So I didn't start reading Hunger Games as soon as I'd hoped because it took even longer than I expected to finish LOTR's extensive resolution, though I found it interesting how Saruman got a little more time later in the books than in the films.

While I was comparing pros and cons of the films and books, I forgot to mention one thing: the unbelievable convenient timing in the movies. For instance, in the film of ROTK, the situation seems dire, when all of the sudden the good guys remember, "Oh yeah, there's some dead guys who owe the heir of Isildor a favor." The book makes circumstances more believable rather than just having the good things pop out of no where. But as I said before, there are points I prefer over the films and points I prefer from the books, and it's nice to have read both and have two different perspectives on the story.

I finally did start with The Hunger Games on Wednesday, and I'm almost done with it. Doubleofive pointed out that the dog-like "muttations" were worse in the book than the movie, and I now that I'm at that point, I can't help but agree, though I'm not sure if they are truly what they are immediately perceived to be, or if they are rather serving as a psychological weapon as well as a physical based on this strange description. For my own personal tastes, I'll infer that it is psychological only, as any other explanation is just too weird and distracts from an otherwise rather gripping story.