Just as Suzanne Collins did with reality TV and The Hunger Games - I love to take something current and noodle it into a story about the future. It's not hard to see how many times science fiction writers have been spot-on about what the future will bring. (see my older post about Isaac Asimov and a future World's Fair.)
However, when a news story comes along that highlights something the government is condoning that is right out of George Orwell's 1984 - I get scared, very scared.
How do you feel about the police being able to secretly track your every move without your knowledge or consent? http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html
And - since I can't be everywhere, reading every interesting story that comes along - what are the signs that your worst fears about the future are coming true?
All About Evil
There are a lot of bad guys in dystopian lit and sci fi.
There are some truly notable bad guys out there, but let's focus on one of the most iconic:
Darth Vader.
Now, in the Star Wars series (we're talking original here, I'm not on speaking terms with things associated with Jar-Jar), there were two main baddies. Darth, and the Emperor.
But when you think about the series, you don't think about the Emperor as much--or at least, I don't. You think about the heroes--Luke, Leia, Han (*sigh*Han)--and then you think about Darth.
Of the two, the Emperor is the more evil. But Darth is the more memorable.
Why?
Because Darth Vader has a mask...and he takes it off.
I don't just mean that he has a plastic helmet and he takes it off--although, obviously, he does.
What I really mean is that there's more to him--over the course of the original trilogy, you find out not only who he really is, but also why.
The Emperor has no mask. He shoots lightning from his fingers and that's that. But when Darth slashes Obi Wan Kenobi with his red light saber, you eventually find out why, and what it must have meant to him, too.
When you look in the Emperor's eyes, he's soulless. He's just, pure and simple, evil.
But when Darth takes off his mask and looks at Luke--there's something more there. History, background, motive, desire. Love. Hate.
I thought about this as I read MOCKINGJAY (omg, you guys, that last chapter!!!). No spoilers, here, but if you've read the first two books, you know that President Snow is a bit of an Emperor. And, honestly, I felt that he was a bit of a weaker character for it.
To me, the much better villain is the one you can understand. The one you can almost sympathize with. The one that if, given different situations in your own life, you think you might have become.
Although, please, don't cut your son's hand off with a lightsaber. That's taking it just a tad too far...
There are some truly notable bad guys out there, but let's focus on one of the most iconic:
Darth Vader.
Now, in the Star Wars series (we're talking original here, I'm not on speaking terms with things associated with Jar-Jar), there were two main baddies. Darth, and the Emperor.
But when you think about the series, you don't think about the Emperor as much--or at least, I don't. You think about the heroes--Luke, Leia, Han (*sigh*Han)--and then you think about Darth.
Of the two, the Emperor is the more evil. But Darth is the more memorable.
Why?
Because Darth Vader has a mask...and he takes it off.
I don't just mean that he has a plastic helmet and he takes it off--although, obviously, he does.
What I really mean is that there's more to him--over the course of the original trilogy, you find out not only who he really is, but also why.
The Emperor has no mask. He shoots lightning from his fingers and that's that. But when Darth slashes Obi Wan Kenobi with his red light saber, you eventually find out why, and what it must have meant to him, too.
When you look in the Emperor's eyes, he's soulless. He's just, pure and simple, evil.
But when Darth takes off his mask and looks at Luke--there's something more there. History, background, motive, desire. Love. Hate.
I thought about this as I read MOCKINGJAY (omg, you guys, that last chapter!!!). No spoilers, here, but if you've read the first two books, you know that President Snow is a bit of an Emperor. And, honestly, I felt that he was a bit of a weaker character for it.
To me, the much better villain is the one you can understand. The one you can almost sympathize with. The one that if, given different situations in your own life, you think you might have become.
Although, please, don't cut your son's hand off with a lightsaber. That's taking it just a tad too far...
Why Is The Hunger Games So Popular?
Okay, so we could discuss lots of things that makes The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, and now Mockingjay so popular. The inventive plot. The quick pacing. The fact that it strikes a fear in our hearts, makes us realize what our world could become.
For me, it's the characters. Let's examine.
Katniss Everdeen: She's brave, even when she doesn't want to be. Everything she does, she's not sure about. (Who doesn't feel like that?) When she thinks she's screwed up, or when she's just doing what's natural, it comes across as being heroic, beautiful. (Who doesn't want their normal, everyday actions to influence people's lives?) She's loyal and caring, but at the same time she's got her opinions and she's not afraid to let anyone know.
