That’s so gross. School libraries shouldn’t gatekeep books by grade level like that. Exceptional learners are everywhere!

Absolutely. Let kids read what THEY want in the elementary grades! I devoured Magic School Bus books because I loved the asides and funny pictures as much as the actual text. I read Encyclopedia Brown books because it was fun to see how he’d figure things out each time. I read the American Girl books because they were about ordinary kids living through important events in history. I read graphic novels because they were a nice visual “snack” in between more demanding books, and the illustrations made the stories come alive.

The way some states are banning books from school libraries is hurting children and limiting their imaginations.

[removed]

I REALLY enjoyed the first book. The second book was darker but I liked it. The third book, I was just trying to get through it.

I don't rate so much on enjoyment as on perceived quality.

5 = great

4 = good

3 = okay

2 = poor

1 = terrible

I'm harsh on Goodreads but my metrics are:

​

5 stars: perfect book, even if I didn't love everything about it if I feel the creative decisions were justified I give it full marks (recent example: Young Hugo)

4 stars: excellent book, any criticisms I have need to be more tangible than simple creative differences, such as trimming the length or redundant word choice (recent example: Babel)

3 stars: average book with good content but was a slog at some stretch. Books that are enjoyable but I find lacking in creativity or other elements go here (recent example: Our Wives Under the Sea)

2 stars: bad book saved by some element of creativity or interesting plot. Usually books that are poorly written but have a good plot go here (recent example: If We Were Villains)

1 star: flat out awful book with few if any redeeming qualities. The longer the book the less forgiving I am of strong segments that would bring it up to a 2 (recent example: The Invisible Life of Addie LaRue)

Perhaps unpopular opinion, but I think DNF's should be their own category of scoring. There are so many novels that fluctuate in scores based on whether or not they stick the landing, so I don't think it's fair for someone to judge a book without the full picture.

I have a complicated ratings system.

0 to 2 points for plot and character development.

0 to 2 points for writing quality i.e. vocabulary, symbolism, etc.

0 to 2 points for how much I enjoyed it.

So, in theory that's 0 to 6 stars but of course I have to round to 1 to 5.

However, since I wouldn't normally finish a book which I rated 0 in any category almost all books are rated 3 to 5

You know one of my favorite parts so far that speaks volumes to world building and character building: Katniss and Peeta AND EVENTUALLY Hamish all dipping whatever they’re eating into Hot Chocolate! Lol

It’s also kinda sad — in a way — but it’s also just so colorful and funny but is just such a simple yet effect gag that came up a few times I thought was just brilliant!

Oh I'm so jealous you're reading it currently!!! I tore through them, they are so engaging. You said it so accurately- BALANCE. Her writing has that. I cannot find any flaw with her writing or this series honestly and I don't even like dystopian fiction, this was the first I loved.

I cannot imagine giving an elementary-school kid a smartphone. A flip phone for emergencies? Sure (and yes, they do still make those). A game machine with unfettered Internet access, at an age when they’re still learning time management and haven’t learned to curate their own Internet experience yet? Absolutely not.

As mean as this sounds, kids do actually need some time to be bored. It helps them develop their imaginations. And yes, reading can help.

5* Must read for everybody

4* Liked it

3* Meh

2* Nope

1* BURN IT! KILL THE AUTHOR! -> The Trial - Kafaka

For me it’s the third one that sours it. Like one and two had good stories and the third was an extra jumbled mess.

Somebody trashed Mr. Poppers Penguins?!?!?!? Outrageous!!!!

That's not why Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy. It's a tragedy because their families are so blinded by hate for each other that it leads to two innocent (yes, impulsive, but innocent—especially for the time of writing and the literary and stage conventions of the age, nothing Romeo does would be considered creepy or weird) teenagers losing their lives because the adults around them make them think they have no alternative and no future just because they love each other. Act V, scene 3 (specifically the part where Prince Escalus chastises Capulet and Montague) makes this pretty explicit ("See what a scourge is laid upon your hate, / That Heaven finds means to kill your joys with love!") and blames them for Romeo and Juliet's death. West Side Story (an adaptation) makes this even more explicit by having Maria, the Juliet character, survive and blame the rival gangs for killing Tony (Romeo).

I don't rate them, I only use Goodreads for logging, categorising, and looking up books I want to read

Well, if it quacks like a duck...

Lol there’s nothing wrong with that! I love both, flowery language and succinct but I think a balance is the best and tone of the story is too! The style of the Hunger Games fits perfectly!

It’s my first read through actually, and I’m so excited to get to Book 2 as that was my favorite movie. As always, the book is already better and something I’ve loved — over the movies — is learning about the Capitol’s experiments! So much better in the book!

[removed]

I have a pretty good grasp on what books I'll like, which is part of the reason why every book I've read in the past couple years is somewhere in the 2.5 to 5 star range. The rating process is very abstract and vibe-based and I don't put much thought into it, but I'll try to retroactively describe what each rating means based on the books in each group. I don't actually have any of this in mind when I'm going to rate a book.

The books I've given 2.5 stars (which are very few) or 3 stars were enjoyable to read in some way or another but felt very surface level or contrived. E.g In Five Years by Rebecca Serle. It's a pageturner, but in a "watching a car accident" kinda way. The vibes are terrible and I'm not sure whether to respect or abhor it for that.

