Anyone else happen to have Fringe, Awake, and Grimm on their TV-viewing schedules? If so, you may have noticed a common thread in their most recent episodes: No evidence is evidence. Spoilers ahead.
Even though Awake airs first, Fringe was the first of the three that I watched. In Friday's episode, called "The Consultant", Walter helps Fauxlivia solve the mystery of the mole in Fringe Division when he tells her "No evidence is evidence." By that, he means that her being unable to find any trace of the mole implies that the mole must be someone high up, with the power to tamper with evidence and erase his tracks. Though she initially can't believe that Colonel Broyles would betray them, by the end of the episode, they have him in custody.
It's a shame Walter can't be in every show (really, he'd be an excellent addition to just about anything). In Thursday's episode of Awake, titled "Ricky's Tacos," Detective Britten's subconscious--or magic power or whatever--is telling him to look back at a case he was working on before his accident. He checks out a building related to the case, but finds nothing. When he tries to find the case file back at the station, it is missing. When he reports this to Captain Harper, rather than being concerned that a whole case file is gone, she questions why he's investigating the closed case in the first place. Britten is deflected. No evidence is evidence, Detective. Of course, we the audience know that the police chief is involved in...something...which requires her to cover up this case and keep Detective Britten distracted. In her position of power, it's not a difficult thing for her to do.
Then we come to Grimm. Friday's episode, "Love Sick," starts with police Captain Renard killing two men (who probably had it coming) in a parking garage. Don't mess with Sam Adama. He knows just what to do to make it look like the men killed each other, but he misses one thing: the guy's cell phone, which could reveal that its most recent call was made to the captain himself. After Nick collects the phone for evidence, Renard is able to replace its SIM card. So, when the lab reports their findings back to Nick, they reveal that the old phone has a completely clean, new SIM card. How odd. No evidence is evidence, Nick. It's time for Nick to figure out that something's up with Renard, because I'm dying to know who/what he is and what he's doing.
I couldn't help but be amused by this apparent theme of the week. I guess it says something about the kind of TV shows that I watch. By now we've learned this lesson very well: If you can't find evidence, or your evidence goes missing, your boss is probably conspiring against you.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Monday, April 2, 2012
The Hunger Games, with Beanie Babies
If you're a fan of The Hunger Games and don't mind a bit of cuteness, I suggest you check out this retelling of the story with Beanie Babies. Surprisingly faithful to the source material, it's really very well done and had enough cleverness to win me over completely. And, in just 11 minutes, they managed to include some plot points that the movie had to leave out. I wish I could make home movies like this.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Game of Thrones, Season Two: A Clash of Kings
It's already aired in some of the world, but I am so excited to see the new season of HBO's Game of Thrones, which premieres tonight. One of my friends who watches the show just got HBO, so we'll be gathering at her house every Sunday for the next few months. I had grand plans to make lemon cakes for the premiere, but only got as far as buying lemons; Sunday laziness kicked in, and it didn't happen. Maybe some other week.
I've heard excellent things from the critics who I gather have been treated to the first four episodes of the season, so I have high hopes. I'm particularly looking forward to Arya and Dany's storylines in this season. And Tyrion's of course. The only trouble is that of the four of us who will be watching together, I'm the only one who's read the book Clash of Kings (I'm still in the middle of Storm of Swords). I'm pretty bad at keeping a straight face, so I don't know what I'm going to do when they turn to me and ask questions, or share their theories... One friend suggested "Put a paper bag over your head", but that's not very sustainable. Well, I'll just have to learn to deal with it.
If you're not watching Game of Thrones, I highly recommend you catch up quickly and jump on Season 2. It's going to be an exciting ride.
