ND Wilson on Why Hunger Games is Flawed to Its Core

[brett_ashley]

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2012/05/17/why-hunger-games-is-flawed-to-its-core/

 

Why Hunger Games is Flawed to Its Core

Nate (N. D.) Wilson is one of my favorite writers. He has given us some excellent fiction and non-fiction books. He knows what makes a story work.

 

Nate was in town recently, and we had a conversation about books, beauty, and bestsellers. Naturally, we talked about The Hunger Games. His take on it was too good to keep to myself, so I asked if I could share it here.

 

Why Hunger Games is Flawed to Its Core

N.D. Wilson

 

Almost everywhere I go, I’m asked about The Hunger Games (book, not film). The questions used to fly about Twilight and Potter, but Katniss and dystopic death-matches have taken over.

 

First, I completely understand why The Hunger Games took off. Suzanne Collins knows how to suck readers into a page-turning frenzy. The pace of the book grabs like gorilla glue and the kill-or-be-killed tension keeps fingernails nibbled short. She knows her craft, and I have to say that I’m grateful to her for expanding our mutual marketplace (in the same way that Rowling did). That said, Collins stumbles badly in her understanding of some pretty fundamental elements of human story, and the whole thing is flawed to its core as a result.

 

The best authors are students of humanity, both as individuals and grouped in societies (big and small).

 

C.S. Lewis’ profound insight into human motivation and relationships is on display in Narnia, and even more intricately in his Space Trilogy. He paints honest and accurate portraits, leading readers through darkness toward wisdom.

Think about Mark Twain’s ability to see and image the motivations of boys, and the entire society in which those boys lived.

Tom Wolfe’s sharp clear vision is on display in both his essays and his fiction. He sees into the hearts and minds of men; he sees which of their choices and follies will set fire to the world around them, and how exactly that fire will progress and grow. (And, like the greatest writers, he manages to maintain an affection and sympathy for his characters and for humanity in general despite this insight.)

When an author profoundly misunderstands human societies, arbitrarily forcing a group or a character into decisions and actions that they would never choose for themselves given the preceding narrative, it drives me bonkers. I once threw The Fountainhead across the room for exactly that crime, and I’ve never read anything by Rand since. And Collins bundles clumsy offenses like this in Costco bulk…

 

Quick Switch 1

 

Katniss volunteers to take her sister’s place in the Hunger Games. Yay. Self-sacrifice. Christian themes, yadda, yadda. So far so good. But that walnut shell slides away immediately and a moment of self-sacrifice is replaced with sustained, radical, murderous self-interest.

 

In the Christian ethos, laying down one’s life for another is glorious. In the Darwinian world, self-preservation is the ultimate shiny good. Readers bite the lure of sacrifice, and then blissfully go along with survive-at-the-expense-of-murdered-innocents. Katniss becomes evil–she’s even relieved at one point that someone else murdered her innocent little friend, because she knew that she would have to do it herself eventually. And we still give her credit for being sacrificial…

 

(Sacrificial Sidenote: Many people point to Peeta as the truly noble and sacrificial character. I don’t mind him as a character, but a picture of heroic sacrifice he ain’t. In Hunger Games, he’s fundamentally passive and submissive. He’s that guy who is happy to ‘just be friends’ with the cute girl. Or a lot more than friends (but only if she initiates). He’s just the puppy at her heels. “Sure, kill me Katniss. Oh, you’d rather we both killed ourselves? Yes, Katniss. Whatever you say, Katniss.†Really? There are plenty of guys in the world just like Peeta, and kudos to Collins for using the type, especially since nice second-fiddle fellas like that confuse and conflict girls tremendously. But worldview readers are gaming themselves into seeing something that just isn’t there.)

 

Quick Switch 2

 

The self-defense defense. Katniss is a victim, but so is every other innocent person thrust into these games. She should be rising above the game and defending herself (and everyone else) from the Hunger Games. Instead, she kills her fellow victims. Sure, if someone is in the act of trying to murder you, shoot them through the throat. But dropping tracker jackers on sleeping kids? Negativo. Why is she playing this game by the rules at all? The Hunger Games are the real enemy.

