The Hunger Games (Book Trilogy)
Apr. 22nd, 2012 10:32 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakI had only meant to read the first one, but then decided I would never manage to remain unspoiled for the next two years anyway, so read the other two was well. All in all, my kind of dystopia, meaning it's full of interesting, moving characters and instead of going for futuristic Nazi analogues again - *eyes 90% of dystopias in AngloAmerican sci fi* - , Collins uses a mixture of Romans and current day Western media as key real life models. Also, the relationship between the political and the personal is how I like it, and the third volume avoids a trap one of my favourite tv sci fi operas alas could not avoid.
First of all, about the first volume in relations to the film: I can see why they made the choices they did and for the most part, the film benefited from them. Opening up the story beyond Katniss' pov allows for more world building (i.e. for example we see Haymitch working the sponsors, and that little scene where he observes a little boy "playing" games is so telling about the Capitol culture, yet could not have happened within Katniss' pov), not to mention that it allows Snow who is after all the main antagonist of the saga to be introduced in a way more effective than only showing up on a view screen. Most importantly, imo, showing District 11 responding to Rue's death with a riot instead of the book's bread donation scene lays the foundation for the general revolution to come which is important for the later part of the story. I did find it interesting that leaving Katniss' pov in the film allows for more, not less ambiguity re: Peeta's original motives. Conversely, the book is clearer than the film is that at the end, Katniss is still highly ambiguous about whether or not she felt anything real.
On to Catching Fire: I had an inkling we'd see another arena scenario but wondered how/whether Collins would manage to justify this without it smacking of sequelitis and repetition. In the end, I think she did manage to avoid this in two ways: most importantly by how Catching Fire ends (the revolution has started, the surviving tributes are broken out of the arena, making it clear there would be no third time), but also via the narrative device of Snow using only victors this time. Which means we get more world building, backstory, get introduced to characters who in a show, not tell question show something that could not have been shown otherwise since the system is about to go down (i.e. how do the Victors other than Haymitch live with themselves afterwards? How does/did the system continue to use them?). Finnick and Johanna are the two most interesting of the older Victors and the ones given most narrative space, but I appreciate we also get someone like Mags, who has managed to live into old age with her sanity intact, and on the other end of the scale the "morphlings" who make Haymitch's alcoholism feel like a restrained addiction.
Speaking of Haymitch, he's a self destructive, cynical yet caring despite himself middle aged person not above manipulating the hell out of the younger characters for the greater good, so of course I loved him. :)
Given that the first film opted to leave Katniss' pov intermittendly, I wonder whether Catching Fire will as well, which I could see good arguments for and against. Because Catching Fire has an uprising plotted behind the scenes and Katniss not knowing whether or not it will happen, and definitely not knowing that there's a plan to break her out, is part of the suspense. Then again, nobody expects the heroine of the story to die in the middle film anyway, and various districts exploding in uproar makes for great visuals, plus various older Victors interacting with each other without the young ones around could make for fascinating additional scenes.
One thing I found a bit over the top in the books was to give Snow actual bloody breath (justified by non-healing sores in the mouth as the result of poisoning his way to the top). It's a bit too on the nose for what he's doing to the world, and it's not like we're missing the villaindom otherwise. His few appearances here and in the concluding volume are highly effective, and I do appreciate that Collins always makes it clear that as awful as Snow is, it's the entire system that has to go, that this won't be solved by a simple change of ruler. (More about this later.)
As mentioned before, the relation between the romantic subplots and the rest of the story is one that pleases me. Katniss' big development in Catching Fire isn't to figure out how she feels about Peeta and Gale but to go from simply wanting safety for her family, friends and herself and solve her awful situation by running away to concluding this isn't enough and that the entire tyranny she grew up in has to go down. I also like that for all that, she's not suddenly the master strategist planning the revolution (she's 17 and only is starting to become aware of the situations in the other districts, it would be totally unbelievable), she's joining it. Collins does some interesting things with the awareness revolutionaries can and need be as good in propaganda as dictators, especially in the way they use people as symbols, most in the concluding volume but it starts here. I also like that neither boy thinks their romantic interest should be what Katniss should be concerned about (as opposed to, say, staying alive and keeping others alive), and gets to respond to the daily horrors of life in Panem in their own way. (Peeta coming up with the idea to share the Capitol-provided money with the familie sof Tresh and Rue is one of the best examples.)
