The Hunger Games

Warning: Here be spoilers. Not major ones, but spoilers nonetheless.

I had an interesting discussion with a friend about the "appropriateness" of The Hunger Games for its intended audience-- teens. She railed against the violence, the suffering, the idea that adolescents should read about kids killing other kids. "If they're going to read stuff like this, I'd rather they read stories about the Holocaust," she said. "At least they're learning history. At least that's real."

I didn't really understand this point, and told her so. Kids reading The Hunger Games know it's fantasy, that it never happened, and most likely never will happen. The Holocaust, on the other hand, is a lesson on how evil people really can be. Facts are definitely scarier than fiction here.

I don't like talking about something I haven't read, so of course, after this conversation I had to read the book in order to see what I had been theoretically defending. The Hunger Games, it turns out, isn't about kids killing kids. That's what happens, but that's not what it's about. It's about keeping your humanity in the face of this horror, as expressed by Peeta, "I don't want them to change me in there. Turn me into some kind of monster that I'm not," a sentiment he is able to uphold throughout the ordeal. We see it when Katniss forms an alliance with Rue, when she covers Rue's body in flowers, when she takes the approach to hide from the others rather than hunt them.

In fact, the book is full of examples of human kindness and loyalty: Gale and Katniss providing for their families at great risk to themselves, with Gale continuing to care for the Everdeens in Katniss's absence; Peeta feeding a starving Katniss and saving her life; Thresh sparing Katniss in gratitude for her care of Rue; and of course, Katniss's ultimate act of courage and sacrifice, by volunteering to take Prim's place at the Reaping. Even the fact that Haymitch is driven to alcoholism by his victory in the 50th Hunger Games shows that brutality destroys humanity, and that there is no "victory," not even for the victor, in the Hunger Games. That's what I, as an adult reader, took away from The Hunger Games.

The question remains, though: Why do kids read these books? At the ages of 12-16, kids aren't often known for their ability to discern theme and symbolism from a novel. These are skills they are just learning in high school English. Why would they want to read a story about a post-apocalyptic world where horrors are unleashed against children their own age? Why doesn't it give them nightmares?

While The Hunger Games takes the idea further, I think kids read it for the same reason younger children read The Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew. They are attracted to stories where teens can take care of themselves, where they can even do better than the adults around them. It gives them a sense of power in a world where, in reality, adults have the control. I sure as a heck wouldn't let my kids run around solving mysteries like the Drews and the Hardys do, and in the real world, Nancy, Joe and Frank would likely get killed. But it's not surprising that kids like to read about other kids who can take care of themselves and succeed where adults fail.

Another attraction in The Hunger Games is the interpersonal angle. Go past the family relationships, past Katniss's resourcefulness and courage, and it becomes a love story. What teenage girl wouldn't want boys like Peeta and Gale in love with them? What are her feelings for each of them? Who should she end up with? (Obviously I've only read the first book-- Catching Fire and Mockingjay have long waiting lists at the library.) Even the secondary characters show caring, affection, and kindness. Madge gives Katniss the mockingjay pin. Mr. Mellark brings Katniss cookies before she leaves for the Capitol. Cinna gives Katniss both hope and courage. Even Haymitch does his part, giving his tributes a fighting chance by making them worthy of sponsors. 


Yes, it is a violent book. Twenty-two children die, forced into combat by a government determined to show its citizens that their lives, literally, are in the government’s hands. Life in the districts is a struggle for survival. But the over-arching theme of The Hunger Games is humanity in the face of brutality. A little girl saving an older girl she hardly knows; the older girl trying to return the favour, and grief-struck by her failure. A woman mourning the loss of a husband. The love of a pet. The love of two sisters. Love, in spite of all attempts to repress it, in spite of all attempts to hold oneself back because the pain of loss will be too great. Love, self-sacrifice, and bravery lie at the heart of The Hunger Games.  And these are values kids can never read about enough.

Twilight Revisited

Way back in 2009, I wrote a little review of the Twilight series, sparked by hearing that Stephen King had trashed Stephenie Meyer personally. Lo and behold, today the issue raised its head on Facebook, the place where controversies are immortal.