 

If Collins wanted her protagonist to be the kind of rebel who would start a revolution (and she does want that), she should have had Katniss cutting her locator out of her arm on night one instead of participating in and perpetuating the evil. But readers are a little numb to killing, and this particular switch wasn’t hard to pull on us.

 

Here’s a thought experiment to help us see clearly. What if Collins had thrown her character into this arena and the rules had been different? Last one raped wins. Rape or be raped. Obviously, a real hero wouldn’t play the game. Explode the game. (Sidenote: rape is awful, but at least the other kids would have survived.)

 

Faux-revolution

 

File this under misunderstanding humanity, which is just another way of saying that The Hunger Games misunderstands courage, inspiration, oppression, and nobility as they relate to people in a collective herd. If you want to see an accurate picture of how one enslaved victim can threaten a regime, watch Gladiator. Twenty thousand people (and the emperor) are commanding one slave to kill another. (Kill!Kill!Kill!) But instead, he throws his sword in the dirt and turns his back on the emperor. And…the people he just defied now adore him. He inspires. His courage is unlike anything they’ve seen, and he is now officially a political problem.

 

Walk through what Collins has Katniss do while playing in the Hunger Games. First, she does and says exactly what she’s told to do and say (trying to manipulate the mob with false sentimentality). Second, she plays the vile despotic game, and by the immoral rules. Finally, she threatens to kill herself (and talks her faux-boyfriend into doing it with her). This, allegedly, panics the establishment and is the spark that will start a revolution.

 

But the world doesn’t work that way. Men and women are not inspired to risk their lives in insurrection and defiance by someone reaching for poisonous berries. Revolutions are not started by teen girls suicide-pacting with cute baker boys. Oppressive regimes are not threatened by people who do what they are told.

 

Put yourself in the author’s well-worn desk chair. If you really wanted your Katniss to threaten this tyrannical system like many great men and women have threatened many tyrants throughout the ages, what would you have her do? She needs to be a lot more punk rock (in the best possible way). She needs to stop giving a rip about her own survival (the most dangerous men and women always forget themselves). She needs to refuse to be a piece in the game. Imagine millions of people watching her disarm some boy who was trying to murder her, and then cutting out his locator, hiding him, and keeping him alive. Every time she defied the order to kill, she would earn the true loyalty of the spared kid’s district. And she would start being a legitimate political threat. (Even Tom Wolfe asked me about The Hunger Games, having apparently heard it had some revolutionary insight. I hit him with the primary plot beats and watched him blink in confusion.)

 

There is more to say, but I’ve said enough. Well, almost. One final thought: never read or watch a story like a passive recipient, enjoying something in a visceral way and then retroactively trying to project deeper value or meaning onto the story you’ve already ingested. Such projections have been making authors and directors seem more intelligent than they are for decades. As you watch, as you read, shoulder your way into the creator’s chair. Don’t take the final product for granted, analyze the creator’s choices and cheerfully push them in new and different directions. As we do this, the clarity of our criticism will grow immensely. Which is to say, we’ll be suckered far less often than we currently are.

 

Lastly, Suzanne Collins can really write. It’s just that we can’t really read.

[SailorMom]

I have to say - I completely disagree with about everything he wrote.

The author built characters that could be related to as real people, reacting to horrible situations that they had little control over.

Did he even read the book???

[Jean in Newcastle]

Um. . . just because he's a writer doesn't mean that his opinion of the books and characters are correct. . . I agree with some of what he says (his opinion of Peeta for example) but he takes it to extremes and much of what he says (in my opinion) is nonsense.

[Princess Peach]

I have to say that if I was compelled to dissect a book to that degree (one that I wasn't writing, say, a dissertation on), I would never read. I read The Hunger Games as a quick, exciting read. That's all.

[Mothersweets]

I've read the Hunger Games trilogy and really enjoyed it although I had some of those same thoughts about it. Yes, Katniss takes her sister's place in the games but...after that I think I kept expecting something greater from her, kwim?

 

Great piece, thanks for sharing.

