How High the Cliff?

So, today Stacie and I thought we'd discuss something we've been seeing a lot of lately and get your thoughts on it: the cliffhanger ending.

Many of the books we read are actually series. And that's great! Because it means more of the characters we love! But what we love MORE is feeling the need to read the next book BECAUSE WE LOVE THE CHARACTER, not because we feel tricked into it because of the cliffhanger.


So very true. I like for things to be wrapped up, at least a little bit, while waiting for the next book. It's not like a sitcom where we only have to wait a week - we usually have to wait at least a year!




Exactly. I think the biggest problem with a cliffhanger ending isn't so much the wait as it is that I end up feeling like I paid for half of a book. The story needs to have SOME resolution.




Agreed. I'm all for a little cliffhanger action, so long as the major action in the book I've read has a resolution of some sort.





So, Acceptable Cliffhangers: Will the hot boy kiss her AGAIN? Does the big bad guy come back? Will the OTHER hot boy kiss her at all? Will her parents find out she snuck out to see hot boy? NOT ACCEPTABLE CLIFFHANGERS: MC's destiny will forever be shaped by this ONE EVENT THAT… you don't get to find out about until next book.



Timeless by Alexandra Monir actually did it well because there was resolution and I thought everything was finished, wrapped up with a pretty bow, and then WHAM. Cliffhanger. So, there was SOME resolution, but she set up the next book in a dramatic fashion.




I think Harry Potter did a great job of not leaving giant cliffhangers, and yet there was an incredible draw to always read the next book. I don't feel like the author has to beat me over the head with the drama to get me to read.




HP is an excellent example. Of course, those books followed a formula, so the reader knew there would be resolution. I think formulaic series (is that a term? it is now) are better at avoiding the cliffhanger.

And what do you think about The Hunger Games series? I remember my jaw dropping at the end of the first book - I had no idea I was reading a series. I immediately got up and checked to see when the next book would be coming out. But, I wasn't mad about the way the book was finished, just dying for more.


I actually think each book in The Hunger Games followed it's own arc and so it was okay. The main conflict was the particular set of games and those were resolved, for the most part. The cliffhangers were about the more emotional and political aspects of the books.



I agree. Leaving some things 'undone' is completely understandable and I actually like that, but when EVERYTHING is left to question - that is when I want to throw the book.




Ah, well, I guess we expect SOME cliffhangery-ness. Our beef is with the height of the cliff.





That's perfect! I'm okay with a short cliff, and even still with a medium sized cliff. But looming cliffs that have no view of the ground? That's when I want to throw the book.... off the cliff.

What about you all? How his is too high for your cliffhangery-ness? Do you love them, hate them, want to throw books too? Do tell!

Waiting on Wednesday: Mockingjay by Suzanne Collins

Leigh and I thought it would be fun to join other book blogs with Waiting on Wednesday posts. Now, you know us - we're whimsical (read- lazy) so we'll undoubtedly miss some weeks, but every now and then we'll be posting about books that we cannot wait to read.

This week is a gimme in a way because EVERYONE is waiting for the release of Mockingjay by Suzanne Collins. Even my friends who have not started the series yet. *cough*LEIGH*cough*


Scholastic has kept Mockingjay under lock & key. I'm pretty sure no ARCs were given, so the anticipation couldn't be higher. I'm kind of excited that I haven't heard ANYTHING about this book (other than the "I can't wait until..." comments), and I'm also excited to fall right back into the world of Katniss, Peeta, and Gale.

Since I read both Hunger Games and Catching Fire in one day, I'm blocking out the 24th for reading. So, ummm, does anyone want to watch two adorable little kids that day? *wink* I've also decided to get it first on the iPad, because I think that means I can get it at midnight on the 24th. Which means I'll be up all night. So, I'll still need that babysitter (or my Manny!).

What about you all? Have you waited until now to start the series? Or have you been counting down the days like I have? (And seriously, if you haven't read and don't plan on it, CHANGE YOUR MIND. This series is AMAZING.)

We Love Chicks Who Can Kick Our Asses

I recently read this roundtable on strong heroines in YA literature from writers Tessa Graton, Maggie Stiefvater and Brenna Yovanoff. (If you have time - go read it - it's worth it!) Basically, the women discuss what it means to be a strong female character in literature, and this mainly includes a more cerebral, rather than physical, type of strength.

I'm fascinated by this partly because my unfinished thesis for my MA is actually on strong female characters (Look! I'm doing "research"), but also because I feel that a female character's strength is no longer measured only by her mental or emotional capacity. She has to have some element of bad-assedness to go along with her inner strength.

What I'm trying to get to in my long-winded fashion, is that while I agree with the three Merry Sisters of Fate on their ideas of strength - I also really enjoy a character that can kick some ass and save the day. Granted, it's asking a lot of my heroines for them to be strong-hearted and also be able to fight like Chuck Norris, but many times those are my favorite characters in YA lit.


I definitely agree that I prefer reading about a woman who can hold her own in a fight. This may stem from the fact that I was suspended for fighting in middle school. (I was just defending myself! Apparently school bullies don't like it when their fake authority is questioned.) It proves a very important point, though: if you're going to put your main character in dangerous situation, she better be able to defend herself. Especially since most of the lit I read has a fantasy/sci-fi bent. If you're going to face down demons at the Hellmouth (Buffy forever!), you better know how to wield some legendary weapons.

We expect our male heroes to be both resourceful and strong (emotionally and physically.) Now that women and men are seen in a much more equal light in the real world, I don't think we should expect any less from our literary heroines.


Buffy is a great example of the kind of young woman I'm talking about. I think her character actually started, or was a big part of starting, this trend of emotionally and physically strong women.

One of my favorite female characters who embodies this is Katsa, the protaganist in Graceling by Kristin Cashore. If you haven't read this book, I definitely recommend it. Katsa is such a great character and the story is really well done. I also love Katniss from The Hunger Games, and Isabelle from The Mortal Instruments series, just to name a few.


I think Clary from Mortal Instruments would also fit the description. She had to be emotionally strong, sure, but she also had to face very physical dangers. Maybe she didn't know how to strangle an enemy in their sleep, but she did stand her ground when faced with a real danger.




I agree completely. Clary definitely grows into her role as a strong character. I love the moment when she puts on the Shadowhunter clothing, you can almost feel her changing into something more.





Who are we forgetting? What do you prefer to read: physical strength, emotional strength, or both? Tell us!

The Love Triangle: Gale or Peeta?

sidebra with mockingjays: This post may contain subtle spoilers for The Hunger Games. If you haven't finished The Hunger Games and Catching Fire, please do so - it should only take you two days because you won't be able to put them down. Unless you're Spank. And then it will take you forevah. *blows kisses at Spank*

Since Meadow is out of town this week, *cries a little* we are waiting until later to talk about our favorite Happily Ever Afters (as was promised). But, since Meadow has not read The Hunger Games or Catching Fire, I thought it would be a good time to discuss them in relation to the love triangle.

I've received a bunch of emails from friends (who I may have forced to read The Hunger Games) with the question: Gale or Peeta? Now I know this isn't the central issue to the books, but let's face it - we all love a good love triangle. Think about it - we have Edward-Jacob-Bella from Twilight, Jace-Clary-Simon from The Mortal Instruments, and I keep seeing more and more pop up in YA literature. Our choices in "teams" has even come to be a marker of some sort. I was recently talking to a 17-year-old about Twilight and she stopped me and said, "You should know, I'm Team Jacob," as if it defined an important part of her and how she read the books. And in a way, it does.

I've always been Team Edward and Team Jace - in those cases, it was easy for me to "take sides." But when it comes to The Hunger Games, I am much like Katniss - torn and confused between Gale and Peeta. And I think that's the wonderful thing about the love triangle in The Hunger Games: there is no easy answer. Well, at least there isn't for me. I'm sure some of you have picked your 'team' already (and I'd love to hear why).

Gale and Katniss have a relationship built upon their need for survival. Their drive to keep their families fed and alive is what brings them together and fuels their need for each other. Similarly, Peeta and Katniss's relationship is based almost solely upon their survival - in relation to the Games, the Capital, and President Snow. So, in a sense, both relationships are forced upon Katniss. This doesn't lessen the intensity of either relationship, but makes the choice all the more difficult.

Most of the time, I lean towards Peeta. He is selfless and caring, and there is no doubt that he loves Katniss. It's easy to be Team Peeta when he and Katniss are in the arena, or facing President Snow, fighting for their lives. But then I think of Gale. He knows Katniss. He has been by her side 'fighting' for survival long before Peeta and Katniss were forced together.

You see how I'm confused? And as much as I love happy endings with a neat bow tied on top, I'm not expecting this from Suzanne Collins. She has not made anything "easy" up to this point, so I'm extremely curious to see how she'll end The Hunger Games trilogy.

So, tell me - what team are you on? Are you confused like I am? How do you foresee this ending?

And, just for fun, since they are making a movie from the books *squeee* here are my current choices for actors to play Katniss, Gale, and Peeta. I'm easily swayed, so leave your picks in the comments if you have them!

Katniss: Emily Browning
Peeta: William Moseley
Gale: Ben Barnes

(And yes, I know that I've picked two actors from Prince Caspian, but they just seem "right" to me.)