to spoiler block the spoilers...thanks!  Even though the subject says "Spoiler Alert" the fact is that some people are going to read this thread who may not have finished all three books.  So thanks for doing that!

Betsy


----------



## EmilyG (Jan 31, 2010)

Katniss was such a strong, positive role model in the first two books that I thought it was a shame she spent most of book three


Spoiler



crying in a closet or in the hospital. I know the author was going for PTSD but I hated the personality change.


----------



## Alle Meine Entchen (Dec 6, 2009)

My brother loaned me the first 2 books so we could "bond" over books.  These are not my type of books.  I'm really a don't want to think, just want something super fluffy/sugary kinda person.  He was disappointed b/c he loves the series and couldn't understand why I didn't.


----------



## Chris.Livesey (Jun 29, 2012)

My thoughts, for what they're worth, is that this series didn't read like a "planned trilogy"; rather it seemed like the first book was hugely successful so let's write some more. 

This was a series of diminishing returns for me - I found the 1st book readable, but nothing special although "the games" themselves were very exciting and well-written. The 2nd book was just a reprise of the first with a ridiculous ending and the 3rd book I found so poor that I gave-up 25% of the way through. 

I think this was a case of "one good idea" (albeit not a particularly original idea) stretched so thin that it just broke.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I thought the first book was quite good. I had to suspend disbelief a bit for the basic premise, that you could keep a population from rebelling by making their children fight in the arena. That's more likely to incite rebellion than squash it. One of the best ways to subjugate people is to get them to subjugate themselves. It would have been more believable if they sent criminals to the arena. Katniss could have easily been arrested for poaching. That way, it breaks solidarity in the districts. People wouldn't see themselves in the tributes.

In the third book, it seemed like President Snow's attention was far to focused on Katniss. He had other things to concern himself with.



Spoiler



I couldn't buy the invasion of the capitol. The districts had already won. Why waste lives on an invasion when you can simply lay seige to the capitol? Somehow, Prim never felt like a real character, she felt like an object for Katniss to protect.





Spoiler



I didn't buy the pods all over the city. Simpler defenses made more sense. The capitol's power didn't lie in defenses, but keeping the districts from revolting. Having the capitol wired with so many weapons just doesn't make a lot of sense.[/quote]



Spoiler



We got cut off from Katniss's thoughts around the time that a new Hunger Games was proposed. We never found out why she voted yes for a new Hunger Games. I inferred that it was only so she would make it out of the room and be free to act. But shooting Coin seemed like such a wasted opportunity. Coin would have real reason to feat Katniss's power, Katniss probably had more clout than anyone in Panem. If she spoke, people would listen. I'm thinking Marc Antony's eulogy for Caesar in Julius Caesar. "I come not to praise Caesar, but to bury him." She could have told the people what she knew, and what she believed, and Coin would have been ruined. Bombing children and then bombing again when relief workers come in? Doesn't play well with the electorate. And Katniss could have taken turned the public against Coin and his new Hunger Games easily.





Spoiler



I didn't buy Peetah being sent into the capitol. He's mentally instable, had been violent, and is sent there in handcuffs? Everyone was aware that Coin send him there in hopes that he would kill Katniss.


----------



## That one girl (Apr 12, 2011)

mom133d (aka Liz) said:


> I was disappointed as well. It felt as if the author was giving the readers would want rather than what the story needed.


This, exactly. I think that she probably initially wanted Katniss to die, but her editor didn't think it was a pretty enough ending for most readers who demand a happily ever after ending. I would have loved if Katniss died, personally. I think it would have made the most sense.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

T.S. Welti said:


> This, exactly. I think that she probably initially wanted Katniss to die, but her editor didn't think it was a pretty enough ending for most readers who demand a happily ever after ending. I would have loved if Katniss died, personally. I think it would have made the most sense.





Spoiler



I thought it wasn't plausible that after shooting Coin that she gets away with it. Even if they uncovered enough on Coin to expose that he was every bit as dangerous as Snow, assassins don't walk away. Even Caesar's enemies were going to turn on Brutus. Kill one dictator, and you might kill the next. She had power, but her real power wasn't in her bow, but in her voice. Her power had been used by others for their own agenda. She had the opportunity to use her real power on her own terms. Shooting Coin just seemed like not recognizing how much power she really had.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

It is amazing how people can get so caught up in their "team".