I've heard excellent things from the critics who I gather have been treated to the first four episodes of the season, so I have high hopes. I'm particularly looking forward to Arya and Dany's storylines in this season. And Tyrion's of course. The only trouble is that of the four of us who will be watching together, I'm the only one who's read the book Clash of Kings (I'm still in the middle of Storm of Swords). I'm pretty bad at keeping a straight face, so I don't know what I'm going to do when they turn to me and ask questions, or share their theories... One friend suggested "Put a paper bag over your head", but that's not very sustainable. Well, I'll just have to learn to deal with it.
If you're not watching Game of Thrones, I highly recommend you catch up quickly and jump on Season 2. It's going to be an exciting ride.
Friday, March 30, 2012
What I missed from the Hunger Games movie
On Wednesday, I went with some friends to the theater to see The Hunger Games. We skipped opening weekend to avoid the crowds, but it was still impressively crowded for a Wednesday night. I thought they did a great job with the movie--my boyfriend, who hadn't read the book, loved it as well and thought it all made sense--but I couldn't help but miss a lot of things from the book that got left out. I understand the necessity of cutting things down for a movie adaptation. Nothing that was in the movie stood out to me as unnecessary, and the movie is already 142 minutes long. I doubt it could have gotten away with a Lord-of-the-Rings runtime. But would it have hurt to flesh out just a few of these things?
Over on io9 they have a good post on Everything The Hunger Games Movie Left Out. They don't exactly get everything, and many of the things they mention I'm OK with being left out. Here I'll share the things that I really missed--the things I wanted to tell my boyfriend all about until he shut me up by saying he might still read the book. So, if like him you've only seen the movie but are considering reading the book, these might be considered slight SPOILERS. Really, if you liked the movie and haven't read the book, I highly recommend it. There's a lot you haven't seen that's worth seeing.
If you haven't read the books OR seen the movie, then these DEFINITELY contain SPOILERS.
Capitol living
In spite of the audience being treated to secret conversations between President Snow and head gamemaker Seneca Crane, I feel we get much less of a sense of what life is like for residents of the Capitol. Elizabeth Banks is great as Effie, but we could have used more of her. They could have added a couple lines here and there explaining how she feels about being the escort for District 12, rather than some nicer district that produces more victors. Not only would it have cleared up exactly what her role is for the District 12 tributes (not obvious in the movie), but it would have further highlighted how silly and self-centered most residents of the Capitol are. Giving Octavia, Flavius, and Venia just one short session with Katniss where they got to blab about their frivolous parties would have helped, too. Those characters get a little more to do in the next two books, so I wonder whether the movies are going to continue to leave them out entirely. If so, I'll definitely miss them.
Life in District 11 and Rue bonding time
They had to budget their runtime, but I still was disappointed by how brief the Rue alliance was in the movie. There was no time for them to discuss what life was like at home--how Rue worked in the orchards and could climb to the highest branches, and even though they grow the food they are just as starving as the residents of District 12. Panem keeps the districts completely isolated from each other, since it helps them maintain control, so this is really Katniss's first look into life in another district. It enriches her relationship with Rue, making it all the more poignant when Rue is killed, Katniss sings (because we know how Rue loves music), and she gets the bread. Yes, I missed the bread on a parachute, but I think they were right to cut it out. It would have required a random scene of Peeta explaining district bread types, and Katniss was still able to salute the people of District 11 without it.
Warming up to Cinna
Spending more time with Cinna, and the preparations before the games in general, would have slowed the movie down, but I still wished there were a little more with Cinna. Saying "I'm sorry" was enough to make Katniss like him? Really? I missed the scene where he acknowledges that Katniss must find them (in the Capitol) disgusting for having more food than they could ever need, while the outlying districts struggle to avoid starvation. It's through a series of similar interactions that he finally wins Katniss's appreciation. It was also his idea for Peeta and Katniss to hold hands in the chariot, which really paved the way to their success leading up to the Games.