She's brilliant.
Peeta Mellark: He's quiet, reserved, and undoubtedly in love with Katniss. His motives are purely to make sure she stays safe--or as safe as possible. (Who doesn't want someone like that in their life?) He's talented with paint and flour, sensitive, yet ferocious. (Who doesn't want a man who can cook as well as offer protection?)
He's adorable.
Gale Hawthorne: He's the childhood friend, the strong silent one through the first two books. (Don't worry, no spoilers here.) He's Katniss's equal in strength, in cunning, in temperament. (Who doesn't want someone who completes them in every way?) Even though he's not around much during the Games, he worms his way into the arena, into the reader's hearts.
He's swoonworthy. (Yeah, okay, I'm on Team Gale.)
President Snow: He's evil personified. The way he threatens Katniss in those subtle ways, the way he takes the individual pieces of her life and crunches them before her eyes. *shudder*
He's the perfect antagonist.
I could go on and on about Cinna and Haymitch and Rue and about a dozen others. I won't. Instead, I turn it over to you. Who do you love in The Hunger Games or Catching Fire? Why do you love them so much?
Also, if you think there's another reason for The Hunger Games coolness factor, spill spill! I'd love to discuss what makes this book (series) so successful.
For me, it's the characters. Let's examine.
Katniss Everdeen: She's brave, even when she doesn't want to be. Everything she does, she's not sure about. (Who doesn't feel like that?) When she thinks she's screwed up, or when she's just doing what's natural, it comes across as being heroic, beautiful. (Who doesn't want their normal, everyday actions to influence people's lives?) She's loyal and caring, but at the same time she's got her opinions and she's not afraid to let anyone know.
She's brilliant.
Peeta Mellark: He's quiet, reserved, and undoubtedly in love with Katniss. His motives are purely to make sure she stays safe--or as safe as possible. (Who doesn't want someone like that in their life?) He's talented with paint and flour, sensitive, yet ferocious. (Who doesn't want a man who can cook as well as offer protection?)
He's adorable.
Gale Hawthorne: He's the childhood friend, the strong silent one through the first two books. (Don't worry, no spoilers here.) He's Katniss's equal in strength, in cunning, in temperament. (Who doesn't want someone who completes them in every way?) Even though he's not around much during the Games, he worms his way into the arena, into the reader's hearts.
He's swoonworthy. (Yeah, okay, I'm on Team Gale.)
President Snow: He's evil personified. The way he threatens Katniss in those subtle ways, the way he takes the individual pieces of her life and crunches them before her eyes. *shudder*
He's the perfect antagonist.
I could go on and on about Cinna and Haymitch and Rue and about a dozen others. I won't. Instead, I turn it over to you. Who do you love in The Hunger Games or Catching Fire? Why do you love them so much?
Also, if you think there's another reason for The Hunger Games coolness factor, spill spill! I'd love to discuss what makes this book (series) so successful.
Are the Games Believable?
Recently, author Nancy Kress—of whom I’m a big fan, btw—blogged that THE HUNGER GAMES trilogy disturbed her. She praised many things about the books: good writing, excitement, and an appealing heroine. And, the violence didn't particularly disturb her. What got Kress was the "psychological implausibility" of the premise:
Does she have a point? Wouldn’t parents do everything to protect their kids? We’d certainly like to think we’d go all “Mama Grizzly” when anyone came after our cubs.
So, why didn’t the parents become enraged she-bears in THE HUNGER GAMES?
Let's start with the back story. The Capital has thrust the games on the populace as a measure of control. The games are supposed to demoralize the people, who are already living at subsistence levels (at least in most of the districts). And, an earlier uprising resulted in the obliteration of District 13. So, under the fear of reprisals—which may also include becoming voiceless slaves in the Capital—parents grudgingly stand by while their child is selected for the Games. Certainly, some parents must fight back or hide their children, but hungry and scared people will do things we well-fed citizens of democracy may shudder at—just to keep the rest of their family alive.
What about our world? Kress writes that “not even Rome had child gladiators.” Maybe not. But here and now, thousands upon thousands of children are trafficked for:
So, I'm willing to suspend disbelief and buy the premise of the Games. And so are many, many other adult readers.
However, does it really matter if THE HUNGER GAMES trilogy is psychologically believable from our perspective? Is the experience of the Games really about what might happen in the future? Or is the story more about being a teenager now? Maybe the story resonates—and is thus psychologically believable—because it’s about the feeling trapped in a system outside your own control (like school) and being forced to compete with your peers.
What do you all think? Is the premise of Suzanne Collins’ fantastic trilogy plausible—psychologically or otherwise? Do the Games need to be believable for both adults and teens? Discuss.
We're expected to believe that torturing their children keeps parents passive, rather than as enraged as a she-bear with cubs.
I don't believe it. Parents would not passively send twelve-year-olds, year after year, to torture. An entire population would not watch these televised Games without a resistance movement arising sooner than 75 years.
Does she have a point? Wouldn’t parents do everything to protect their kids? We’d certainly like to think we’d go all “Mama Grizzly” when anyone came after our cubs.So, why didn’t the parents become enraged she-bears in THE HUNGER GAMES?
Let's start with the back story. The Capital has thrust the games on the populace as a measure of control. The games are supposed to demoralize the people, who are already living at subsistence levels (at least in most of the districts). And, an earlier uprising resulted in the obliteration of District 13. So, under the fear of reprisals—which may also include becoming voiceless slaves in the Capital—parents grudgingly stand by while their child is selected for the Games. Certainly, some parents must fight back or hide their children, but hungry and scared people will do things we well-fed citizens of democracy may shudder at—just to keep the rest of their family alive.
What about our world? Kress writes that “not even Rome had child gladiators.” Maybe not. But here and now, thousands upon thousands of children are trafficked for:
- Soldiers
- Sex slaves
- Labor (e.g., diamond mines)
- Sports (e.g., camel jockeys)
So, I'm willing to suspend disbelief and buy the premise of the Games. And so are many, many other adult readers.
However, does it really matter if THE HUNGER GAMES trilogy is psychologically believable from our perspective? Is the experience of the Games really about what might happen in the future? Or is the story more about being a teenager now? Maybe the story resonates—and is thus psychologically believable—because it’s about the feeling trapped in a system outside your own control (like school) and being forced to compete with your peers.
What do you all think? Is the premise of Suzanne Collins’ fantastic trilogy plausible—psychologically or otherwise? Do the Games need to be believable for both adults and teens? Discuss.
Are We Getting Close to The Hunger Games?
No, seriously--Jersey Shore, The Real Housewives of NJ, Keeping up with the Kardashians, the one where that vile woman hooks millionaires up with bimbos--they make me crazy. I know, I know, I shouldn't take them so seriously but they key off this knee jerk anger in me.
Why?
Well for one, see above. That's a picture of the aftermath when Jersey Shore Cast member Nicole Polizzi (Snooki) was punched in the face by some agro meathead at a bar while filming the show. Reality TV is a form that revels in this kind of ugliness. When the inevitable violence breaks out there's some pro forma handwringing (generally done over a video loop of said violence) and then it's back to business. I've never considered myself to be of delicate sensibilities, but I just can't take it.
The other reason is the manipulation involved. It's not exactly breaking news that reality TV isn't real. That reality TV is a misnomer isn't what bothers me though, what bothers me is how the form takes real three dimensional human beings gives them nicknames and reduces them to a stock series of (usually ugly) personality traits and contrived story arcs. Not only does this dehumanize the participants but it asks us to look at other people as objects that exist for our amusement.
Young girl punched in the face at a bar? That's not Nicole Polizzi, 22 year old from New York. That's just Snooki. That's entertainment. Doesn't that dehumanize us too?
As Beth discussed yesterday, one of Suzanne Collins' inspirations for The Hunger Games was classical myths. Well the other one was, you guessed it, reality TV. Collins said she was watching TV late one night, flipping past a barrage of reality TV shows that got mixed in with news of the Iraq war and Katniss and The Hunger Games was born from that combination.
I think one way to look at the series is as a very biting comment on this kind of "reality" spectacle. Sure, maybe we don't watch young people kill each other, but we do watch humiliation and violence (again, see above) and horrendous misogyny. Sometimes we pause for a moment of uplift, but then it's right back in the gutter.
Maybe what we see in the Hunger Games is an escalation of all the programs that show us hordes of the most abhorrent people imaginable--the vain, the intolerant, the deluded, the rageaholics--trapped in shore houses and McMansions clawing at each other on their way to....what?
A little bit of money? Fame? The validation that comes from being seen?
I mean, geez, at least Katniss was fighting for her life!
In what way do you guys see Collins using Katniss and the struggles of her fellow tributes to comment on reality TV? How does the fact that all these people are on a reality TV show effect the plot of the story? Also what does this sort of reality game say about the government that sponsors it and the people who watch it?
(PS: Ok maybe not all reality TV is awful. I have to admit that I'm a big Project Runway and Top Chef fan. At least nobody is getting punched out on those.)
HUNGER GAMES Roots: Greece and Rome
Watch out. I'm about to get my nerd on.
But in the case of reading HUNGER GAMES, my extreme nerdiness actually came in handy. See, Suzanne Collins clearly comes from the school of nerdy writing--there are tons of great historical allusions in HUNGER GAMES that gives the story a little something extra for fellow nerds.
I think the greatest influence comes from Ancient Greece and Rome. Some are obvious, some aren't. Below, you'll find some of my favorite references and influences of history in HUNGER GAMES.
Theseus & Tributes
The story of Theseus is most often associated with his epic battle with the Minotaur, the half-man, half-bull monster at the center of the Labyrinth. But before he did that, he had to deal with a tribute system that will remind HUNGER GAMES readers of how Katniss and Peeta became tributes.
King Aegeus was ordered to send seven of the most courageous young men and seven of the most beautiful young women of Athens to Crete as a tribute to King Minos every seventh year (there are various accounts of this; some use the number nine instead of seven). Crete had defeated Athens in battle; the tributes were to be a lasting reminder of Crete's power and success.
Sound familiar? It should: Suzanne Collins definitely had this story in mind when she wrote. She said in an interview with School Library Journal:
But of course, the story's not just about the selection of youths sent to die--it's also about the fight. There's definitely a gladiator feel to the setting: any situation where people are pitted against each other is reminiscent of the arena. (Interesting side note: the etymology of the word "arena" is "sandy place" because originally arenas were covered with sand on the ground in order to better soak up all the spilled blood. I warned you I was getting my nerd on with this post.)
But Suzanne Collins wasn't just thinking about gladiators in general when she wrote HUNGER GAMES. Nope. She had one specific one in mind: Spartacus.
Those of you who don't know the story (or only know the movie version), here's a quick summary: Spartacus's early life is a bit obscure, but he was probably a soldier in the Roman army who committed some crime, possibly desertion. As punishment, he was forced to be a gladiator. He didn't take too kindly to this. He was part of a rebellion at the training center (using, in part, knives from the kitchen!), and led the rebel group to camp out near Vesuvius (famous for Pompeii). Many battles followed, until he eventually died (also in battle).
You can see the similarities: a person originally law-abiding becomes a "tribute" (if you will) as punishment, is forced to battle as a gladiator, and eventually leads a rebel group to fight against the kingdom.
The problem?
Spartacus dies.
If Spartacus is Katniss, and Spartacus dies.... *shudders at the thought*
Some people speculate that this comparison--which Collins acknowledges--is actually a hint that we should be preparing for Katniss's ultimate death:
Rome & The Capital
The Roman Empire grew and changed throughout history, but there was certainly a time when decadence was key. The word "orgy" has it's roots in the Roman Empire--that should give you a hint about the wild times they had. Rumors--some historically proven, some not--abound, including that the Romans developed a taste for food such as hummingbird tongues and the Romans would eat so much at feasts they developed a knack for vomiting afterwards to make room for more. Games--including gladiator games--became hugely popular.
The fall of the Roman Empire happened in part because of this decadence--rulers weren't focused doing their job half so much as partying. But there was also a series of rulers who were either cruel or inept or both--some of which were probably psychotic (Caligula, Nero, etc.).
Suzanne Collins mirrors the decadent Roman Empire in the Capital--partly in the parties (remember the feasts where Peeta and Katniss are disgusted by the idea of vomiting in order to eat more?) and partly in the attitude of the people (how many times was it commented that the Capital people didn't think of the Games as anything more than entertainment?). But I think it might also be true of President Snow...he has a distinctly Nero feel about him, no? If he plays a fiddle while the Capital burns, don't forget I told you first!
But in the case of reading HUNGER GAMES, my extreme nerdiness actually came in handy. See, Suzanne Collins clearly comes from the school of nerdy writing--there are tons of great historical allusions in HUNGER GAMES that gives the story a little something extra for fellow nerds.
I think the greatest influence comes from Ancient Greece and Rome. Some are obvious, some aren't. Below, you'll find some of my favorite references and influences of history in HUNGER GAMES.
