What to read?

Except one is a well written piece of literature and the other has a character called "Katniss."

Correction: they are both are poorly written. Stop acting like hot shit because you think you read "real" literature.

Both are simple novels directed at young people with almost the same themes.

>hunger games fans

I'm sorry, this website is 18+.

Says the guy who got his 'mind blown' by a high school book. Le ironing

These choices. Just finished "We," and it was pretty damn good.

I never said 1984 blew my mind, I said it was a great piece of literature. I guess because something was read in high school it no longer has any literary merit.

Better go tell Homer and Shakespeare they're worse than a young adult's mary sue fantasy that saw Battle Royale and went "how can I take this concept and make it shitty? Eureka!"

>high school book
What isn't?

Yes. What a logical conclusion to draw from that. Good job.

You can more easily compare Battle Royale and Hunger Games in that way

You sound like an edgy redditor lmao

seconding this, Zamyatin's stuff is pretty good

not who you're arguing with (in fact i lean towards your position), but hot damn you could not have possibly posted a weaker response

Good one. You sound like an idiot.

Define 'literary merit' and why 1984 has it and the "Hunger games" doesnt.
>Protip: Don't use memes or fallacies in your argument !

Surprised no one mentioned A Clockwork Orange

Ray Bradbury is the author of 451

Animal Farm, Fahrenheit 451, you'll probably like Catcher in the Rye.
If you're ready to get a little higher level try some Nabokov (Lolita), and I think Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is pretty accessible after that.

Ignore the trolls like this guy even though it is hilarious, 1984 is great entry level Veeky Forums

This is the correct answer.

Bend Sinister

In the Country of Last Things

The Chrysalids

The Handmaid's Tale

Logan's Run

Neuromancer

The Time Machine

The Drowned World

High Rise

The Road

We

Lord of the Flies

Never Let Me Go

The Diamond Age

The Trial

Battle Royale

Iron Heel

>Brave New World

Still nobody says why 1984 is much better than the hunger games

The Fault in Our Stars

hunger games attempts to handle the mature themes of ptsd, alcoholism in response to trauma. Fails because author focuses on romantic element for the money grab.

1984 attempts to handle the mature themes of memory, metaphysical rebellion, state-citizen relationship and general class theory. Mostly successful in study of memory and manipulation of class relationships in single party govt systems (as evidenced by china). Finishes strong with a reasonable conclusion to metaphysical rebellion theme (failure).

see

If you really want to push it hunger games examines the role of love in metaphysical rebellion fairly well, maybe better than 1984's quick dismissal. Still fails to conclude this theme with strength because of the author's lack of focus.

I feel like that comparison doesn't really work at all, given that The Hunger Games, whilst featuring a dystopia, does not fixate primarily upon the inner workings of that dystopia or indeed upon its consequences for society as a whole. About halfway through the series, it shifts to being a character study on the effects of trauma and not being able to find your place in the world. In essence, it's more focused upon the personal experiences of Katniss rather than on anything on a grander scale, and to that extent, it does some acceptable things with post-traumatic stress, though certainly nothing groundbreaking. I definitely wouldn't call it absolute shit, the dystopia and concept make it interesting enough, but it's been done before, and better. In the end, it is mostly simply the entertaining of a concept with the hope of reaching more but never quite striving for that, which is fine for its purposes.

1984, on the other hand, is a completely different story. What elevates the novel above something like The Hunger Games in particular is that it -does- seek to reach that higher conversation. When Winston cracks at the end despite all the struggle we've been through to become the person he wanted to be, it's a direct commentary on society and it means something. In this case, the dystopia is the ultimate focus point of the novel, and the community that lives within that dystopia is the one that defines it rather than its characters. The lens by which we view Winston is entirely corrupted by Big Brother even from the start, we see his beginning and his end, and realize that his destiny has only ever laid with the ending we received from the moment it began.

Are both novels the literary progeny of the ages that deserve to be discussed for centuries to come? Probably not, but 1984 is certainly able to be held in more regard than something like The Hunger Games. All that said, both concepts are rather interesting, and at the least The Hunger Games did not entirely ignore seeking some sort of reasoning for placing itself within a dystopian setting.

>Hunger games
Lacks a consistent tone. (Somes parts are comedic, which stands in starch contrast to the drama)
Characters have shitty motivations and react in a way most humans wouldnt
Why have The Hunger Games be a thing? It's not advantageous even from a symbolic standpoint.

>1984
I like it, I don't know if it's all that, because the Ministry of Love didn't really make sense. I love dystopian future stuff though

That was a really satisfying post

Karel Čapek - War with the newts