-
x

Meet New Friends!

Recommended friends are based on your interests. Make sure they are up to date.

Friends
Kidzworld Logo

Mockingjay Book Review

Sep 13, 2010

It’s finally here: the third and final book in Suzanne Collin’s amazing Hunger Games series—Mockingjay.


After surviving the Hunger Games twice, Katniss Everdeen finds herself leading the rebellion against the corrupt Capital and the even more corrupt President Snow. It was Katniss’s actions in the first Hunger Games that originally defied the Capital, sending the 12 districts of Panem into a pandemonium.


District 13

The capital has already destroyed District 12—Katniss’s home—forcing the citizen’s to seek refuge with the rebels in District 13—an underground district that was destroyed and rebuilt years ago. Unwillingly, Katniss has become the face of the rebellion. A pawn in the rebels’ game. She must always be camera-ready so that the rebels can broadcast clips of their fight against the Capital to the nation.


Katniss’s Vengeance

But Katniss is a fighter. She has the best shot with a bow and arrow in all of Panem. And she wants to be on the front line in battle, to kill President Snow for the pain he caused her: for being devious and manipulative, for destroying her home, and for capturing and torturing her Hunger Games partner Peeta.


The Bottom Line

Mockingjay is different from the first two books in the series. For starters, there are no Hunger Games. Their nation has fallen into complete and utter chaos, and the war occupies the entire story. There is still a good mix of savagery and technology that made Suzanne Collins’ post-apocalyptic world so unique. While Collins is one of the best teen authors out there, Mockingjay is quite a lot to take in. So make sure you have the time and a clear head when you read it.


Enter Kidzworld's Mockingjay Book Contest today!!

Related Stories:
22 Comments

Related Stories

Micro_mockingjaycover-micro
Mockingjay by Suzanne Collins is available August 24th! Enter Kidzworld's contest to win a copy!
Micro_necro_micro
The Necromancer, is the fourth book in The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel series. It com...
Micro_thesight-micro
In Judy Blundell's two book collection, The Sight: Premonitions and Disappearance, Gracie investi...
Tree-poll

What's Your Fave Kind of Book?

  • Mystery.
  • Comedy.
  • Fantasy.
  • Romance.

Random In The Forums

Myshkin
Myshkin posted in Debating:
"Jolly-Rancher206" wrote:One human being doesn't have more value than another "Jolly-Rancher206" wrote:If one believes life has intrinsic value in the first place (can't be proven, touched measured, just is) then how can you go about distinguishing the amount of value someone has? Life having intrinsic value doesn't mean that a person's value can not increase or stagnate based upon their actions and character. Mass murderers, for example, are viewed as having less value (either to you or I, or society in general, but either way we perceive them differently) than an ordinary law-abiding citizen. In a similar way, a man has greater worth than a woman in certain situations, and a woman greater worth than a man in certain situations. It's not necessarily strictly based upon being a man or woman either, it's just what their general behavior is viewed as: for example, women are generally held to be more empathetic than men, therefore more people prefer to open their heart up to women because they believe they will be given a more sensitive response. Short of attaining ego death, you're always going to value people differently. It's very nice to say from an abstract, intellectual standpoint that all people are equal, but even in solely your own life you know this isn't how you actually look at things, unless you really are prepared to tell me that the worth of your parents or siblings or close friends or distant friends are not worth more to you than a stranger on the street. I just want to point out in bold that I'm making a distinction between intellectual (or hypothetical/theoretical) understanding of people being equal, either in general or between men and women, and the actual application of trying to apply that principle. It likely leads us to view the two as more equal than if we didn't hold the intellectual view that they're equal, but nonetheless there is always going to be a hint of bias located somewhere. One last thing just for any additional clarity it might provide, because I recognize I might be getting vague here: "Jolly-Rancher206" wrote:I'm saying at bottom one s//x does not have more value than another. I am saying that all people have different values, be they man or woman, but in many situations one is preferable to the other and therefore their value as you perceive it is greater at that time (context).
reply 14 minutes
CaptJolee
CaptJolee posted in Debating:
like  I said it also could be another serial killer
reply 15 minutes
Pink_Cool_Girl
Well, go to his website and there is a picture of a new animatronic: Baby. But there is more than one animatronic, so why would he say one? :/
reply 16 minutes
Unrung
Unrung posted in General:
"inkdeath" wrote: "Unrung" wrote: When a child cries because her favorite pet died, you wouldn't tell her she has no right to be upset because children are starving in Africa, would you? A favorite pet dying is not as tragic as a child starving in Africa.    I get it now. You have the iq level of a fish.  Yes. I agree 100%. A favorite pet dying is not as tragic as a child starving in Africa. But that has no bearing on how a child should feel if their pet dies, was my point.
reply 26 minutes
Jolly-Rancher206
"Myshkin" wrote: "Jolly-Rancher206" wrote: "Myshkin" wrote: It means that men and women are not inherently equal, though certainly you can view their worth as being about equal. Only about? Only about. You might be able to delude yourself into thinking the two have the exact same worth but that will never actually happen due to unconscious biases, nor does the principle translate into the real-world very well where people are not made of the same stuff and the worth of a person is based upon context and character. Hold up. Yeah people are biased and some may see one s//x as better than the other. And yes people don't live that way in the real-world. I'm saying at bottom one s//x does not have more value than another. One human being doesn't have more value than another. I don't believe someone's character or personality changes that. I can think someone is a bad person, does bad things, but still affirm they have as much worth as a person as I do. If one believes life has intrinsic value in the first place (can't be proven, touched measured, just is) then how can you go about distinguishing the amount of value someone has?
reply 37 minutes