Peeta unites a couple of tropes that I haven't seen used for the same character before, especially for a male character, with the possible exception of Rory in Doctor Who: on the one hand, he's the classic damsel in distress type of love interest (meaning he's the one who keeps getting injured, kidnapped, etc.) and provider of unconditional emotional support to Katniss' stoic hero, on the other hand he's something damsels and good-hearted love interests usually don't get to be, which is aware of the power of storytelling and smart in a people manipulating kind of way: coming up with the ultimate PR stroke against Snow in the series of interviews the Victors give by inventing the "oh, btw, Katniss is pregnant" story being a case in point. Which ties with one of the overall themes of the trilogy, the self-awareness of being in someone else's story/power and the attempt of taking control of the narrative in minor and major ways. Given that, it's not suprrising what's waiting for him in Mockingjay.
Since we're in Katniss' pov all the time and in the first volume she's still extremely angry at her mother, it's not surprising that her mother being a healer gets mentioned but not explored there, whereas in Catching Fire, when Katniss has come to forgive her mother, her mother's healing skills are increasingly highlighted. Which I appreciate because I'm always wary of stories where the young heroes and heroines define themselves solely by one parent, especially if that one is dead and thus can be idealized safely.
Mockingjay: and now a slight detour on my part. Back when we talked about Babylon 5 episodes at![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
b5_revisited, someone, I think it was jesuswasbatman, first pointed out that what's a common story trope in fantasy (best exemplified perhaps in what Tolkien does in Return of the King with Aragorn), the end of a tyranny exemplified by a new, good king taking the throne, can't really work that way if you try to apply it to a narrative that's supposed to be pro democracy. You don't have to wonder whether or not Aragorn will be a good king; the kind of story he's in equates being a good king with being a good man. B5, otoh, spends a good deal of its first two seasons establishing a background where a democracy is in the process of getting overtaken by fascism. Then there are two seasons wherein our (human) heroes get to be rebels against an evil dicatorship, which is a clear cut type of narrative. Then it hits a problem in trying to sell us on Sheridan as a good president in the fifth season, because suddenly, everyone who critisizes him is mean, short sighted and stupid, and yet we don't actually get to see Sheridan being very effectual as president (which is not surprising because being a good military leader and being a good political leader are two different things); he's supposed to be The Good King archetype, where all good people are automatically for the king, and that doesn't work in the world established thus far. The attempt to show the difficulties of re-establishing a society where one part supported a dictatorship and the other did not is made (mostly via the Garibaldi versus Lochley subplot), but while the personal dynamics this results in are interesting, it's not a credible take on the overall problem it's supposed to address.
Now, Mockingjay does a very, very smart thing in a) making Katniss a figurehead of the revolution but not it's leader, b) making her distrustful towards the actual leaders and aware that it's not granted they're good simply because they're against a shared enemy, and c) not making her the leader of the peace, either. She's a Joan of Arc who while still being sold to the English by her own people is getting out of there alive instead of being burned (and an all the more effective martyr for the cause afterwards) and turned into a saint. Katniss is not the good queen to replace Snow's bad king, either; it never simplifies into that kind of story. The actual (temporary) new queen, Coin, instead highlights that exchanging figureheads changes nothing, and the suggestion, accepted by a majority of the surviving Victors, to organize one last Hunger Games with the Capitol's children this time in revenge highlights the darkest potential of any revolution, that the revolutionaries become the enemies they toppled, without suggesting there should never have been a revolution to begin with. (BTW, while it was clear to me that Katniss agreed because that was the point where she decided Snow had been telling the truth about Coin, and she needed the opportunity to shoot her after which the one-last-game idea would be nixed anyway, I would want to know what made Haymitch say yes.)