[bkpan]

I couldn't agree more. I made it through the Hunger Games, but am getting stuck halfway throught the second book. I have had the same frustration over the main character's totally illogical and inconsistent character. Her relationships with all of the Games' staff and all the people that go along with the insanity..... just baffle and frustrate me.

[6packofun]

I think my biggest quibble is with his idea that Katniss willingly played along to no benefit. As a Christian, I'm called to work for God's Kingdom and gain influence in part by working WITHIN the system. Now, The Hunger Games themselves go against everything that I stand for as a Christian, but this is not a Christian character, society, and I don't expect it to be.

 

However, for the self-sacrificing theme Wilson refers to, I think Katniss plays the game *waiting for her chance*. Self-sacrifice is for naught if it's done without any impact. Dying at the start by refusing to play the game would have resulted in NO impact whatsoever. Katniss would have been just another casualty and society would have churned on. Instead, she *gained* influence--and I don't feel that she went around hunting the other kids the entire time, completely immersed in the killing--and THEN used her trump card at the end. Jesus didn't preach in one town and then allow himself to be crucified. He built his influence and message first.

Edited May 17, 2012 by 6packofun
add

[6packofun]

Adding: I don't think that Katniss had a plan that distinct at the beginning, but it develops and she learns, adapts, ending in her willingness to die for a real cause.

[elegantlion]

Um, did he read book 2 and 3? Without trying to be spoilerish Katniss is NOT the revolution and that is well revealed in the other books.

 

As a writer I found flaws with the trilogy, but I found them realistic. Obviously we don't have Hunger Games (or do we?...) but so many books and movies show one person as the overriding hero and everyone around rejoices and gets behind them, cheering them on. Katniss' role may have people cheering, but it's public personality. In the end Katniss was but one person in the greater story.

[Butter]

Can't say I agree with much of what he said at all.

[kitten18]

I have to say - I completely disagree with about everything he wrote.

The author built characters that could be related to as real people, reacting to horrible situations that they had little control over.

Did he even read the book???

 

I think my biggest quibble is with his idea that Katniss willingly played along to no benefit. As a Christian, I'm called to work for God's Kingdom and gain influence in part by working WITHIN the system. Now, The Hunger Games themselves go against everything that I stand for as a Christian, but this is not a Christian character, society, and I don't expect it to be.

 

However, for the self-sacrificing theme Wilson refers to, I think Katniss plays the game *waiting for her chance*. Self-sacrifice is for naught if it's done without any impact. Dying at the start by refusing to play the game would have resulted in NO impact whatsoever. Katniss would have been just another casualty and society would have churned on. Instead, she *gained* influence--and I don't feel that she went around hunting the other kids the entire time, completely immersed in the killing--and THEN used her trump card at the end. Jesus didn't preach in one town and then allow himself to be crucified. He built his influence and message first.

:iagree:

[Remudamom]

:smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5:

[LeslieAnneLevine]

It sounds like he would have really enjoyed the book if he'd written it. As it happens, he didn't.

[bnrmom]

My husband thought the plot was flawed because if people really were living in those conditions with no hope for any way out other than winning the Hunger Games, you'd have people fighting to get a chance to compete - no need for a lottery! All participants would be volunteers.

[Coffeetime]

Um. . . just because he's a writer doesn't mean that his opinion of the books and characters are correct. . . I agree with some of what he says (his opinion of Peeta for example) but he takes it to extremes and much of what he says (in my opinion) is nonsense.

 

I think my biggest quibble is with his idea that Katniss willingly played along to no benefit. As a Christian, I'm called to work for God's Kingdom and gain influence in part by working WITHIN the system.

 

However, for the self-sacrificing theme Wilson refers to, I think Katniss plays the game *waiting for her chance*. Self-sacrifice is for naught if it's done without any impact. Dying at the start by refusing to play the game would have resulted in NO impact whatsoever. Katniss would have been just another casualty and society would have churned on. Instead, she *gained* influence--and I don't feel that she went around hunting the other kids the entire time, completely immersed in the killing--and THEN used her trump card at the end.

 

Adding: I don't think that Katniss had a plan that distinct at the beginning, but it develops and she learns, adapts, ending in her willingness to die for a real cause.

 

Um, did he read book 2 and 3? Without trying to be spoilerish Katniss is NOT the revolution and that is well revealed in the other books.

 

As a writer I found flaws with the trilogy, but I found them realistic. Obviously we don't have Hunger Games (or do we?...) but so many books and movies show one person as the overriding hero and everyone around rejoices and gets behind them, cheering them on. Katniss' role may have people cheering, but it's public personality. In the end Katniss was but one person in the greater story.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree: Sooo... given ND Wilson's... family ties... I'll admit that I read his review with a grain of salt. And I couldn't disagree more with everything he wrote. :D

[Onceuponatime]

Um, did he read book 2 and 3? Without trying to be spoilerish Katniss is NOT the revolution and that is well revealed in the other books.

 

As a writer I found flaws with the trilogy, but I found them realistic. Obviously we don't have Hunger Games (or do we?...) but so many books and movies show one person as the overriding hero and everyone around rejoices and gets behind them, cheering them on. Katniss' role may have people cheering, but it's public personality. In the end Katniss was but one person in the greater story.

 

I'm glad you said this. I was really quibbling about reading the second book. Now I think I will.

 

I think I see where the author of the article is coming from, but I will read the rest of the series before I come to an opinion. One thing I also thought while reading the book was why didn't she just cut out the locator. If they had all done that, it would definitely have made a statement. All the combatants would have been killed by the invisible controllers. End of Katriss's story. That probably wouldn't have sold as many books. :D

 

I think think what is being objected to are the postmodern elements of the story.

[elegantlion]

:iagree::iagree::iagree: Sooo... given ND Wilson's... family ties... I'll admit that I read his review with a grain of salt. And I couldn't disagree more with everything he wrote. :D

 

:bigear: What family ties? Is the Wilson family I am thinking of?

[katilac]

Casting aside many of the details I disagree with regardless, I think the critic is working from a fatally flawed assumption: that The Hunger Games can, or should, be evaluated in terms of how effectively it portrays self-sacrifice in particular and Christian themes in general. How does one criticize a book for not being an effective Christian allegory, when it was never meant to be a Christian allegory in the first place? Katniss offers herself in Prim's place, yes, but the idea of self-sacrifice is not a solely Christian one.

 

Given that shaky start, it's no surprise that he goes on to make nonsensical comparisons to other books and writers. Bringing up Mark Twain and his ability to portray motivation made the reverse of the intended impression on me - because Collins does exactly what he gives Twain so much credit for; she makes the motivations and actions of her character very believable. It took a very long raft trip for Huck Finn to see Jim as fully human, and to consider the idea of helping the runaway slave at cost to himself.

 

Likewise, Katniss is a flawed and reluctant hero. She is meant to be. Having her care and mourn for Rue while still killing others in the game may not make her the prime example of a stalwart Christian, but it does make her a realistic and compelling character - which is, after all, what she was meant to be.

 

The Hunger Games is indeed flawed as a Christian allegory, in much the same way a saber-toothed tiger is flawed as a household pet. It seems a silly thing to point out.

[brett_ashley]

What about his rape analogy? That has given me food for thought all morning.

 

Here’s a thought experiment to help us see clearly. What if Collins had thrown her character into this arena and the rules had been different? Last one raped wins. Rape or be raped.

[mommymilkies]

I have to say - I completely disagree with about everything he wrote.

The author built characters that could be related to as real people, reacting to horrible situations that they had little control over.

Did he even read the book???

 

I agree. And Katilac said it perfectly.

[Melinda in VT]

Having read two of his books, I find it odd that he is criticizing books that are far meatier than his own.

[elegantlion]

I'm glad you said this. I was really quibbling about reading the second book. Now I think I will.

 

 

I liked that aspect of the trilogy. In the first book Katniss' experience in very first person, all inside her own little Hunger Games world. She speculates, and looking back you can see how she elevates some of that speculation in her eyes. I think anyone in the same situation would do the same. Book 2 and 3, still in 1st person, move to less isolated view of what is going in the world.

