I get it, but I don’t…: The Hunger Games

 

Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins offers so much that would draw in readers—the unthinkable what if

there’s a lottery from which the “winners” must fight to the death whether the competitor is a muscle-bound 18-year-old or a frail 12-year-old. The garish Capital City citizens have so much while some districts (regions) live in abject poverty.  (How have they lived with so much when many more live without the basics?)

And doesn’t the setting remind the reader of America? I swear I saw some West Virginian mountains.

Katniss’s bravery and self-sacrifice are enthralling as she steps in to save her little sister from the fight (But wait, won’t her sister’s name be entered in the lottery again for years to come? Can Katniss volunteer again if Primrose is selected again? Anyway…). All of it makes for a great novel and a blockbuster movie.

I purchased the novel because I saw the movie trailer. I read the novel first. Well, full confession, I read a few chapters before I abandoned it for a synopsis. Then I switched to the movie, but oddly, I stopped reading and watching during the same scene[1]—the girl on fire chariot scene—because that big scene meant to thrill told me what I needed to know.

So why did I put it down? Why did I struggle to read it? The Hunger Games would not live up to its promises—a strong woman, a slow-burn romance, and a life-defining event that changes everything. The story doesn’t deliver on its promises.

Katniss appears to be a strong female. She’s supported her family, hunted for food, traded for the essentials. She even wears nontraditional clothing—a leather jacket and slacks except for the lottery—while the other women wear dresses. She’s stoically quiet and often abrasive according to the men around her.

But what should be brave appears passive. Her behavior depicts Katniss, but when faced with the ultimate need to survive (the hunger games), she doesn’t. Peta, the more passive character, seeks advice and help. At the Capital, she accepts the bathers’ derision and ridicule without comment. She repeatedly dressed up like a doll without comment.

In fact, except for volunteering as tribute, she shows no personality or emotional connection to anyone or anything for the first forty-five minutes of the movie. You doubt me, but which of her actions or emotions show affection for Gale and Primrose? Most of her caring behaviors are actually assumptions readers instill in the moment. For example, “tuck in your tail, little duck,” may seem affectionate, but it is a habit, years of caring for someone who repeatedly doesn’t tuck her shirt. She sits and talks with Gale, but her automatic response to the hissing cat conveys more connection than her other actions. Many people blamed the actress for her cold indifference in playing Katniss, but the novel conveys the same disconnected personality.

And if Katniss shows no emotional connection, then where’s the romance? How could there be a love triangle when she shows no affection for anyone? Sure, she has long staring matches with Peta, but each stare coincides with a memory of Peta helping her. Gale looks morose when he sees Katniss kiss Peta, but he looks equally forlorn that Katniss is part of the games. So, who can say the response is romance rather than empathy?

The connection relies on the readers’ experiences rather than creating them. Glimpses of associations are too brief to be relatable.

And, one hour into the two-hour movie, the world issues—particularly totalitarianism and economic imbalance—would remain unresolved. How can the disadvantaged illicit change when they don’t speak to each other?

Other than their groomers and escort, Katniss and Peta don’t interact with anyone outside their district. Thresh and Rue are the exceptions, but they die minutes after their brief interactions with Katniss. So, Katniss learns little about the districts; the audience never sees the worlds the other contestants live in. Thus, the audience is just as sheltered from real life as the Capital citizens are. Moreover, Katniss doesn’t attempt to make herself more than a living doll who is about to die. She doesn’t share who she is or how she lives with anyone. So how can she incite change among people who don’t realize change is needed?

So, the strong woman is passive. The romance has no steam, and the change has no starting platform (despite the revolution throughout the series.) Instead, people have died to help Katniss, and she’s as emotionless as she appeared from the start.

---

[1] I watched the whole movie ten years later.