To say that one series is more interesting, complicated, or in general better than the rest requires close evaluation and comparasion of both. I don't think that the Hunger Games and Harry Potter are fair to contrast because they aren't entirely in the same genre. Whereas Harry Potter can easily be classed with Lord of the Rings (J.R.R. Tolkein), Game of Thrones (George R. R. Martin), and Twilight (Stephanie Meyer). I think I would put Hunger Games on the same plane as Ender's Game (Orson Scott Card) or World War Z (Max Brooks). The Hunger Games is a book of survival after the fall of civilization. Though they literally need to survive the Games, Katniss & Co. also are required to survive and re-establish civilization beyond the facade they have. The Hunger Games is TRULY an incredible series that--on merit of quality, content, and excitement-- I would put on par with Harry Potter. Harry Potter is far more complicated than 'woosh, wave a wand and the problem is solved.' I would argue that if the magic element had been replaced with reality, the story--stripped to it's barest essentials would still be--deeply profound and a fascinating story. Both stories are so dark with timeless and meaningful themes and motifs that will ALWAYS be relevant, so long as humankind can think.
posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )