The "Legend" series by Marie Lu

 

I've been joking with my book club that every book I look at for purchase these days is compared to "Hunger Games."  There is the "Like Hunger Games in a hospital" or "Like Hunger Games for older readers" or "Hunger Games meets Harry Potter."  The comparisons to "Hunger Games" will be inevitable when reading this New York Times best-selling series (coming soon to a multiplex near you) as we live in an era where every Dystopic tale gets told.  The similarities are strong ... one of my students dismissed the series as "too derivative."  The tale centers on two young people in the semi-near future who live under the iron fist of a despotic leader.  There are rebellions, revolutions, loss of life and of loved ones.  There is a starving underclass and a media-saturated upper class that revels in excess.  Marie Lu, like Suzanne Collins, describes a cast of diverse characters who reflect modern society far more than the homogenous characters of YA Lit of the past and gets gold stars for making the female characters as dominant, and strong, as the male characters.  There are differences, however.  "The Republic" is not Panem and the militaristic structure is predominant.  Instead of an angry cat, there is a big, lovable dog.  In "Hunger Games," there is a love triangle that is somewhat secondary to the storyline, here, there are a number of "crushes" but the driving force of the story is a Romeo and Juliet style romance.  At the core of "Hunger Games" is a ripping criticism of modern media and a strong commentary on the value we place on the lives of the young.  The "Legend" series, on the other hand, is about governments and their imperfect nature in the hands of humans.  It is about the many grays in loyalties and relationships.  Characters switch roles throughout the saga and discover life isn't simple or predictable.  Lu takes the opportunity to draw on the many ills of our modern world, from commercialism to online gaming, as our lead characters discover the lands beyond their borders.  Like Asimov in his "Foundation" series, she intimates that truly good societies only come from an invested populace over a long stretch of time.  While both series are very good, I think "Hunger Games" is the better of the two.  It's kind of like the two "Star Wars" franchises.  The first (episodes IV through VI) are simple, clean, and have mass appeal ("Hunger Games").  The second series (episodes I though III) are complex and weighed down by politics ("Legend").  Katniss is a relatable figure -- June, one of the leads in the "Legend" series, is a soldier, and as such, can be distant.  Day, the other lead character whose POV is shared in alternating chapters, is more relatable but his voice weakens a tad as his world turns upside down.  I became somewhat irritated with June's constant calculations and extraordinary clothing descriptions ... eventually wondering if it was about a soldier's training or OCD (a joke).  When Day begins spouting the same level of description, and a character describes "a bad night" in the third book with a film-like vocabulary (you can hear the flashback music as he speaks), I couldn't help but feel the oppressive hand of the author.  The tale is interesting, but, for me, not driving.  I pushed through because I wanted to know how it all turned out.  As I was reading, I was confused as to why the series progressed to a third book when it seemed to come to a natural conclusion at the end of the second.  In retrospect, the third book brings together many threads and wraps up well, but you have to wonder if Lu was pressured by her publishers to expand the story ... it would explain some of the narrative that makes certain sections drag in any otherwise strong tale.  Is it worth it?  Yes.  If Dystopian Fiction is your thing, go for it.  And yes, it should satisfy the cravings of those looking for something "like" Hunger Games.