Sadly, I guessed Prim would not make it out of the series alive, because she'd been one of the few completely positive characters, with not a single negative quality, and of course Katniss' original motivation. There was a dire narrative logic in her death being the last of Katniss' losses. As there was to the Peeta-gets-hijacked plot. Katniss had started out seeing the star crossed lovers story as both a survival tool and an entrapment, but she'd also come to rely on Peeta both for the emotional support and as a conscience, while Peeta, who as opposed to Katniss starts the story expecting to die but wants to change the meaning of why by making the trope he offers a means of Katniss' survival. Katniss' first big narrative victory over Snow/the Capitol setting everyone against each other was to turn their need for a victor at the end of the game against them by instead of following their story (one must eventually kill the other) forcing her own on them (either both die or both survive, either way, the gamemakers do not get what they want). All of which meant that in the last installment, all this would be taken away/reversed via Snow's brainwashing of Peeta. And this is also why the two of them ending up with each other when all is over works for me: if Peeta had remained streadfastly devoted and not once losing his certainties, it wouldn't have, it would have felt far too unequal, not to mention like Katniss simply getting used to the story she's in. Instead, they're both damaged survivors who help each other rebuild.
As for the other characters: I was both crushed and satisfied we didn't suddenly learn in Mockingjay that Cinna had survived after all. Because much as I loved the character, he had to go; otherwise we'd be in the type of story where defiance of a brutal dictatorship only results in your death when you're a redshirt but not if you're a regular. Otoh I had expected Johanna to die and was thrilled that she didn't and made it to the end. Female ambiguous survivor types for the win, I say, and her relationship with Katniss was fascinating. Finnick I had suspected to survive - so much so that I thought he had untilpujamuss pointed out to me he had not and I had to go back to the relevant chapter. His revelation in Mockingjay of how the victors were prostituted by the regime was devastating yet completely fitting with the type of regime it was (and even with the obvious Roman precedent of the gladiators), and btw, a good example of how to include such an element without making it exploitative as well. (I.e. the focus is on how this impacted Cinna who also stands in for the other tributes similarly used, not on providing the reader with slave porn.) Again, I wonder whether or not the films will be able to pull this off, but then the first one was able to show the games without going for thrill-of-violence, so I'm cautiously optimistic.
BTW, I hear they're going to split Mockingjay in two films, a la Deathly Hallows? I can see the point, especially if, again, we're not going to be in Katniss' pov all the time. There is so much going on that a bit more visual breathing space could be crucial.
First of all, about the first volume in relations to the film: I can see why they made the choices they did and for the most part, the film benefited from them. Opening up the story beyond Katniss' pov allows for more world building (i.e. for example we see Haymitch working the sponsors, and that little scene where he observes a little boy "playing" games is so telling about the Capitol culture, yet could not have happened within Katniss' pov), not to mention that it allows Snow who is after all the main antagonist of the saga to be introduced in a way more effective than only showing up on a view screen. Most importantly, imo, showing District 11 responding to Rue's death with a riot instead of the book's bread donation scene lays the foundation for the general revolution to come which is important for the later part of the story. I did find it interesting that leaving Katniss' pov in the film allows for more, not less ambiguity re: Peeta's original motives. Conversely, the book is clearer than the film is that at the end, Katniss is still highly ambiguous about whether or not she felt anything real.
On to Catching Fire: I had an inkling we'd see another arena scenario but wondered how/whether Collins would manage to justify this without it smacking of sequelitis and repetition. In the end, I think she did manage to avoid this in two ways: most importantly by how Catching Fire ends (the revolution has started, the surviving tributes are broken out of the arena, making it clear there would be no third time), but also via the narrative device of Snow using only victors this time. Which means we get more world building, backstory, get introduced to characters who in a show, not tell question show something that could not have been shown otherwise since the system is about to go down (i.e. how do the Victors other than Haymitch live with themselves afterwards? How does/did the system continue to use them?). Finnick and Johanna are the two most interesting of the older Victors and the ones given most narrative space, but I appreciate we also get someone like Mags, who has managed to live into old age with her sanity intact, and on the other end of the scale the "morphlings" who make Haymitch's alcoholism feel like a restrained addiction.
