Is Catching Fire less mushy/boring than the first book of the Hunger Games?

Join Date: 2008-03-13
Post Count: 6866

#57153949Saturday, October 29, 2011 7:17 AM GMT

I read this for savage fighting, betrayals, and bloodbath, not some mushy romance crap. Does Catching Fire focus more on the Hunger Games than on Cakeboy and Katniss' stupid little "relationship"? And does the aforementioned Cakeboy die early on?

Iwatani

Join Date: 2008-03-13
Post Count: 6866

#57155274Saturday, October 29, 2011 8:48 AM GMT

Still, I read a little bit of a summary, and I feel like they're pretty much doing the same, overused "character recycling" technique that they did in that Total Drama Island thing.

thisisme106

Join Date: 2010-10-10
Post Count: 439

#57165709Saturday, October 29, 2011 3:00 PM GMT

Catching fire is amazing and katniss focuses more on survival then romance.

Iwatani

Join Date: 2008-03-13
Post Count: 6866

#57170693Saturday, October 29, 2011 4:23 PM GMT

"More on"? Does that mean that it won't be a boring romance novel, or does it just mean that the annoying amounts of romance from the first book are slightly lessened?

Iwatani

Join Date: 2008-03-13
Post Count: 6866

#57195905Saturday, October 29, 2011 10:27 PM GMT

Bump/

Wagstarr

Join Date: 2010-12-09
Post Count: 175

#57234794Sunday, October 30, 2011 1:50 PM GMT

It spends less time on the Hunger Games (about half the book....) No, not really. Mockingjay on the other hand has toned down the romance A LOT though and spends most of it's time describing a rebellion.