tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401830411147364284.post2111471565823836884..comments2024-03-18T19:05:39.072-07:00Comments on Morphosis: Hunger GrimmsAdam Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15803399373213872690noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401830411147364284.post-53551699828467875592015-08-25T13:18:14.390-07:002015-08-25T13:18:14.390-07:00That last point is very astute, I think, and I abs...That last point is very astute, I think, and I absolutely take the force of it. But I'm not sure I'm won over by your first paragraph.<br /><br />"No, Katniss does not win through strength of arms ...She wins through intelligence and guile."<br /><br />The argument of the blog I link to is that she doesn't win through intelligence and guile: she wins because the narrative is tacitly structured so that she can't lose, and that narrative sleight-of-hand is veiled with references to her intelligence and resourcefulness and so on. She doesn't really have to 'do' anything: victory is dropped into her lap by the story, because the story can't bear to compromise her kickass splendidness by actually having her act ruthlessly, cruelly or in any way that might interfere with our admiration for her. Maybe, as you say, this cop-out is down to timidity by a relatively unknown author (though that doesn't strike me as an argument that reflects very well on Collins). But doesn't it sort-of make this tale more retrogressive than Cinderella? At least Cinderella is upfront about the reactionary passivity of its heroine. Hunger Games presents the <em>form</em> of an active, empowered kickass female lead, but the content is one of Katniss's deus-ex-machina specialness. It seems to me that there's quite a profound mendacity in saying that you can do what Katniss does without getting your hands metaphorically dirty, as she manages not to do.<br /><br />" ... Specifically, she wins by working out that the Hunger Games are not a contest of strength but of likability ..." <br /><br />Well, yes: but this comes <em>after</em> all the other kids have been killed. But once everybody else has been magically disposed of, yes she starts to grok the 'true' nature of the game. It's like the movie <em>Gladiator</em> in that respect: it's not about the killing, it's about the showbiz. But the difference is that <em>Gladiator</em> has no problem showing the nasty, brutal side of Maximus. That <em>The Hunger Games</em> chooses not to, or maybe dares not, show a similar side to Katniss is the whole nub of the issue. It's OK for Maximus to have that aspect to his nature because he's a man; it's not OK for Katniss to have that aspect, because she's a girl. That doesn't seem sexist to you, even a little bit? Adam Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15803399373213872690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5401830411147364284.post-40163805987411850082015-08-25T11:34:11.841-07:002015-08-25T11:34:11.841-07:00I have to say, I completely disagree with that fir...I have to say, I completely disagree with that first quote. To claim that Katniss does nothing to earn her victory is to hugely miss what <i>The Hunger Games</i>, the book and the game-within-the-book, are actually about. No, Katniss does not win through strength of arms, but no one ever thinks that she could - all of her trainers and handlers stress that she hasn't got the skill or training for that. She wins through intelligence and guile. Specifically, she wins by working out that the Hunger Games are not a contest of strength but of <i>likability</i>, and that if she can position herself (and Peeta) as audience favorites, they can win the game. It isn't Katniss who works out the angle of presenting herself and Peeta as starcrossed lovers, but she's the one who figures out how to sell that romance to an audience, and does it so well that she's able to wrangle an unprecedented double-win out of the games' "producers."<br /><br />There's a lot of criticism to be made against <i>The Hunger Games</i>, including on the feminist level (and the fact that Katniss is never put in a position to kill anyone is a deep flaw in the novel, though I suspect that it probably seemed like less of a copout to a relatively unknown author embarking on the seemingly controversial project of telling a story about children killing each other than it does to us now, with <i>The Hunger Games</i> having become a global phenomenon). But the way that it examines the intersection between popular culture and propaganda, and how both are used as instruments of control, is surely its most unassailable aspect. The whole point of the book is that the game Katniss thinks she's playing is not the game she's actually playing. She's a heroine because of her ability to figure that out, and to win the real game.Abigail Nussbaumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08562462228380637583noreply@blogger.com