It's complicated with Peeta
The Katniss-Peeta relationship is really important to this story. Not being able to read Katniss's thoughts made it much harder to explain, but it was also cut down a lot by time constraints of the movie. Haymitch made it very clear to Katniss that her best chance for sponsors was to play the Peeta romance angle. After a little peck in the cave, she is rewarded with hot broth (this happens in the movie). When she really opens up to Peeta, they get a feast (this is skipped). This progression is largely lost in the movie. The few days Katniss spends with Peeta hiding out in the cave are when the line starts to blur between what she's doing for the sponsors, for her district (if she lets Peeta die, they'll never forgive her), and for what might actually be genuine love for Peeta.
I was really bothered by the movie flashback scene in which Peeta throws the bread, because they seemed to change it, or at the very least left out a significant bit. In the movie, Peeta and Katniss don't look any younger (maybe just a problem with the medium), and he kind of callously tosses a burnt roll into a puddle for her. She's drenched, but it's not clear if she's starving or just sad. I wonder how someone who hasn't read the book interpreted this. In the book, they were only 11 at the time. It's after her father died, and she's absolutely starving. If she doesn't get something for her and her family to eat, they may die--today. She's rooting through the trash, and Peeta's mother tells her to get lost. Peeta purposely burns a couple loaves of bread, even though he knows it will mean a slap from his mother, so that he can go out to throw the bread "to the pigs". He really throws them to Katniss, who has collapsed from hunger and exhaustion. It's this renewed hope that Peeta brought that allows Katniss to turn her life around, start hunting in the woods and providing for her family. He didn't just feed her--he saved her life. How much of this came across in the movie?
Their decision not to have Peeta lose part of his leg certainly simplified things, but it also removed the urgency and drama from the end of the arena portion of the story. They need to get out of the arena FAST or Peeta will bleed out, leading to her rash decision with the berries. When they get lifted into the hovercraft (which I think are unseen in the arena in the movie), and they're separated as medics tend to Peeta, Katniss goes crazy. It's heart-wrenching and suspenseful, and I missed it. Lastly, they decided to leave out the bit where Haymitch tells Katniss that her feigned relationship with Peeta can't stop when they get back to District 12. This is a big plot point that is important for the second book. I guess they'll have to mention it at the beginning of the second movie, but I don't know why they didn't just stick in a line from Haymitch at the end of this one.
A couple other things
Did they ever explain what a mockingjay was? I don't know when they would have, but since it becomes such an important symbol, they'll have to explain it some time.
io9 makes a good point about the movie downplaying the hunger in the Hunger Games. You see how excited Katniss is when Gale pulls out a roll of bread, then you see all the pastries laid out on the train, but that's really all you have to go on to understand just how different the food situation is between the Capitol and the poorer districts. It's really important, and they could have done more here.
Those were the main things I felt I missed. All that said, there was one thing the movie included that was not in the book that I absolutely loved: The quick, wordless scene at the end with Seneca Crane. In the second book, we find out after the fact that Crane was executed (not clear how) due to his failure with the Games. In the movie, we see him escorted to then locked in a beautiful room with a beautiful bowl of beautiful purple berries. So. Perfect.
They got a lot right in the movie. I really enjoyed it, and they did as well as I had hoped. Their depiction of District 12 and the Capitol and the arena were great, and they got the essentials of the story across. But I'm still glad I read the book.
Over on io9 they have a good post on Everything The Hunger Games Movie Left Out. They don't exactly get everything, and many of the things they mention I'm OK with being left out. Here I'll share the things that I really missed--the things I wanted to tell my boyfriend all about until he shut me up by saying he might still read the book. So, if like him you've only seen the movie but are considering reading the book, these might be considered slight SPOILERS. Really, if you liked the movie and haven't read the book, I highly recommend it. There's a lot you haven't seen that's worth seeing.
If you haven't read the books OR seen the movie, then these DEFINITELY contain SPOILERS.