 

We are called in small ways to stand up for our convictions, like she did at the end of the book or the way she cared for Rue. She wasn't trying to be revolutionary, she was being true to herself, even if she perceived it being way larger than it was initially.

 

It was that conviction and confident rushing into danger that allowed her to be the poster child. I could go on, but I don't want to spoil.

[Jean in Newcastle]

What about his rape analogy? That has given me food for thought all morning.

 

Stupid analogy. The reason why the Hunger games works is because it is a life or death situation. Period.

[Coffeetime]

:bigear: What family ties? Is the Wilson family I am thinking of?

Yes. He's Douglas Wilson's son. ;)

 

Casting aside many of the details I disagree with regardless, I think the critic is working from a fatally flawed assumption: that The Hunger Games can, or should, be evaluated in terms of how effectively it portrays self-sacrifice in particular and Christian themes in general. How does one criticize a book for not being an effective Christian allegory, when it was never meant to be a Christian allegory in the first place? Katniss offers herself in Prim's place, yes, but the idea of self-sacrifice is not a solely Christian one.

Given that shaky start, it's no surprise that he goes on to make nonsensical comparisons to other books and writers. Bringing up Mark Twain and his ability to portray motivation made the reverse of the intended impression on me - because Collins does exactly what he gives Twain so much credit for; she makes the motivations and actions of her character very believable. It took a very long raft trip for Huck Finn to see Jim as fully human, and to consider the idea of helping the runaway slave at cost to himself.

 

Likewise, Katniss is a flawed and reluctant hero. She is meant to be. Having her care and mourn for Rue while still killing others in the game may not make her the prime example of a stalwart Christian, but it does make her a realistic and compelling character - which is, after all, what she was meant to be.

 

The Hunger Games is indeed flawed as a Christian allegory, in much the same way a saber-toothed tiger is flawed as a household pet. It seems a silly thing to point out.

 

:iagree:Yes and yes.

[HeatherM2]

Casting aside many of the details I disagree with regardless, I think the critic is working from a fatally flawed assumption: that The Hunger Games can, or should, be evaluated in terms of how effectively it portrays self-sacrifice in particular and Christian themes in general. How does one criticize a book for not being an effective Christian allegory, when it was never meant to be a Christian allegory in the first place? Katniss offers herself in Prim's place, yes, but the idea of self-sacrifice is not a solely Christian one.

 

Given that shaky start, it's no surprise that he goes on to make nonsensical comparisons to other books and writers. Bringing up Mark Twain and his ability to portray motivation made the reverse of the intended impression on me - because Collins does exactly what he gives Twain so much credit for; she makes the motivations and actions of her character very believable. It took a very long raft trip for Huck Finn to see Jim as fully human, and to consider the idea of helping the runaway slave at cost to himself.

 

Likewise, Katniss is a flawed and reluctant hero. She is meant to be. Having her care and mourn for Rue while still killing others in the game may not make her the prime example of a stalwart Christian, but it does make her a realistic and compelling character - which is, after all, what she was meant to be.

 

The Hunger Games is indeed flawed as a Christian allegory, in much the same way a saber-toothed tiger is flawed as a household pet. It seems a silly thing to point out.

 

:iagree:

[elegantlion]

Yes. He's Douglas Wilson's son. ;)

 

 

 

Oh, that's explains.:D

[Spy Car]

What a dope.

 

Bill

[Wheres Toto]

Casting aside many of the details I disagree with regardless, I think the critic is working from a fatally flawed assumption: that The Hunger Games can, or should, be evaluated in terms of how effectively it portrays self-sacrifice in particular and Christian themes in general. How does one criticize a book for not being an effective Christian allegory, when it was never meant to be a Christian allegory in the first place? Katniss offers herself in Prim's place, yes, but the idea of self-sacrifice is not a solely Christian one.

 

Given that shaky start, it's no surprise that he goes on to make nonsensical comparisons to other books and writers. Bringing up Mark Twain and his ability to portray motivation made the reverse of the intended impression on me - because Collins does exactly what he gives Twain so much credit for; she makes the motivations and actions of her character very believable. It took a very long raft trip for Huck Finn to see Jim as fully human, and to consider the idea of helping the runaway slave at cost to himself.

