A prequel that feels somewhat pointless and pessimistic
The events of this book precede those of the main Hunger Games series, but the protagonist is a returning character: Haymitch Abernathy, the mentor for Katniss and Peeta at the 74th Hunger Games, and the story recounts how he wins the 50th Hunger Games. It's something we already knew going in; we just didn't know how he did it.
A key theme revolves around Haymitch's failed attempt to defy the Capitol, despite some success in breaking the Arena. The Capitol manipulates the story of his win to excise any aspects of his defiance, and Haymitch loses those he loves most. In order to forget his problems, he turns to drink, which is the habit we see in the original trilogy.
If that sounds dark and heartbreaking, that's because it is, and the storyline leaves many readers sobbing. Why do so many people love it? I wonder if some superfans of the series are blinded by nostalgia. But what's really the point of it? Is it just to show the power of Capitol propaganda? Apparently Collins was partly inspired by the views of philosopher David Hume about implicit submission and "the easiness with which the many are governed by the few". The title also has its origins in Hume. Perhaps she also has something to say about the power of media narratives to distort the truth, and maybe she is exploring whether we can discern between what is real and what is not. But I find it hard to interpret the book as a serious treatment of these themes, because if there is a message, it's far from clear. There’s certainly a lot of pessimism, and no real hope.
In the end, there doesn't really seem to be much of a point other than backstory, and it's just an additional Hunger Games story. Sceptics will see it as milking the Hunger Games cow by giving more of the same formula and telling us more about the same world. But the storytelling doesn’t feel as good, it's not as gripping or well written as the main trilogy, and it brings us to an ending that is tragically painful, and depressingly pessimistic. While there is some storyline, it doesn't add a great deal to the Hunger Games universe, and if anything, it might create some plot holes in the original trilogy. To be fair, the author is hampered by the fact that she knows we already understand how the world of the Hunger Games works.
Hunger Games fanboys will lap this up, but the rest of us can comfortably give this a miss and stick with the main trilogy. Or am I wrong, and just missing something here?
by EndersGame_Reviewer