But I've noticed, dude(ha!) that you seem, on average, to take characters' morality very personally. Like with The Wire wondering where all the happy marriages are.(I used to do it, too...maybe Simon broke me of the habit? An online friend used to say that the Blown Deadline ethic is that "Happy endings are for massage parlors." Junior is kind of a dick, but for me, it kind of helped(as a reader, not a date) that he seems to know that about himself. Maybe it helped that I studied more Spanish...

I would think Oscar Wao would be a tricky book to get a whole group of 10th graders to like, though it could generate great discussions.

Is the new Jay Asher/Carolyn Meckler book any good?

I liked it a lot, though part of what sucked me in was that the characters' milieu was basically exactly my high school experience (1996 in a middle/upper-middle-class Northeastern suburb, the thrill of discovering email and the Internet). It resonated with me as an adult, but I'm not sure how much of that was the book itself and how much was my identification with the characters. But it was definitely a quick, absorbing read.

Everyone is suggesting great books! Now I want to reread that John Marsden series. I loved those books.

People being amusing about the GoT Trading Cards.

I'm assuming the reason a lot of that was incomprehensible to me was because I'm still somewhere in book 1. But luckily, Twitter being what it was, I'm not actually spoilt.

I've seen a lot of people bitching that The Hunger Games is a ripoff of Battle Royale, but very few of those people have read/seen both works. Mostly they've only read or seen Battle Royale. Reading The Hunger Games seems to forestall the accusation. Anyone here closely familiar with Battle Royale? Can you say why THG isn't actually a ripoff?

I got into a heated pissing match with someone who insisted it was obvious she had stolen the ideas, either consciously or subconsciously, that it was clear, even if she'd forgotten it had happened. I kept insisting that people who'd actually read The Hunger Games didn't tend to think that, and finally convinced them to not be so damned adamant without reading it themselves, and they backed down that far. But it took a lot of arguing, and I had to suffer a fair amount of ad hominem abuse to get there. But at least they're going to read the books before continuing to argue their point, which is something.

was reading an article about video games on Slate, and they were talking about cutscenes being annoying and if they want a plot they'll read a book (though no one said "never interrupt me when I'm reading a book"). Someone mentioned Tolkien. A commenter said, "As a woman, I dislike Tolkien . . . He didn't write many female characters. We call them tokens."

I nearly created a Slate account just so I could reply to her and call her out, if for nothing more than her making assumptions for the gender.

Anyone here closely familiar with Battle Royale? Can you say why THG isn't actually a ripoff?

I have read The Hunger Games and seen Battle Royale, and they are very different, apart from the superficial similarities. They are both about kids who are forced to kill each other while being monitored in an area where the Bigwigs can influence events, but...basically everything else is different. Battle Royale is specifically about ninth graders being used as an example to discourage teenage rebellion, and it's full of flashbacks of high school angst. It's more about brutality than survivalism. The slaughter is not televised. There are no mutant creatures. As far as I recall, there isn't even a reward besides being alive.

I will not deny that it's hard not to think of one in relation to the other because of the general plot similarity, but I just finished reading the Percy Jackson series, and I initially interpreted "kid discovers he's special and goes to a place with special kids and hears a prophecy that he has to defeat the dark whatever" as Harry Potter ripoff when, in fact, it was not at all, of course.

I don't have usually have a problem with a story that is all male, if it would be untrue to the period or written in an era when it wouldn't occur to the writer to include a woman in, for example, a combat scene. What I dislike is women whose only roles are screaming, fainting, helplessness and being rescued.

Yeah, I agree. Despite what they do on most TV nowadays, I don't think you need to, like, split the cast down the middle or anything...like on Numbers, I'd trade some of those supposedly "badass" female FBI agents (Not Diane Farr, though. I like her.)for more scenes with Amita, who at least comes off as a full character. (And she has saved the day with her technical skills a few times

Battle Royale did not exactly start the Deadly Game trope. (Apologies for linking to TV Tropes, but that's what it's useful for.)

It's not just Deadly Game, it's Teen Deadly Game which is the accusation. Is Battle Royale also dystopic?