Theseus & Tributes
The story of Theseus is most often associated with his epic battle with the Minotaur, the half-man, half-bull monster at the center of the Labyrinth. But before he did that, he had to deal with a tribute system that will remind HUNGER GAMES readers of how Katniss and Peeta became tributes.
King Aegeus was ordered to send seven of the most courageous young men and seven of the most beautiful young women of Athens to Crete as a tribute to King Minos every seventh year (there are various accounts of this; some use the number nine instead of seven). Crete had defeated Athens in battle; the tributes were to be a lasting reminder of Crete's power and success.
Sound familiar? It should: Suzanne Collins definitely had this story in mind when she wrote. She said in an interview with School Library Journal:
Theseus and the Minotaur is the classical setup for where The Hunger Games begins, you know, with the tale of Minos in Crete….Spartacus & Gladiators
But Suzanne Collins wasn't just thinking about gladiators in general when she wrote HUNGER GAMES. Nope. She had one specific one in mind: Spartacus.
Those of you who don't know the story (or only know the movie version), here's a quick summary: Spartacus's early life is a bit obscure, but he was probably a soldier in the Roman army who committed some crime, possibly desertion. As punishment, he was forced to be a gladiator. He didn't take too kindly to this. He was part of a rebellion at the training center (using, in part, knives from the kitchen!), and led the rebel group to camp out near Vesuvius (famous for Pompeii). Many battles followed, until he eventually died (also in battle).
You can see the similarities: a person originally law-abiding becomes a "tribute" (if you will) as punishment, is forced to battle as a gladiator, and eventually leads a rebel group to fight against the kingdom.
The problem?
Spartacus dies.
If Spartacus is Katniss, and Spartacus dies.... *shudders at the thought*
Some people speculate that this comparison--which Collins acknowledges--is actually a hint that we should be preparing for Katniss's ultimate death:
But once the “Hunger Games” story takes off, I actually would say that the historical figure of Spartacus really becomes more of a model for the arc of the three books, for Katniss. We don’t know a lot of details about his life, but there was this guy named Spartacus who was a gladiator who broke out of the arena and led a rebellion against an oppressive government that led to what is called the Third Servile War. He caused the Romans quite a bit of trouble. And, ultimately, he died.
Rome & The Capital
The fall of the Roman Empire happened in part because of this decadence--rulers weren't focused doing their job half so much as partying. But there was also a series of rulers who were either cruel or inept or both--some of which were probably psychotic (Caligula, Nero, etc.).
Suzanne Collins mirrors the decadent Roman Empire in the Capital--partly in the parties (remember the feasts where Peeta and Katniss are disgusted by the idea of vomiting in order to eat more?) and partly in the attitude of the people (how many times was it commented that the Capital people didn't think of the Games as anything more than entertainment?). But I think it might also be true of President Snow...he has a distinctly Nero feel about him, no? If he plays a fiddle while the Capital burns, don't forget I told you first!
MOCKINGJAY Week Kick-Off: What Do YOU Think?
We thought we'd start this week with some discussion--fitting, since this book is arguably the MOST discussed book there is! Now, we know some people have gotten their pre-orders early and others are slower readers, so, the blanket rule for this entire week is simple:
NO SPOILERS.
In the discussions, we will (obviously) talk about HUNGER GAMES and CATCHING FIRE: but NO ONE should talk about the plot of MOCKINGJAY beyond speculation--if you've read it, don't spoil it. This goes for all week long.
OK, now that that's out of the way, let's get rolling!
There is one obvious question that I think everyone wants to know from MOCKINGJAY: Who will Katniss end up with??? There's valid arguments for both sides: Peeta seems to truly love Katniss and has proven it twice in the arena...but Gale represents Katniss's free choice outside the control of the Capital. Which will she end up with?
Who should Katniss be with?
The next HOTLY debated topic has been who will die. This is HUNGER GAMES we're talking about...someone's going to die. Which do you think won't make it to the end of MOCKINGJAY?
Who will die in MOCKINGJAY?
And finally...as a proud supporter of TEAM CINNA!!! I can't let a poll go by without asking whta you think happened to him at the end of CATCHING FIRE.
What Happened to Cinna in CATCHING FIRE?
GO FORTH! Vote and discuss here in the comments! What do YOU think is going to happen?!?!? The only thing I know for sure...I CAN'T WAIT TO READ MOCKINGJAY!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