 

Likewise, Katniss is a flawed and reluctant hero. She is meant to be. Having her care and mourn for Rue while still killing others in the game may not make her the prime example of a stalwart Christian, but it does make her a realistic and compelling character - which is, after all, what she was meant to be.

 

The Hunger Games is indeed flawed as a Christian allegory, in much the same way a saber-toothed tiger is flawed as a household pet. It seems a silly thing to point out.

:iagree:

 

Also, his review acts like Katniss was meant to be this big self-sacrificing hero trying to fight for the greater good. She did what she did to save her sister. She volunteered to take her place because she knew her sister wouldn't have any chance at surviving the games. She did her best to survive because she promised and she wanted to return to continue taking care of her sister. She wasn't out to change the world, she just wanted her family to survive.

[katilac]

I'm glad you said this. I was really quibbling about reading the second book. Now I think I will.

 

I think I see where the author of the article is coming from, but I will read the rest of the series before I come to an opinion. One thing I also thought while reading the book was why didn't she just cut out the locator. If they had all done that, it would definitely have made a statement. All the combatants would have been killed by the invisible controllers. End of Katriss's story. That probably wouldn't have sold as many books. :D

 

I think think what is being objected to are the postmodern elements of the story.

 

Remember, no one, including Katniss, goes into the Hunger Games with the intent of fostering rebellion - they are just trying to survive a situation they have been raised to think is both normal and noble. She does not mourn Rue as an act of protest. The suicide scene was meant to save Katniss and Peeta. No one went for the most effective way of overthrowing the H/G, because no one was trying to overthrow them.

 

Not that simply cutting out the locators would have been particularly effective, even if you could get a group of people who are trying to kill each other on sight to both discuss it and agree to it :D. Locators simply make it quick and easy to find the players; cutting them out would make it more difficult, but certainly not impossible or even difficult. Remember, they are in a defined location, with cameras everywhere. The games would have been delayed while they were found and killed, and a new batch of recruits tossed in.

 

Let's face it, it's just not as easy as we think it is for a small group of teens to overthrow the new world order!

[Butter]

It sounds like he would have really enjoyed the book if he'd written it. As it happens, he didn't.

 

:iagree:

 

I have a feeling his version wouldn't have been nearly the seller Collins's version has been either.

[Coffeetime]

What about his rape analogy? That has given me food for thought all morning.

 

Honestly, I didn't get that analogy at all. It made very little sense to me. It was a huge leap for him to say that people who were willing to murder in cold blood, obviously wouldn't participate in rape. :confused:

 

Having read two of his books, I find it odd that he is criticizing books that are far meatier than his own.

 

My son (10yo) read his 100 Cupboards book and enjoyed it. Then he went on to the second book and couldn't even finish it. He said it seemed like the same story over again- only written by someone else. He wasn't impressed.

 

What a dope.

 

Bill

 

:D

[Word Nerd]

Casting aside many of the details I disagree with regardless, I think the critic is working from a fatally flawed assumption: that The Hunger Games can, or should, be evaluated in terms of how effectively it portrays self-sacrifice in particular and Christian themes in general. How does one criticize a book for not being an effective Christian allegory, when it was never meant to be a Christian allegory in the first place? Katniss offers herself in Prim's place, yes, but the idea of self-sacrifice is not a solely Christian one.

 

Given that shaky start, it's no surprise that he goes on to make nonsensical comparisons to other books and writers. Bringing up Mark Twain and his ability to portray motivation made the reverse of the intended impression on me - because Collins does exactly what he gives Twain so much credit for; she makes the motivations and actions of her character very believable. It took a very long raft trip for Huck Finn to see Jim as fully human, and to consider the idea of helping the runaway slave at cost to himself.

 

Likewise, Katniss is a flawed and reluctant hero. She is meant to be. Having her care and mourn for Rue while still killing others in the game may not make her the prime example of a stalwart Christian, but it does make her a realistic and compelling character - which is, after all, what she was meant to be.