Speaking of Haymitch, he's a self destructive, cynical yet caring despite himself middle aged person not above manipulating the hell out of the younger characters for the greater good, so of course I loved him. :)
Given that the first film opted to leave Katniss' pov intermittendly, I wonder whether Catching Fire will as well, which I could see good arguments for and against. Because Catching Fire has an uprising plotted behind the scenes and Katniss not knowing whether or not it will happen, and definitely not knowing that there's a plan to break her out, is part of the suspense. Then again, nobody expects the heroine of the story to die in the middle film anyway, and various districts exploding in uproar makes for great visuals, plus various older Victors interacting with each other without the young ones around could make for fascinating additional scenes.
One thing I found a bit over the top in the books was to give Snow actual bloody breath (justified by non-healing sores in the mouth as the result of poisoning his way to the top). It's a bit too on the nose for what he's doing to the world, and it's not like we're missing the villaindom otherwise. His few appearances here and in the concluding volume are highly effective, and I do appreciate that Collins always makes it clear that as awful as Snow is, it's the entire system that has to go, that this won't be solved by a simple change of ruler. (More about this later.)
As mentioned before, the relation between the romantic subplots and the rest of the story is one that pleases me. Katniss' big development in Catching Fire isn't to figure out how she feels about Peeta and Gale but to go from simply wanting safety for her family, friends and herself and solve her awful situation by running away to concluding this isn't enough and that the entire tyranny she grew up in has to go down. I also like that for all that, she's not suddenly the master strategist planning the revolution (she's 17 and only is starting to become aware of the situations in the other districts, it would be totally unbelievable), she's joining it. Collins does some interesting things with the awareness revolutionaries can and need be as good in propaganda as dictators, especially in the way they use people as symbols, most in the concluding volume but it starts here. I also like that neither boy thinks their romantic interest should be what Katniss should be concerned about (as opposed to, say, staying alive and keeping others alive), and gets to respond to the daily horrors of life in Panem in their own way. (Peeta coming up with the idea to share the Capitol-provided money with the familie sof Tresh and Rue is one of the best examples.)
Peeta unites a couple of tropes that I haven't seen used for the same character before, especially for a male character, with the possible exception of Rory in Doctor Who: on the one hand, he's the classic damsel in distress type of love interest (meaning he's the one who keeps getting injured, kidnapped, etc.) and provider of unconditional emotional support to Katniss' stoic hero, on the other hand he's something damsels and good-hearted love interests usually don't get to be, which is aware of the power of storytelling and smart in a people manipulating kind of way: coming up with the ultimate PR stroke against Snow in the series of interviews the Victors give by inventing the "oh, btw, Katniss is pregnant" story being a case in point. Which ties with one of the overall themes of the trilogy, the self-awareness of being in someone else's story/power and the attempt of taking control of the narrative in minor and major ways. Given that, it's not suprrising what's waiting for him in Mockingjay.
Since we're in Katniss' pov all the time and in the first volume she's still extremely angry at her mother, it's not surprising that her mother being a healer gets mentioned but not explored there, whereas in Catching Fire, when Katniss has come to forgive her mother, her mother's healing skills are increasingly highlighted. Which I appreciate because I'm always wary of stories where the young heroes and heroines define themselves solely by one parent, especially if that one is dead and thus can be idealized safely.