Capitol living
In spite of the audience being treated to secret conversations between President Snow and head gamemaker Seneca Crane, I feel we get much less of a sense of what life is like for residents of the Capitol. Elizabeth Banks is great as Effie, but we could have used more of her. They could have added a couple lines here and there explaining how she feels about being the escort for District 12, rather than some nicer district that produces more victors. Not only would it have cleared up exactly what her role is for the District 12 tributes (not obvious in the movie), but it would have further highlighted how silly and self-centered most residents of the Capitol are. Giving Octavia, Flavius, and Venia just one short session with Katniss where they got to blab about their frivolous parties would have helped, too. Those characters get a little more to do in the next two books, so I wonder whether the movies are going to continue to leave them out entirely. If so, I'll definitely miss them.
Life in District 11 and Rue bonding time
They had to budget their runtime, but I still was disappointed by how brief the Rue alliance was in the movie. There was no time for them to discuss what life was like at home--how Rue worked in the orchards and could climb to the highest branches, and even though they grow the food they are just as starving as the residents of District 12. Panem keeps the districts completely isolated from each other, since it helps them maintain control, so this is really Katniss's first look into life in another district. It enriches her relationship with Rue, making it all the more poignant when Rue is killed, Katniss sings (because we know how Rue loves music), and she gets the bread. Yes, I missed the bread on a parachute, but I think they were right to cut it out. It would have required a random scene of Peeta explaining district bread types, and Katniss was still able to salute the people of District 11 without it.
Warming up to Cinna
Spending more time with Cinna, and the preparations before the games in general, would have slowed the movie down, but I still wished there were a little more with Cinna. Saying "I'm sorry" was enough to make Katniss like him? Really? I missed the scene where he acknowledges that Katniss must find them (in the Capitol) disgusting for having more food than they could ever need, while the outlying districts struggle to avoid starvation. It's through a series of similar interactions that he finally wins Katniss's appreciation. It was also his idea for Peeta and Katniss to hold hands in the chariot, which really paved the way to their success leading up to the Games.
It's complicated with Peeta
The Katniss-Peeta relationship is really important to this story. Not being able to read Katniss's thoughts made it much harder to explain, but it was also cut down a lot by time constraints of the movie. Haymitch made it very clear to Katniss that her best chance for sponsors was to play the Peeta romance angle. After a little peck in the cave, she is rewarded with hot broth (this happens in the movie). When she really opens up to Peeta, they get a feast (this is skipped). This progression is largely lost in the movie. The few days Katniss spends with Peeta hiding out in the cave are when the line starts to blur between what she's doing for the sponsors, for her district (if she lets Peeta die, they'll never forgive her), and for what might actually be genuine love for Peeta.
I was really bothered by the movie flashback scene in which Peeta throws the bread, because they seemed to change it, or at the very least left out a significant bit. In the movie, Peeta and Katniss don't look any younger (maybe just a problem with the medium), and he kind of callously tosses a burnt roll into a puddle for her. She's drenched, but it's not clear if she's starving or just sad. I wonder how someone who hasn't read the book interpreted this. In the book, they were only 11 at the time. It's after her father died, and she's absolutely starving. If she doesn't get something for her and her family to eat, they may die--today. She's rooting through the trash, and Peeta's mother tells her to get lost. Peeta purposely burns a couple loaves of bread, even though he knows it will mean a slap from his mother, so that he can go out to throw the bread "to the pigs". He really throws them to Katniss, who has collapsed from hunger and exhaustion. It's this renewed hope that Peeta brought that allows Katniss to turn her life around, start hunting in the woods and providing for her family. He didn't just feed her--he saved her life. How much of this came across in the movie?
Their decision not to have Peeta lose part of his leg certainly simplified things, but it also removed the urgency and drama from the end of the arena portion of the story. They need to get out of the arena FAST or Peeta will bleed out, leading to her rash decision with the berries. When they get lifted into the hovercraft (which I think are unseen in the arena in the movie), and they're separated as medics tend to Peeta, Katniss goes crazy. It's heart-wrenching and suspenseful, and I missed it. Lastly, they decided to leave out the bit where Haymitch tells Katniss that her feigned relationship with Peeta can't stop when they get back to District 12. This is a big plot point that is important for the second book. I guess they'll have to mention it at the beginning of the second movie, but I don't know why they didn't just stick in a line from Haymitch at the end of this one.