 

The Hunger Games is indeed flawed as a Christian allegory, in much the same way a saber-toothed tiger is flawed as a household pet. It seems a silly thing to point out.

 

:iagree:

[katilac]

What about his rape analogy? That has given me food for thought all morning.

 

It's beside the point, because Katniss is not meant to be a hero when she enters that arena.

 

And now I am inappropriately amused at the idea of a Wilson giving brain space to the thought of men having sex with men.

[TXMary2]

I disageee with this guy's assessment. I am also pretty tired of other Christians saying, in so many words, that Christians that enjoy the Hunger Games are somehow bigger sinners than they are and we should be ashamed. I had one friend say, "..whatever sick and twisted soul wrote the Hunger Games needs an exorcism..." Really??

[brett_ashley]

Honestly, I didn't get that analogy at all. It made very little sense to me. It was a huge leap for him to say that people who were willing to murder in cold blood, obviously wouldn't participate in rape. :confused:

 

I think his point is more to Katniss as a heroine--what if she was the victor because she successfully raped her competitors before getting raped? Are we more desensitized to murder?

 

Mrs. Mungo, why is it stupid? Hutu leaders catalogued and rewarded the militia based on how many Tutsi women they raped.

[brett_ashley]

It's beside the point, because Katniss is not meant to be a hero when she enters that arena.

 

:confused: I disagree. She is clearly a heroine. Flawed? Yes.

[Little Nyssa]

I have to say, I haven't read it and don't plan to, BUT:

 

as far as I understand it,

 

the book is about something dystopian and horrible, a totalitarian system inflicting suffering, and warping people.

 

The lesson it teaches is that we should not allow such things to happen in real life-- we shouldn't allow a totalitarian government-- we shouldn't allow anyone in power to be a tyrant.

 

I think that's a good lesson and not "deeply flawed" at all.

 

I still don't plan to read it, though.

[elegantlion]

I think his point is more to Katniss as a heroine--what if she was the victor because she successfully raped her competitors before getting raped? Are we more desensitized to murder?

 

Mrs. Mungo, why is it stupid? Hutu leaders catalogued and rewarded the militia based on how many Tutsi women they raped.

 

I don't get the comparison. It's not about being desensitized to one or the other. Rape is about power, murder, in this scenario, is about survival. The reward here was survival and returning to your own home and family, not some militia based twisted sense of power. Bringing in the Rwandan genocide doesn't really make the comparison more valid.

[FaithManor]

What a dope.

 

Bill

 

 

Thank you for voicing what I was thinking!

 

Faith

[Lolly]

I do believe someone needs to work on their reading comprehension skills not to mention human psych. knowledge. How on earth did he come up with that cr@p? Katniss is NEVER shown to be self-sacrificing. Even volunteering to take her sister's place is somewhat selfish of her. She cannot stand the thought of losing her sister. This way, she doesn't have to. Everything else he said is even more ridiculous.

[Coffeetime]

OP, have you read the books? Just curious.

[Jugglin'5]

I do believe someone needs to work on their reading comprehension skills not to mention human psych. knowledge. How on earth did he come up with that cr@p? Katniss is NEVER shown to be self-sacrificing. Even volunteering to take her sister's place is somewhat selfish of her. She cannot stand the thought of losing her sister. This way, she doesn't have to. Everything else he said is even more ridiculous.

 

I guess I need to work on my reading comprehension skills, because I do think she is self-sacrificing. :D She is a deeply flawed heroine, but she is still heroic.

[6packofun]

He's also the author of the 100 Cupboards series. But I assume that people will lump him with his family/father so that they can rip away and not look at him on his own merits.

 

Whew, I'm glad no one thinks they know me because my mother is a self-centered, complainer most of the time! LOL :D

[Coffeetime]

He's also the author of the 100 Cupboards series. But I assume that people will lump him with his family/father so that they can rip away and not look at him on his own merits.