3.5 seems to usually be for books that are thematically affecting to me but fall short of fulfilling their potential. E.g. The Midnight Library by Matt Haig. I'm not always on Haig's wavelength throughout, but there are moments where it does really click.

4 stars are very well-written, enjoyable books that I'd be hard-pressed to find flaws in but may have felt the tiniest bit slight or didn't emotionally resonate with me quite enough to get a higher rating. These books do what they aim to do really well, they just may not be as precisely geared towards me. E.g. The Thing in the Snow by Sean Adams. I don't usually read books of this genre (kinda dry comedy, although in a slightly abstract/surrealist sci-fi world which *is* up my alley), but this one was really fun to read and I liked the writing style.

4.5 stars are mostly books that swing for the fences and/or surprised me with how much I liked them. It's generally hard to say what little bit of abstract judgment differentiates these from 5 stars. Maybe it's a small hiccup in pacing, or a bit of triteness in some of the lines, but everything thematically and vibes-wise works for me. E.g. My Last Innocent Year by Daisy Alpert Florin. My love of this book is mostly coasting on the quality of its vibes, I can't lie.

5 stars tend to be the ones that hit me emotionally the hardest, the ones that stick with me the most and I can't stop thinking about. They explore topics that fit right in with my own brain and its sensibilities and anxieties. Often beautiful prose, subtly devastating themes, and usually a nice mixing of genres. E.g. Our Wives Under the Sea by Julia Armfield; The Vanished Birds by Simon Jimenez.

Obviously in the middle of nowhere haha

I think a lot of my problem is that we live in the middle of nowhere. There’s no goodwill haha.

To be honest, I don’t really think all the teachers support the check out restrictions but I think there are some families that have abused it in the past. The principal recently “snuck” a book to one of my kids that is 3 “grades” above them. I’m definitely not trying to trash the school, I definitely think they care and are doing the best they can in a hard situation.

Honestly, I’ve only lived in one town I didn’t have to pay for inter-library loans. It was in the next county over haha. I don’t think there are consistent rules around a lot of this stuff, even in the same state. One library system we were in was so bad they tried to charge us for books we had never checked out ever. Multiple times. I think it can be a really mixed bag sometimes.

I took a famous speed reading course. Speed reading is junk. You are better off with a synopsis than skimming a page at 900 wpm.

I have to respectfully dissent. I hated the books, because I had already read all of the books she smacked together to make this one. I did feel that it was a master class in plagiarized stories.

The main characters: the love angle is basically Bella, but she ends up with Jacob instead of Edward. They aren't even really built out much more than that. We have lovely brunette damsel, tough broody dude, and more sensitive dude who is also somehow tough. Actually, I liked Twilight. It was an interesting twist on vampire lore. I didn't like the copy. It felt very flat. Katniss/Bella reacts. She takes no action. She is along for the ride in the story we are seeing through her. It's hard to care when she doesn't.

I have to say it. Hunger Ganes is heavily sanitized Battle Royale. This is one of my favorite books of all time. I have read it a lot. You follow 42 children as they die... Trying or trying not to. And in the end you find out the "game" is not an experiment. It is to show people that you cannot trust anybody... Even if you see them every day. So we go to the Hunger Games. It is set up like a cheap sports rivalry. These people have never met, don't really interact before the game, and have zero reason to kill anybody. Except that like in The Running Man, they are hyped up on stage to be... Whatever the public says they are. They are fighting to get back to their families and for a boost of food to their districts. There is literally nothing stopping any of them from protest by suicide at any time. If indeed they all grew up watching this on tv, don't they know that it's pointless? (Why would any district keep watching after their players have died anyways? They have literally no stake in this. What is this, 1984 where you can't turn the TV off?) No society this opressed would have no spark of rebellion. Plus, it IS on tv. No dictatorship would be dumb enough to run a fully live feed. They want blood, not a "rival" covering a somehow bloodless corpse in flowers. If they can't turn the TV off... Why show rebellion? Remember in The Running Man when they censored all his tapes so his proof of life could not also be a public statement? So, the game. They already know they are sending children to die. They already know it's some sort of ritual. The thing that makes it a method of control is the shadow of mystery. The Battle Experiment. What is the experiment? Why is it important? What really happened to those children besides a list of casualties and how they died? You see a "winner" coming out of a black box the public assumes they had no choice but to fight their way out of. That fear controls the public. Not the game as designed. They don't even have dumb fake rivalries as if it were a sport. Like district 8 out for blood after district 3 killed their player last year. That might at least have made it interesting.

I could go on, but I suspect the downvoting started after saying I have a dissenting opinion.

I was an english teacher for years, and I read aloud to my students a lot (high students loved being read to.) I still read in my head as if I were reading aloud. I know it's slow, but it's so pleasurable. But I can ONLY read well-written books. The slow pace is painful for a crap book, but intense and wonderful with a good one. I will read fast if it's junk I have to get through for some reason.

'Clean and succint' is how I thought her writing was when I read it. It was after reading some books with heavy exposition and flowery language so Collins writing style was a breath of fresh air for me; it is easy to read, she presents perfect amount of facts + emotions+ plot twists for my liking. I find her writing style intelligent and her world building extremely IMMERSIVE.

Most importantly, she made me feel so strongly for all characters and their fate- that's huge for me because I increasingly find myself not feeling anything while reading a book. Either shoddy writing or convenient plot twists or unconvincing character portrayals take me out of the experience.

To sum up - I love Collins and I love The Hunger Games 🙃.