A couple other things
Did they ever explain what a mockingjay was? I don't know when they would have, but since it becomes such an important symbol, they'll have to explain it some time.
io9 makes a good point about the movie downplaying the hunger in the Hunger Games. You see how excited Katniss is when Gale pulls out a roll of bread, then you see all the pastries laid out on the train, but that's really all you have to go on to understand just how different the food situation is between the Capitol and the poorer districts. It's really important, and they could have done more here.
Those were the main things I felt I missed. All that said, there was one thing the movie included that was not in the book that I absolutely loved: The quick, wordless scene at the end with Seneca Crane. In the second book, we find out after the fact that Crane was executed (not clear how) due to his failure with the Games. In the movie, we see him escorted to then locked in a beautiful room with a beautiful bowl of beautiful purple berries. So. Perfect.
They got a lot right in the movie. I really enjoyed it, and they did as well as I had hoped. Their depiction of District 12 and the Capitol and the arena were great, and they got the essentials of the story across. But I'm still glad I read the book.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Happy Hunger Games!
The Hunger Games movie came out today, and I know it had great success with midnight showings, with the largest midnight debut for a non-sequel. The reviews have been overall extremely positive (currently 87% on Rotten Tomatoes). I'm so excited to see it, though I'm not sure which day I'll be going. I prefer to avoid large crowds on opening days.
If you haven't read the books, I highly recommend them--they're very quick reads that may make you reevaluate yourself in interesting and surprising ways. And if you don't want to read them, it seems the movie is indeed worth seeing. I hope it does really well at the box office so that the sequels will be made.
Happy Hunger Games! May the odds be ever in your favor!
(I had to do it.)
If you haven't read the books, I highly recommend them--they're very quick reads that may make you reevaluate yourself in interesting and surprising ways. And if you don't want to read them, it seems the movie is indeed worth seeing. I hope it does really well at the box office so that the sequels will be made.Happy Hunger Games! May the odds be ever in your favor!
(I had to do it.)
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Reflections from The Hunger Games
Spoiler free!
With all the buzz and anticipation for the Hunger Games movie, which finally comes out tomorrow (midnight tonight!), I knew I'd have to read the book. A friend of mine lent it to me on her Kindle (my first time reading a book on an e-reader--I liked it a lot) a few weeks ago, and I devoured it. I had only planned on reading the first book now, just so I would know what was happening going into the movie, but how could I stop there? It ends on an emotionally unsatisfying note that begs for the sequel, which, being just a Kindle click away, I had to start immediately.
I'm glad I finished the trilogy because not only am I finally satiated, I'm also immune to any spoilers, so I can read any analysis of the movie and books fear free. I think the first book was my favorite--probably the best standalone story, except for the fact that, as I mentioned before, it left me needing more. Without any spoilers, the third book did leave me satisfied, though there were still a few unanswered questions I would have liked addressed.
My experience reading the books was slightly tainted by the fact that I already knew what actors were playing most of the main characters, so I couldn't help but picture them in their roles as I read. In a few cases, this actually created frustration due to the age difference between actor and character--Why is Katniss being so foolish? Oh, right, because she's 16, not a 21-year-old Jennifer Lawrence. I prefer to have a clean slate so my imagination can create its own renderings of the characters, but on the bright side, when I watch the movie, the characters will look exactly as I pictured them.
I have high praise for the Hunger Games trilogy. The story is great, with a reluctant, even resistant hero forced to be more than she ever wanted to be, who stepped up in every occasion because it was necessary. It examines bravery, kindness, sacrifice, trust, love, justice, selfishness, selflessness, conformity, rebellion, propaganda... It sent me through a wide range of emotions. But also, more than any other book, or even TV show or movie in recent memory (maybe BSG?), it challenged me to rethink myself and my society. And that challenge came as a surprise, seemingly out of nowhere, in this young adult book about a far off and foreign future.