Mockingjay: and now a slight detour on my part. Back when we talked about Babylon 5 episodes at
b5_revisited, someone, I think it was jesuswasbatman, first pointed out that what's a common story trope in fantasy (best exemplified perhaps in what Tolkien does in Return of the King with Aragorn), the end of a tyranny exemplified by a new, good king taking the throne, can't really work that way if you try to apply it to a narrative that's supposed to be pro democracy. You don't have to wonder whether or not Aragorn will be a good king; the kind of story he's in equates being a good king with being a good man. B5, otoh, spends a good deal of its first two seasons establishing a background where a democracy is in the process of getting overtaken by fascism. Then there are two seasons wherein our (human) heroes get to be rebels against an evil dicatorship, which is a clear cut type of narrative. Then it hits a problem in trying to sell us on Sheridan as a good president in the fifth season, because suddenly, everyone who critisizes him is mean, short sighted and stupid, and yet we don't actually get to see Sheridan being very effectual as president (which is not surprising because being a good military leader and being a good political leader are two different things); he's supposed to be The Good King archetype, where all good people are automatically for the king, and that doesn't work in the world established thus far. The attempt to show the difficulties of re-establishing a society where one part supported a dictatorship and the other did not is made (mostly via the Garibaldi versus Lochley subplot), but while the personal dynamics this results in are interesting, it's not a credible take on the overall problem it's supposed to address. Now, Mockingjay does a very, very smart thing in a) making Katniss a figurehead of the revolution but not it's leader, b) making her distrustful towards the actual leaders and aware that it's not granted they're good simply because they're against a shared enemy, and c) not making her the leader of the peace, either. She's a Joan of Arc who while still being sold to the English by her own people is getting out of there alive instead of being burned (and an all the more effective martyr for the cause afterwards) and turned into a saint. Katniss is not the good queen to replace Snow's bad king, either; it never simplifies into that kind of story. The actual (temporary) new queen, Coin, instead highlights that exchanging figureheads changes nothing, and the suggestion, accepted by a majority of the surviving Victors, to organize one last Hunger Games with the Capitol's children this time in revenge highlights the darkest potential of any revolution, that the revolutionaries become the enemies they toppled, without suggesting there should never have been a revolution to begin with. (BTW, while it was clear to me that Katniss agreed because that was the point where she decided Snow had been telling the truth about Coin, and she needed the opportunity to shoot her after which the one-last-game idea would be nixed anyway, I would want to know what made Haymitch say yes.)
Sadly, I guessed Prim would not make it out of the series alive, because she'd been one of the few completely positive characters, with not a single negative quality, and of course Katniss' original motivation. There was a dire narrative logic in her death being the last of Katniss' losses. As there was to the Peeta-gets-hijacked plot. Katniss had started out seeing the star crossed lovers story as both a survival tool and an entrapment, but she'd also come to rely on Peeta both for the emotional support and as a conscience, while Peeta, who as opposed to Katniss starts the story expecting to die but wants to change the meaning of why by making the trope he offers a means of Katniss' survival. Katniss' first big narrative victory over Snow/the Capitol setting everyone against each other was to turn their need for a victor at the end of the game against them by instead of following their story (one must eventually kill the other) forcing her own on them (either both die or both survive, either way, the gamemakers do not get what they want). All of which meant that in the last installment, all this would be taken away/reversed via Snow's brainwashing of Peeta. And this is also why the two of them ending up with each other when all is over works for me: if Peeta had remained streadfastly devoted and not once losing his certainties, it wouldn't have, it would have felt far too unequal, not to mention like Katniss simply getting used to the story she's in. Instead, they're both damaged survivors who help each other rebuild.
As for the other characters: I was both crushed and satisfied we didn't suddenly learn in Mockingjay that Cinna had survived after all. Because much as I loved the character, he had to go; otherwise we'd be in the type of story where defiance of a brutal dictatorship only results in your death when you're a redshirt but not if you're a regular. Otoh I had expected Johanna to die and was thrilled that she didn't and made it to the end. Female ambiguous survivor types for the win, I say, and her relationship with Katniss was fascinating. Finnick I had suspected to survive - so much so that I thought he had until
pujamuss pointed out to me he had not and I had to go back to the relevant chapter. His revelation in Mockingjay of how the victors were prostituted by the regime was devastating yet completely fitting with the type of regime it was (and even with the obvious Roman precedent of the gladiators), and btw, a good example of how to include such an element without making it exploitative as well. (I.e. the focus is on how this impacted Cinna who also stands in for the other tributes similarly used, not on providing the reader with slave porn.) Again, I wonder whether or not the films will be able to pull this off, but then the first one was able to show the games without going for thrill-of-violence, so I'm cautiously optimistic.BTW, I hear they're going to split Mockingjay in two films, a la Deathly Hallows? I can see the point, especially if, again, we're not going to be in Katniss' pov all the time. There is so much going on that a bit more visual breathing space could be crucial.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-22 06:15 pm (UTC)This is one of the main reasons I love Mockingjay best of the three books. Far too many stories treat war like a game of chess, to the point where war in real life is treated like a game of chess - the expectations of the Iraq war vs. the actual outcome being a prime example. District 13 is the polar opposite of the Capitol, but it's not a good place to live, and Coin may be able to win the war but she'd be horrible in peacetime.