One of my friends posted a picture of Mr. King, with the following quotation: "Harry Potter is all about confronting fears, finding inner strength, and doing what is right in the face of adversity. Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend." My friend's comment was, "Well said, Mr. King!"

The comment has validity; Twilight can definitely be classified as a "modern gothic romance," and certainly romance, almost universally told from the woman's point of view (see Part II of Breaking Dawn for an exception to that rule), is about relationships. I would say I am in 80% agreement with Mr. King's opinion. However, I didn't enter into the Facebook fray to argue the 20% I disagreed with, but to argue the merits of making such a comment in the first place (note that all Facebook comments have been edited for relevance, grammar, spelling, and punctuation, but not sentence structure):

It's not that I disagree with Mr. King, ultimately... but I wish he wouldn't say it anyway, because he gets his back up when people trash his genre, so why is he trashing the romance genre? If you don't like it, don't read it. Praise Rowling and keep your mouth shut about Meyer. If you don't have anything nice to say... Okay, I think I made my point.

Well, I thought I did... but a friend of my friend quickly responded:

He's not trashing the romance genre. He's trashing one specific author. For good reason too. She's a horrid writer.

To which the original poster added:

I've read the Twilight books, to see what the fuss was about, and the writing style did leave much to be desired. And I found Bella to be a whiny girl who placed way too much importance on liking, getting and being with Edward. Then there's the whole messing up of vampire lore that pissed me off lol.

(At least she's laughing about it.)

I guess it's the nature of Facebook; I had to respond:

Whether the books are good or bad is completely beside the point. I think it's undignified behaviour. In his book On Writing, Mr. King expends some effort to defend his own books from those who trash them as "just horror novels" with no redeeming value. He should give other writers the same courtesy by keeping his mouth shut. He's not a literary critic and no one asked for his opinion. I used to have tremendous respect for the man, but his attacks on Meyer, simply because he doesn't like her books, is obnoxious. Does he trash every bad book out there? No. He took a shot because she had the chutzpah to be successful with something HE deems to be unworthy.

Response:

All he's doing is commenting on his thoughts of one book vs. another. I think you're taking it a step too far. He's not calling for a book ban here. 

Counter-response:

If he limited his remarks to the books, I wouldn't mind so much. I don't disagree with this comment. But he also called Meyer a "terrible writer," which might be his opinion and he is entitled to it... but what purpose does the comment serve other than drawing attention to himself? When you insult a writer (or singer, or painter), you insult every fan they have, too. Really, it's just not classy behaviour.

And that, for me is the crux of it. Book reviewing is non-fiction genre of its own, and King is a novel-writer, not a literary critic. As a fellow novelist, he should leave her alone. It seems to me that he resents Meyer's success. Obviously it's not jealousy, or he'd trash Rowling worse. He seems to be expressing the opinion, "If I don't like it, no one should."

And this, of course, is pure arrogance. I have had many, many people (some related by blood) tell me how "bad" the Harry Potter series is. This never fails to annoy me. People don't have to like it. To my consternation, I find that most of friends find Shakespeare boring too. But by refusing to try to understand why others like it, one sets oneself up as a literary snob. The message I unfailing receive about "liking" Harry Potter is, "How can anyone like such junk?"

Well, millions do. As millions love Meyer's works. Is it evil? Immoral? Wrong? No. Even assuming that the books are, objectively, "bad," bad taste is not evil or immoral or wrong. We don't judge character based on personal taste. 

While I did write, "No one asked his opinion," about King's reaction to Meyer, of course that's not true. If you want to know what King thinks of Meyer, you can read the full, unedited, and slightly-less-unflattering version here. The real kicker is, the quotation above isn't even Stephen King; it's someone named Robin Browne, quoted by Andrew Futral. Snopes it if you don't believe me. And of course I have my opinion too; the link is above. However, lecturing the public on what makes worthy reading is best done during English class, where such opinions have academic merit. Otherwise, I'm happy to stick to safer subjects.  What do you think of the weather we're having, eh?