The first thing that caught me was the obvious link between the horrible, televised Hunger Games (the "highlight" of Panem entertainment in which 24 children fight to the death until one victor survives) and the reality TV that we watch today. We obviously don't let people die in our reality entertainment, but we do enjoy seeing them get beaten up, sometimes physically but definitely emotionally. Now, I've never liked reality TV, except for some talent contests (So You Think You Can Dance is my favorite), so I could just place myself above it all. Still, I can't deny how fun it was to read about Katniss's trials in the arena. All her close calls, and her triumphs--they were so exciting! When a cannon would go off, and we'd learned that someone had died that she hadn't witnessed, I couldn't help but think, Aw, I want to know how he died! Was I really so bloodthirsty? Was I as bad as the people of the Capitol of Panem who actually enjoy watching the Hunger Games? I was taken aback by this thought, though I concluded that the answer is no: For me, there aren't actually real people dying, whereas the residents of the Capitol were watching real children die. If real children's lives were actually at stake, I would be beyond horrified. But still, is there something wrong with me if I enjoy reading a story in which kids kill other kids, even if it isn't real?
The other thing that disturbed me had to do with a scene between Katniss and her stylist Cinna, a Capitol resident. They're talking, it's time for lunch, and as I recall it, Cinna basically presses a button and a table full of more food than they could possibly eat pops up. Where Katniss lives, people regularly die of starvation--she and her family almost did themselves at one point, before she learned to hunt (which is illegal by the Capitol's laws). At the thought of people in the Capitol having more food than they can eat appear at the touch of a button, Katniss is repulsed. Cinna is wise enough to know it and says something to the effect of, "We must disgust you." It's as close to an apology as he can give, verbally. With his actions, of course he could do much more.
The scene disturbed me because, somewhat after the fact, I finally realized that I'm a resident of the Capitol. I have never worried about whether I would be able to obtain food for my next meal. I have never worried about perishing from hunger. If I have any food-related problem, it's access to too much of it. Though I usually don't think about it, I've known for a long time how lucky I am. I know that there are millions of people who don't have enough to eat, millions who are in danger of dying of hunger. I even know that this isn't just because there isn't enough food in the world to go around, but that the food is poorly distributed. Though I didn't really think about it, I guess I would have assumed that starving people would be jealous of people like me. It never occurred to me that they might be disgusted by me. Or that they'd be justified.
I think there's something special about the science fiction genre to make me understand this. Had the main character in a story set in the real world made a similar observation, saying that Americans with their excess of food (note: there are many Americans who are hungry; please excuse this generalization) disgust them, I would be defensive. Well, it's not my fault that I was born to a family with enough money to provide me with adequate nutrition. It's not my fault that my society is like this. I'd help you out if there were some easy way to do so--actually, I'll have you know, sometimes I do donate to the hungry! Because I already have my own place in this world and my own views, I am already biased and resistant to criticisms. But in a foreign world like Katniss's, the only place I have is hers. Hers are the only eyes through which I can see Panem. From the first-person point of view, I can see that she is a flawed but overall good and reasonable person, so I trust her. Thus I have no choice but to view the world the way she views it. And so I accept on face value that if the people of the Capitol disgust her for how much food they have while others starve, they disgust me. Then, when I then put down the book, I can see that this particular way in which the Capitol residents are disgusting applies to me as well. It's a trick. I have been tricked into finding myself disgusting.
I don't know what will become of this revelation. Having caught the trick, I can pull up my defenses again. But the Hunger Games definitely hit a chink in the armor. Not only was it an exciting, fun, imaginative, beautiful book, it also upset me in surprising ways. That's what you can hope for from a great book.