 

Whew, I'm glad no one thinks they know me because my mother is a self-centered, complainer most of the time! LOL :D

 

Ummm.... he's not just his "father's son", he works very closely with his father and does interviews with him. He was the managing editor of the Credenda/Agenda (his father's publication), he is a professor at New St. Andrews (his father's college). I think it's pretty safe to say that he holds similar viewpoints. And like I said- we have read some of his books. My 10 year old felt that there was no continuity in his writing from one book to the other- and that the story wasn't deep enough to make it through even 2 books. He didn't finish the series.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Coffeetime
typo

[Jugglin'5]

I think his point is more to Katniss as a heroine--what if she was the victor because she successfully raped her competitors before getting raped? Are we more desensitized to murder?

 

 

 

I am sympathetic to the analogy, but I think it is too flawed to be useful. Nobody ever rapes in self-defense, but killing in self-defense is justifiable. And for all Katniss' talk about surviving at any cost, does anyone really think she would have killed Rue or Peeta at the end if that was the only choice left? No. In the first book she avoids others as much as possible and only kills in self-defense, the defense of others, or in mercy (Cato). Her speech and thoughts sound gruff and selfish, but her actions show a different side.

[brett_ashley]

OP, have you read the books? Just curious.

 

I guess I'm the OP? I offered no commentary beyond just posting the article.

 

I did read the books and enjoyed them but did not think they were particularly well-written, kind of the opposite of Wilson who thought they were well-written but had character development flaws.

 

The things that drove me crazy were not his complaints, but more the ridiculously overwrought analogies and lines like this one: "I don't have time to think about kissing. I've got a rebellion to incite."

 

to the rape analogy: if you're put in an arena where the last man unraped receives food to live on, then rape becomes about survival as well.

Edited May 17, 2012 by brett_ashley

[Jugglin'5]

 

to the rape analogy: if you're put in an arena where the last man unraped receives food to live on, then rape becomes about survival as well.

 

What I am trying to say is that you can justifiably kill someone, you can never justifiably rape someone. I don't think receiving food rations would justify killing, either, though.

 

I actually enjoy N.D. Wilson as an author, and I enjoy reading his book reviews. I just happen to think he missed it on this one. My daughters have a group of friends that like to discuss books, and they all seem to have completely different reactions to Katniss' character. It is almost as if her character is a Rorschach test. :lol:

[Greta]

Casting aside many of the details I disagree with regardless, I think the critic is working from a fatally flawed assumption: that The Hunger Games can, or should, be evaluated in terms of how effectively it portrays self-sacrifice in particular and Christian themes in general. How does one criticize a book for not being an effective Christian allegory, when it was never meant to be a Christian allegory in the first place? Katniss offers herself in Prim's place, yes, but the idea of self-sacrifice is not a solely Christian one.

 

 

The Hunger Games is indeed flawed as a Christian allegory, in much the same way a saber-toothed tiger is flawed as a household pet. It seems a silly thing to point out.

 

Was the book meant to be a Christian allegory? Why the comparison? He sounds like an obsessed moron who tries to put everything into a religious model.

Doug Wilson's son--I'd say his stupidity was inherited.

 

I did not read Wilson's article this way at all. It never occurred to me that he was criticizing The Hunger Games on the basis of it failing as Christian allegory. It seemed clear to me that he was criticizing on the basis of the characters being poorly developed and inconsistent.

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

The idea of Katniss breaking all the rules and refusing to play sounds great; except the government would have something horrible to her family if she was that obviously rebellious. Because she and Peeta played along with the "star-crossed-lovers" thing, they got away with it. It was small. Katniss would never have done something more obvious and dangerous to her family. Otherwise what was the point in volunteering for her sister?

 

I think he should have addressed the fact that as a society we would never require other children to kill each other. Other adults I could see, but not children. There is too much built in us the need to protect children. Even criminals (barring pedophiles) feel this.

[Jugglin'5]

I did not read Wilson's article this way at all. It never occurred to me that he was criticizing The Hunger Games on the basis of it failing as Christian allegory. It seemed clear to me that he was criticizing on the basis of the characters being poorly developed and inconsistent.

 

:iagree: I happen to mostly disagree with his assessment, but I agree with GretaLynne about what he is doing.