So, there's a huge amount of attention being given to the Hunger Games right now. The books are on the NY Times best seller list and have been for a while. The movie opens this week, and it's stars are all over television and in magazines. People of all ages are swept up in the story of Katniss Everdeen. But should they be?
It seems when there's a media sensation like this that everyone piles praise on a franchise and you almost never hear from the detractors. To listen to fans of this series, it's incredible. It's a gripping tale with a compelling main character that keeps you up at night until you've finished the entire saga.
But, there's one problem. This isn't the truth at all.
I'm currently a little more than half way through the first book, and I'll be completely honest.... I do not see why people are so caught up in this story.
First off, this story has been done before, and honestly done better. I think by now there's not a person in the geek community who has not heard the cry of Hunger Games is a rip off of Battle Royale. There's a good reason for this... the two books share a very similar plotline and over all story. While Susanne Collins has maintained that she never heard of Battle Royale, there is enough similarities that several respected reviewers have felt it necessary to point out the similarities. While it is indeed possible that Collins did not view Battle Royale, Collins lack of reference to any of the sources that obviously inspired Koshun Takami's novel (eg The Lottery, Lord of the Flies, Running Man, The Long Walk....etc) make one highly suspicious how two similar stories sprung into existence if there were no similar references or inspirations.
Putting the similarities between Hunger Games and Battle Royale aside, there are still a vast array of stories which have explored the same territory as Hunger Games before (some of which I've listed above). So, you would really expect that for Hunger Games to attract so damn much attention that it would have to be one hell of a book.
Sadly, though.... it's not.
Firstly, while I have to give Collins technical props for being able to sustain a novel in first person present tense, I feel that she made a terrible mistake in making Katniss the narrator of the piece. As written, Katniss is a wholely uninteresting person. She complains about the government, while her life under it's shackles isn't entirely terrible. She overlooks the fact that her skills have given her family a far better life than others around her have. Yes, she's on the bottom rung, but she is comfortably on the bottom rung.
As written Katniss' personality consists almost entirely of being oblivious, worrying about her sister, and disliking the government. She has no spark of wit, no endearing traits, no memorable thoughts... nothing to justify why Katniss should be liked. She's just your narrator because Collins wants her to be. This is compounded by Katniss being, quite literally, the least appealing character in the book. While every other character has a bit of flare to them, something to make you grin or scowl at their actions.... Katniss just kind of is.
While it's fine for the main character to be rather bland, there must be a point to it. John Watson comes to mind. In the Sherlock Holmes stories, Watson, himself, is a rather bland person. Yet, it's absolutely necessary that he be our narrator so that the skills of Holmes seem that more wonderful. We see Holmes reach conclusions as if by magic only because they seem that way to Watson. If we saw all the stories from Holmes point of view, it would all seem terribly dull because everything would jump out and scream the final answer.
That's not the case with the Hunger Games. There is no legitimate reason to limit our knowledge to that of Katniss, because there is nothing in this book that would not work if told from a third person point of view. Katniss being our narrator does not add to the narrative, in fact it feels like it detracts from it. She's put in terrible danger, but because she is our main character with everyone else taking a vague backsteet.... we're never forced to worry that she might lose this game, because there are more pages. (This is one of the grand points, specifically of Battle Royale. Yes, Shuya is the main character, but others get nearly as much page time, leading you to believe that Shuya might not be the main character after all and could die at any point.)
Moving away from the problem of the narration, the book also suffers from a problem of far too many coincidences. Katniss's sister is picked on her first year, despite the odds of her being selected being very slim. Then, coincidentally, the one kid in the village who happens to have not only a bond with, but a secret crush on Katniss is selected as the other participant after Katniss volunteers to take her sisters place. Then, Katniss coincidentally gets the greatest stylist the games have ever seen on what we presume is his first year, which sets up the whole "girl on fire" things which just reeks of resistance slogan. and then coincidentally gets to take in a pin which is a clear sign of treason (long story... the Mockingjay is a symbol of resistance against the government).
Now, I'm convinced there's some sort of weird puppet master pulling the strings in this, which just leads back to Katniss being uninteresting. If there is a puppet master, why not let us get a glimpse of them. It's much more interesting to watch the pieces move and fear that you'll lose the game than to watch a pawn dance around the board unaware that they're a pawn. That was one of the great things about Lord of the Rings... the chess master was a major character, whom appears to die at one point.
So, do we have a chess master, in which point we're following the wrong person, or does this story just stink of coincidence.
Additionally, far too many points in the story we're told rather than being shown. We're told about Gale rather than seeing him for more than a page. We're told about government atrocities instead of seeing them. If we don't actually see things, why should they have any impact us upon us as the reader because we're not experiencing them first hand. We only get vague second hand accounts. Rule number one of writing is to show instead of tell. Obviously Collins showed up to writing school a day late.
Finally I point out that the entire world of the books falls apart when thought about for more than a few minutes. The government of Panem (horrible name by the way) oppresses people without ever trying to indoctrinate them. There is not an oppressive regime in the world that only oppresses without indoctrinating. It's what keeps people from rebelling. Make people barely get by, but make them think that they must barely get by for the good of everyone. Make them think it is their duty to get by and that the government loves them for it. Make them think the government is their savior, and without the government they would be nothing.
Collins does none of this. Everyone in this world knows the government sucks, but they just keep toddling along wallowing in hatred for it. Why don't we rise up? Well, we're told the government might kill them, but if a large portion of the population of a single district would rise up, the government would be forced to think of something new.
Similarly, we're dealing with a world that has invisible hovercraft and precision targeting of aid, and yet we're somehow dependent on coal? Even if we are, leaving coal production to one district alone seems insane. What if plague hits the district and everyone dies.... whoops, coal production is wiped out. What if the agriculture district gets hit with a hurricane or terrible frost.... whoops... we starve. More over, if there is simply an interruption to the supply line, which if it's all coming from one place wouldn't be hard to accomplish, you'd be screwed anyway.
You also have to wonder, with Panem broadcasting these games nation wide, where are the other nations of the world shouting down the atrocities or attempting to airlift in aid to the starving people? Sure Panem takes up most of North America, but what about South America or Europe or Asia. Have they completely ignored these violations of human rights?
I'm sorry but when the world of your story is vital to the story itself, if should not, MUST not, break down 5 minutes after you've put the book down.
So, seriously, can someone please tell me why everyone thinks these books are so great?