I love also, as awful as it is, that Gale is willing to go so very far to win, that someone we know to be a likeable person can come up with such atrocities, so that it can't be brushed away as being "bad people" like Coin. His bombs weren't specifically designed to kill Prim, but they were specifically designed to kill innocents, just like RL mines that are designed to look colourful and fun like toys.
I've seen people claim that Prim was fridged, and so she was, but she was fridged by Coin as an attempt to steer the narrative in the classic direction, putting Katniss in vengeance hero mode. Instead it backlashes, since Katniss figures it out. (Btw, seeing how the previous books have emphasized the ways Katniss and Haymitch think alike, I believe his "I'm with the Mockingjay" is meant to connote that he knows Katniss is up to something and trusts her enough to go along with it.)
The mission to the Capitol is a bit jarring from a narrative perspective, since so many people die without accomplishing their goal, but at the same time, I feel it highlights the way Katniss is used as a figurehead, and the way, when she does accomplish things, she does it almost by mistake, as in District 2. So while somewhat clunky, it serves well enough to please me.
The way the love triangle plays out is satisfying to me too, and as you say, the hijacking of Peeta is ironically enough beneficial to their relationship. I can understand the objections of some readers to having a female character get married and have children after she'd stated repeatedly that she didn't want to do that, but she also stated very clearly that her reason against a family life was the system she grew up in, so I'm fine with the ending as it stands. (I was never involved enough in the triangle to pick a team or even venture a guess, but I wasn't surprised it was Peeta in the end, because narratively, as she points out, it works best with lovers that aren't too similar.)
And huh, it seems that the entire post I meant to do on Mockingjay and never did ended up in this comment instead. Maybe I should just repost it as a post. :-)
no subject
Date: 2012-04-24 02:47 pm (UTC)Yes. A dangerous fiction.
I love also, as awful as it is, that Gale is willing to go so very far to win, that someone we know to be a likeable person can come up with such atrocities, so that it can't be brushed away as being "bad people" like Coin. His bombs weren't specifically designed to kill Prim, but they were specifically designed to kill innocents, just like RL mines that are designed to look colourful and fun like toys.
Indeed. It would have been easy for Collins to let only District 13 people or characters the readers haven't known as long be involved with the bombs. Though I must say I lost a lot of sympathy for Gale when he said "that was all I had going for me, protecting your family" when Katniss asked him whether it had been one of his bombs, i.e. made the death of Prim (and a lot of other children) about the end of his romantic hopes.
Btw, seeing how the previous books have emphasized the ways Katniss and Haymitch think alike, I believe his "I'm with the Mockingjay" is meant to connote that he knows Katniss is up to something and trusts her enough to go along with it.
Ah, okay, yes, that makes sense.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-24 04:54 pm (UTC)That's a horrible line, both, as you say, because it trivializes the death of Prim, and because he's assuming that all of Katniss' motives are cold and calculating. I'm not sure theirs would have been a happy relationship even without Peeta.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 12:24 am (UTC)i.e. how do the Victors other than Haymitch live with themselves afterwards? How does/did the system continue to use them?
This was one of my favorite things about the second and third books because it carries over the theme of all the victors being figureheads in a way, Katniss is carrying on that tradition just changing the message she represents.
Peeta unites a couple of tropes that I haven't seen used for the same character before, especially for a male character, with the possible exception of Rory in Doctor Who: on the one hand, he's the classic damsel in distress type of love interest (meaning he's the one who keeps getting injured, kidnapped, etc.) and provider of unconditional emotional support to Katniss' stoic hero, on the other hand he's something damsels and good-hearted love interests usually don't get to be, which is aware of the power of storytelling and smart in a people manipulating kind of way: coming up with the ultimate PR stroke against Snow in the series of interviews the Victors give by inventing the "oh, btw, Katniss is pregnant" story being a case in point.
I loved that Katniss' reaction to that (for herself, not how she felt about Gale and her family reacting to that lie back home) was empowerment. It was then, when Peeta is at his most manipulative that I came to love Katniss/Peeta as a couple because they had a complimentary set of skills that they used for each other and that makes me so happy.
I agree with everything you say about Collin's being smart to avoid the Good King trope and have Katniss' power come from her status as figurehead. I hadn't framed it in my mind in that way but yes, that's why it works so well.