Review | 'BZRK'

BZRK 
Michael Grant
390 pg., U.S. hardcover
Egmont USA
4 stars | B



From Goodreads:

Love The Hunger Games?  Action-adventure thrillers with a dystopian twist? BZRK (Berserk) by Michael Grant, New York Times best-selling author of the GONE series, ramps up the action and suspense to a whole new level of excitement.
 
Set in the near future, BZRK is the story of a war for control of the human mind.  Charles and Benjamin Armstrong, conjoined twins and owners of the Armstrong Fancy Gifts Corporation, have a goal:  to turn the world into their vision of utopia.  No wars, no conflict, no hunger.  And no free will.  Opposing them is a guerrilla group of teens, code name BZRK, who are fighting to protect the right to be messed up, to be human.  This is no ordinary war, though.  Weapons are deployed on the nano-level. The battleground is the human brain.  And there are no stalemates here:  It’s victory . . . or madness.
 
BZRK unfolds with hurricane force around core themes of conspiracy and mystery, insanity and changing realities, engagement and empowerment, and the larger impact of personal choice. Which side would you choose?  How far would you go to win?


In March of 2011, Isaac Knopf (Footy Chronicles, The Distributor) and I interviewed Michael Grant, New York Times-bestselling author of the Gone series, and we asked him about one of this then-upcoming novels, BZRK to which he said he couldn't say much. A year later, the novel was released, and three months after that, I'm finally reading it. And, of course you know this, here's my review.
Kicking right off with the writing of the novel, the reason I didn't give this book five stars that it obviously deserves since Michael's worked so hard on it is because the writing was very much so different than the Gone series, which threw me off quite a bit. The first hundred-200 pages were very gripping and easy-to-follow if you were paying attention, but once I passed the 200-page mark, things started to become too fast-paced and complex, and those two things don't go hand-in-hand. I was getting pretty impatient and irritated with the pacing of the story, and it really--in my opinion--should have been slowed down just a notch, but what does my opinion matter? I also didn't really like the heavy usages of sexuality and profanity. Listen, I love the crap of Michael Grant and his books, but I think a sense of credibility and realism are taken away with this adult-related aspect to his books. Sure, in the fifth Gone book, Fear, *spoiler* multiple couples have sex and almost all characters cuss, but this novel wasn't afraid to make somewhat objective comments about the opposite sex, and drop an f-bomb. I mean it didn't really bug me personally, but I'm sure it will bug some readers, as well as starting to get redundant and overused.
The number one thing that this book has going is its plot. The story is about two different organisations (BZRK and the Armstrong family) and their respective goals and ways of going about said goals. The story revolves around Sadie and Noah, who are given pseudonyms in order to become apart of BZRK. The Armstrong family's objective is to create a utopia, but BZRK's goal is to avoid that route and live free lives, for the utopia that the Armstrongs want to build could be perceived as more of a dystopia. The plot had a very interesting arc, and while it wasn't entirely strong, it was very grabbing. The book kicks off with a jet crashing into a stadium, which sparks the attention of BZRK towards Sadie. We follow the plot through many characters, not unlike Grant's Gone books, and it does get quite hard to keep up with, so I definitely recommend reading the book slowly. I also recommend, obviously, reading with caution for profanity and sexual references and aspects. So overall with the plot, it isn't very moving or strong, but it is interesting and so eerily realistic, in a sense.
Topping off the review is, as usual, discussion on the novel's character development and arcs. I didn't really feel emotionally connected to any of the characters at all, but perhaps that's simply because this is because this book is the first in a series. I think a lot of the characters were very similar as far as voice, motivations, and development go. The thing with books with multiple perspectives is that it's very hard to have ample character development, and I think BZRK both proved that wrong and also sort of, sort of, sort of, succumbed to it. I think Sadie did change a bit, and I don't really know all that much about Noah changing, I'll have to go back through and reread his introductory scene(s). So...yeah. The characters in this book were neither lovable nor hate-worthy, so I think--on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being amazing)--the character development in BZRK falls in at a 6 or 7, which is still pretty good, especially considering the circumstances of the novel.
All in all, the book was better than I thought it would be, and I read it within a 24-hour period. It's a very complex, intricate, fascinating read that definitely appeals to fans of technological stories involving scientific developments and such. If you are a Gone fan, as I am (and a massive one at that), I do want to tell you not to go into this book expecting those books. I kind of made that mistake, and I regret it, and believe it altered my perception of the book. 


