I just finished reading The Hunger Games and Catching Fire. Catching Fire is a lot better than The Hunger Games. I though the first book was a little boring, except for the action scenes.

Really? I quite enjoyed the first book. In fact, I was sick when I read it and each time I woke up in the middle of the night because of my stuffy nose, I read another chapter. I've been meaning to check out the next two in the series, although I'm not in any hurry. What did you like about Catching Fire?

My opinion was that they just got worse. The first one was AMAZING, second was ALMOST amazing, third was mediocre.

First, I read all the books through, about 4 months ago. Then, before the movie came out, I reread the first one twice, and then I reread the second one once. I tried to reread the third one... But I just got too bored. Blech. I think **spoiler alert** that the 1st and 2nd books were great because of the Games. The high-action and romance really set the bar high for the third one. But I just felt it didn't really live up to expectations... The third would've kicked ass if there was some sort of 76th hunger games squeezed in, where Prim finally had to go, or Gale went and it was from his perspective, or SOMETHING. But between 1st and the 2nd.... hmm, I'd have to say that the first was better. It was close, though.

That's weird. I liked every bit of the first book. It's the best one, imo. Catching Fire bored me until the 13th chapter and onwards.

I liked the first book, but I did not think it was what it was made out to be.

I thought it was slightly boring because so much of the book is just Katniss hunting. I know that is somehwhat essential to the plot, I just thought all the hunting scenes were boring.

I liked Catching Fire, because it seemed to have them doing more. A lot more also went on before they went into the arena.

Someone told me that one of the books after the first one explains the characters' behavior. I've heard over and over that the third is a departure from the first two and that it is dark.

I really enjoyed the first and second (about the same level of enjoyment, I guess.) The first has a simpler, more streamlined storyline, but the second is still pretty simple though with more elements of surprise and darker themes.
The third was...good, but not nearly as good as the first two. I just had the general feeling that it was a mishmash of everything that 'had' to happen. And stuff just kept getting added on; some of it seemed like a second thought. Compared to the very streamlined storylines of the first two books, the third seemed almost messy. Additionally, the third is very dark, compared to the first two. Also, a lot of the characters' deaths seemed kind of rushed. I agree with another reviewer on goodreads.com who said it was just "death for the sake of death." Supporting character after supporting character got thrown away. For me, it is so much more poignant when it's a select few supporting characters. Given more time to each, instead of killing 'em all off haphazardly.

I really enjoyed reading these books and i think the plot and characters were well thought out and engaging but. . . in all honestly i think the actual writing was crap. I found it hard to relate to what the characters were doing a lot of the time as they lacked the background or the depth, its hard to explain what im trying to say, but for me persoanlly i could not relate to them or have any paticualr strong emotions for what they were going through. Even Katniss who DID have some degree of good character development i still didnt quite understand her sometimes :/

I would give examples but it was a while ago i read them, but i recall this being my thoughts when finishing them. Maybe it's just because im a English Lit student and a writer myself!

I have to agree with you there, to a certain extent. I remember thinking the characters seemed a bit 'scattered' or 'not completely connected' or something like that. Not consistent maybe. But it always appears to me that the most popular books don't have the most well-described characters; I suppose that might be a tactic to let anyone in their head easily, but I'd rather them be described more fully. I really love it when I feel like I know a character so well they could be my best friend (or my worst enemy, depending on what I think about them.) Some of the best books I've read for that are Teach Me, Vampire Academy, Before I Fall, and The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big Round Things. Some authors are excellent at making realistic, full characters, while others focus more on the action and what's happening and I feel like I barely know who the characters are. Books like that can be amazing no doubt (action! romance! mystery!) but there's still something missing. Then again, I'm trying to develop characters myself and I'm realizing how hard it is to do! I have a lot of sympathy for authors now. :P

To whomever said they wished Katniss was more courageous:

I loved that. It made the trilogy, for me. I loved how she was so.. real. You felt like her, and whenever she does something, I'll be like, "yes, I would've done that." I felt like I was Katniss. More than any other book, practically. I think it was kind of geared towards young adults or teens who have been pressured to act very civilized all their life. In the books, you can finally let your violent beast that we all have inside us free. And after almost dying and killing others, let's face it, I'd have probably acted exactly like her, if not worse. That was the biggest relief of them all- she's not some superhuman. She's just like us. And it makes sense. Because that's how a normal person would react, and it let's our imagination go crazy, about how this normal girl achieved so much. It gives us all hope.