Author: Suzanne Collins
Title: Nathan, the Wise (Nathan, der Weise)
Author: Gotthold Ephraim von Lessing
I got a sunburn because of this book, but this is better left unexplained. This is the final book of the Hunger Games Trilogy and, in my opinion, the worst. It had so much potential! Not that it isn't good; quite the opposite, actually. It is very much attention-grabing and well written and the plot is at its best and everything settles, so the climax is almost the entire book and it starts off with action and it keeps on going quite well, until it stops. And there's the problem. Instead of just using another hundred pages to actually finish the book and end the conflict, Collins left an open ending. Of course, there's the epilogue, but it doesn't settle anything. We find nothing out of the end; we don't know if the rebellion really worked, we don't know how Katniss really coped, we only know she has a family and there. It ended in a half-assed way, to be quite honest. It was all going so well, then she had to come up with an excuse and exclude the main character from the most interesting part (for me at least), the reconstruction, she left alone. That is not right at all and it left me so disappointed I went looking for Fanfictions to fill the gap, which has left me even worse. Oh well, in the end it was all worth it, sincerely. The Trilogy is really well written, the themes are awesome, the discussion it brings are really interesting and it is all believable and so well written, even though it is in first person and present tense, that I am complaining with my mouth full. She just had to end it all haphazardly, unfortunately. Not all good things end good, unfortunately.
Nathan, the Wise is a book I had to read because of school. There is no way in hell I would read a play in five acts based on the Aristotelian ideal of drama that is about religious beliefs and tolerance and was written during the Epoche called "Aufklärung" or Enlightenment. It's just not my type of book. It has almost zero plot progression (what we call plot anyways) and it is all about this guy, Nathan, a jew that is supposedly enlightened with the rationality and the ability to interpret what's written in the Holy Books. He goes around spreading the word that everything is the same, every religion is right and has the same God and they're all worthy of living and nobody should kill each other, even drawing up a motif from Decameron (the Ring Parabel) and in the end everybody's happy and all the Gods are one. In spite of this really ironic telling of the idea, I actually liked the play. It is really hard to read and I had to stop more than once and go back to understand what was meant, and the metric really is a son of a bitch, but it was quite interesting. The setting (Jerusalem after the Third Crusade) is a nice one and the characters are well portrayed and it is well written and convincing in regards to tolerance and that's what makes it interesting. Also, the ideas of romance and belonging and the place of the woman and the money, also the bourgeoise and its blooming ideals, are really inside the play and it is what makes it an interesting read. I'd only recommend reading it for the setting, actually, because it isn't really brilliant, although it is brilliantly written. For those wanting to study the metric and the intricacies of the language, it is also quite an interesting read. Otherwise, steer clear from it.