The sequel to BZRK, BZRK 2 (as it's currently titled--whether it'll change or not is unbeknownst to me), is set to be released February 26, 2013.

[UPDATED] Garrett Hedlund takes to Facebook to confirm that he will NOT be playing Finnick

Great news to many, bad news to some, Garrett Hedlund (Country Strong, Tron: Legacy, On the Road) has taken to his official Facebook page to debunk any and all rumours--and fan-castings--that he will be playing Finnick Odair in Catching Fire.

"Contrary to recent media reports I am not, and never have been in discussions to star in  The Hunger Games sequel, Catching Fire"

So what does this mean? Does it mean that *my personal pick* Armie Hammer could possibly be playing Finnick? Or were those top three (Armie, Garrett, and Taylor Kitsch) just a fluke? Both Hedlund and Kitsch have denied the part, so does it now go to Hammer?

Let's hope so.

UPDATE: I've been informed by multiple people on Twitter that this Facebook account is not really Garrett Hedlund. I hear this all the time, though, and sometimes it works vice versa--fans, and sometimes even celebrities, will think that a star had an official account, but it turned out to be a poser. Unless Hedlund's people confirm this isn't his account, take this report with a bit of wariness, and just know that it's now a rumor until confirmation of Garrett Hedlund's media outlets.

So what are your guys' opinions on this shocking announcement? A lot of fans wanted Garrett to portray the heartthrob. Let me know in the comments below!

Cover for Veronica Rossi's 'Through the Ever Night' revealed!

Today, Veronica Rossi revealed the cover for Through the Ever Night, the sequel to her debut novel, Under the Never Sky.



The book's cover features one protagonist, Peregrine, with a tagline similarly formatted to that of its predecessor. The book is expected to have 400 pages, and is slated for a released date of January 8, 2013.

Opinion: Cato's speech in 'The Hunger Games' is NOT a defining moment

Most people seem to think that Cato’s monologue at the end of the Hunger Games film was a redeeming moment of characterisation for Cato, and that it showed a lot of the ‘pain and torture’ the Careers went through growing up in a lifestyle where they are forced to volunteer for the Games.

I’m hear to prove them wrong.

A. If one were to grow up in a lifestyle where they are forced to volunteer for the Games, as Cato is, one would never have the intellectual capacity to begin to “consider themselves dead,” as Cato does at the end of the film. From birth, they’re trained to reach a level of brutality unprecedented in Panem’s history, all for the pleasing of the Capitol. The Career Districts are the Capitol’s little minks that it’s got wrapped around its neck. Cato’s mind has been drained of any purity and innocence and replaced with anger and hatred to be used in the Arena. He doesn’t have compassion, he doesn’t have sympathy, and he especially does not have the ability to acknowledge that he was ‘already dead.’ He cannot be already dead, because that would imply that some past incarnation of Cato had been killed, when Cato had never been anyone else prior to the murderous boar he was in the first book. Had he wanted to, he could have refused that lifestyle. Sure, the repercussions would have been extremely detrimental, but he most definitely could have run away or rebel. 

B. For all we know, this could have been a guilt-trick towards Katniss. Obviously Suzanne Collins had to approve of this for the film, being a screenwriter, but does that mean that she approved of it for the sake of making Cato turn into a good guy? No, not precisely. She could have chosen to keep the scene for the purposes of adding a layer of cunning intellect to Cato’s character, very similar to Foxface. Foxface died as a result of an internal choice, but Cato makes a lot of external choices, and I think that Collins wanted to make that contrast, but also etch in a bit of comparison between the two. You’ve got to have a hint of intelligence to be from the Career Districts, so maybe—just maybe—this scene is Cato’s way of displaying it. 