Spoiler



For example, some of the people who like Gale downplay the parachute bombs. First of all, the basic tactic alone, of setting off bombs to kill people and then blow up a larger bomb when people come in to help is condemned as terrorism. Why is it OK just because we like Gale? Then there's the idea of targeting children using parachutes that they think contain supplies to help them. If Gale didn't know about that, that mitigates his actions somewhat. But when he says he wasn't sure if it was his bomb, doesn't that imply that he knew about the parachute bombs, because he could have denied that it was his bomb otherwise. I don't think he was an evil person, he just lost his way, and Coin was willing to help him lose his way.


----------



## charlesatan (May 8, 2012)

QuantumIguana said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Shooting Coin just seemed like not recognizing how much power she really had.





Spoiler



I don't think Katniss had that much political influence with the people, at least not in District 13, where it took place. That's why earlier in the third book, Katniss had to agree to Coin's demands in order to get their support. Although granted, outside of District 13, she did have much power.

Totally agree on the parachute bombs point. Arguably Katniss's assassination isn't justified either, but I think that was the point of the books, how a lot of people involved in the war had to compromise on some of their principles; some embraced this, others didn't.





> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't buy the invasion of the capitol. The districts had already won. Why waste lives on an invasion when you can simply lay seige to the capitol?





Spoiler



Several reasons, including the importance of a symbolic victory. Is it logical? No. But if you look at the real world, a lot of people chase for symbolic victories.





> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't buy the pods all over the city.





Spoiler



True. But I accepted it as part of the trope. I mean even in Book One, the genetically-modified dogs that looked like the Hunger Games contestant seemed contrived as well and fall under that not practical/realistic side.


----------



## Lisa J. Yarde (Jul 15, 2010)

Absolutely disappointed. The second book was a do-over of the first and I didn't care as much if she and Peeta made it out, because I just knew they would. Also, I understood the heavy-handed themes and Katniss' shell-shocked state, but how does the heroine check out of pivotal scenes? I won't say too much about her personal choices being too predictable.


----------



## Rob May (Jun 18, 2012)

Just finished Mockingjay. I quite like unconventional endings, and I loved the twist with the execution. Of course you see it coming, but it's great that the book makes you feel clever _because_ you guess it. Peeta's story was unpredictable all the way through and right up until the end, which was the best thing about the book.

Saying that ... it was still the worst of the trilogy by a long way. It was a struggle to read through at times, and badly lacking in description: I had no idea what those 'pods' were supposed to be or look like, or what the hovercraft were. I'll need to wait for the film! The pacing seemed way off too, with major characters having underwhelming and quickly-forgotton deaths, and boring scenes when Katniss and the others are hiding out in a clothes shop talking to a mad old woman when the climax is just around the corner.

It could a great film though, I'll bet. Or _films_ ...

Rob


----------



## samanthawarren (May 1, 2011)

I bought Mockingjay at 3am after finishing Catching Fire, super excited to read the rest of the series. Talk about a let-down. Many of the deaths were senseless and seemed to serve no purpose. They didn't further the story or allow Katniss to keep going. They were deaths just to be shocking and make people go "Oh no, not him/her!" And as has been mentioned, Katniss changed dramatically. I never really liked her anyway, but since the story is told from her point of view, I'd prefer she did something other than hide in closets all day. The very end (aka: who does she end up with) was disappointing too. She never actually chose. It was just that one was willing to put up with her crap and one wasn't. It felt as if Collins got to Mockingjay and said "Crap, I committed to writing this book, guess I better do it."

I do think Mockingjay will make a pretty good movie. There will be lots of action and we'll get to see many different sides, not just Katniss's. This will be one case where the movie will be better than the book.



Spoiler



On a side note, I did like the assassination part. It was one of the few good spots of the book. Katniss recognized that a change in leadership wouldn't solve anything. Coin was just as bad, if not worse than Snow and Snow's death would serve no purpose aside from to further Coin's plan.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I, too, liked the first book the best, although it's been long enough that I don't really remember why I did or didn't like the third one so much.  I enjoyed the second one, too, though not as much as the first.

Betsy


----------



## ergeller57 (Jul 28, 2012)

First book deeply flawed but with a lead character strong enough to carry the story.  Unfortunately, the weaknesses evident in the first book were only magnified by the need to extend into a trilogy.  Highly over rated at the start, almost unreadable by the end.  Thankfully, she made a ton of money.


----------