C. We don’t know enough of Cato to judge whether or not this is a “defining character moment for him!” It’s a major difference between, say, Hermione leaving Hogwarts in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and Cato’s film-only speech in The Hunger Games. For instance, by the time Hermione makes the decision to drop out of school, we have known her for six full books—not to mention six LONG books. Hermione’s defining characteristic is that she’s bookish; she needs logic to make decisions. Cato makes impulsive, comfortable decisions that he is familiar with from growing up. It’s more of a ‘defining’ moment for Hermione because we know of her life before the books, her life during the books, and we even know her life after the books—working for the Ministry, etc. We only really know Cato for a bout 200 pages by the time his death comes around, and he isn’t even in a large majority of the pages. This translates oddly to film, because Lionsgate plays Cato up as the main antagonist of the film, even though the book-readers know that the Capitol is the main enemy. It’s very hard to discern ‘shining scenes’ for Cato, because we really know barely anything about him. Come on, we don’t even know the guy’s last name, which is made obvious in the film when Caesar Flickerman’s reading the Tributes’ names, goes through the first 22 without a last name, and then reads the last names of only two tributes—Peeta Mellark and Katniss Everdeen. Silly Caesar.

So I know a lot of the fangirls love to swoon over Alexander Ludwig’s tears at the end of Gary Ross’s masterpiece, but I, on the other hand, do not. The scene means nothing to me, I felt nothing for Cato, and I hope this piece provided some insight on my opinion.

Casting 'Catching': Two actors in talks to play Brutus

Shockya is reporting that they were directly emailed inforation that Victor Gojcaj (The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3) is "in negotiations" to portray Brutus, the self-explaining Tribute in the Third Quarter Quell in Catching Fire. Shockya also says that he is up against Kevin Durand (Lost, Robin Hood, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, I Am Number Four, Real Steel). Personally, my pick is Durand. He looks the part for me, and he seems to be more seasoned in action films. I've seen him in Real Steel, Lost, and I Am Number Four, all of which are very action-packed.

So casting seems to be picking up for Catching Fire; we recently reported that Jena Malone is in talks for the role of Johanna Mason, Philip Seymour Hoffman is reportedly sought after for the role of Plutarch Heavensbee, and even Lil' Romeo is 'conversing' with Lionsgate about a role. No word on any casting advancements for Finnick, or any other Tributes for that matter, but you can bet we'll report on them if they come around.

'Doctor Who' series 7 opener title announced!

Doctor Who TV is reporting that the seventh series of Doctor Who will open with ASYLUM OF THE DALEKS, which seems to be the episode in which The Doctor, Amy, and Rory are in an arctic-type location.

The title is confirmed by the British Film Institute, who will be screening the episode on August 14.

Yet to be confirmed, the new series is set to debut in late August.

[UPDATED]Zoe Aggeliki and Mia Wasikowska being considered to play Johanna Mason in 'Catching Fire'

Interesting news! The Playlist is reporting that Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland, The Kids Are Alright, Jane Eyre) and Zoe Aggeliki (Silena Beauregard in Sea of Monsters) are being considered to play Johanna Mason, Katniss's sort-of-rival, in the film adaptation of Catching Fire. Both casting choices have gone unnoticed by fans, and we really like them! The problem with Zoe being cast, though, is that she's already starring in another big franchise (Percy Jackson), so filming for Catching Fire may conflict with Sea of Monsters, and maybe even a clash between Mockingjay and Titan's Curse.

UPDATE: Mia Wasikowska has denied all rumors that she'd be playing Johanna Mason (sadly), saying that she had made prior commitments to other projects, and that she would be breaching those commitments by working on Catching Fire. Entertainment Weekly is reporting that Jena Malone (Sucker Punch, Pride and Prejudice) is in the running now.

What are your guys' thoughts?