With all the buzz and anticipation for the Hunger Games movie, which finally comes out tomorrow (midnight tonight!), I knew I'd have to read the book. A friend of mine lent it to me on her Kindle (my first time reading a book on an e-reader--I liked it a lot) a few weeks ago, and I devoured it. I had only planned on reading the first book now, just so I would know what was happening going into the movie, but how could I stop there? It ends on an emotionally unsatisfying note that begs for the sequel, which, being just a Kindle click away, I had to start immediately.I'm glad I finished the trilogy because not only am I finally satiated, I'm also immune to any spoilers, so I can read any analysis of the movie and books fear free. I think the first book was my favorite--probably the best standalone story, except for the fact that, as I mentioned before, it left me needing more. Without any spoilers, the third book did leave me satisfied, though there were still a few unanswered questions I would have liked addressed.
My experience reading the books was slightly tainted by the fact that I already knew what actors were playing most of the main characters, so I couldn't help but picture them in their roles as I read. In a few cases, this actually created frustration due to the age difference between actor and character--Why is Katniss being so foolish? Oh, right, because she's 16, not a 21-year-old Jennifer Lawrence. I prefer to have a clean slate so my imagination can create its own renderings of the characters, but on the bright side, when I watch the movie, the characters will look exactly as I pictured them.
I have high praise for the Hunger Games trilogy. The story is great, with a reluctant, even resistant hero forced to be more than she ever wanted to be, who stepped up in every occasion because it was necessary. It examines bravery, kindness, sacrifice, trust, love, justice, selfishness, selflessness, conformity, rebellion, propaganda... It sent me through a wide range of emotions. But also, more than any other book, or even TV show or movie in recent memory (maybe BSG?), it challenged me to rethink myself and my society. And that challenge came as a surprise, seemingly out of nowhere, in this young adult book about a far off and foreign future.
The first thing that caught me was the obvious link between the horrible, televised Hunger Games (the "highlight" of Panem entertainment in which 24 children fight to the death until one victor survives) and the reality TV that we watch today. We obviously don't let people die in our reality entertainment, but we do enjoy seeing them get beaten up, sometimes physically but definitely emotionally. Now, I've never liked reality TV, except for some talent contests (So You Think You Can Dance is my favorite), so I could just place myself above it all. Still, I can't deny how fun it was to read about Katniss's trials in the arena. All her close calls, and her triumphs--they were so exciting! When a cannon would go off, and we'd learned that someone had died that she hadn't witnessed, I couldn't help but think, Aw, I want to know how he died! Was I really so bloodthirsty? Was I as bad as the people of the Capitol of Panem who actually enjoy watching the Hunger Games? I was taken aback by this thought, though I concluded that the answer is no: For me, there aren't actually real people dying, whereas the residents of the Capitol were watching real children die. If real children's lives were actually at stake, I would be beyond horrified. But still, is there something wrong with me if I enjoy reading a story in which kids kill other kids, even if it isn't real?
The other thing that disturbed me had to do with a scene between Katniss and her stylist Cinna, a Capitol resident. They're talking, it's time for lunch, and as I recall it, Cinna basically presses a button and a table full of more food than they could possibly eat pops up. Where Katniss lives, people regularly die of starvation--she and her family almost did themselves at one point, before she learned to hunt (which is illegal by the Capitol's laws). At the thought of people in the Capitol having more food than they can eat appear at the touch of a button, Katniss is repulsed. Cinna is wise enough to know it and says something to the effect of, "We must disgust you." It's as close to an apology as he can give, verbally. With his actions, of course he could do much more.
The scene disturbed me because, somewhat after the fact, I finally realized that I'm a resident of the Capitol. I have never worried about whether I would be able to obtain food for my next meal. I have never worried about perishing from hunger. If I have any food-related problem, it's access to too much of it. Though I usually don't think about it, I've known for a long time how lucky I am. I know that there are millions of people who don't have enough to eat, millions who are in danger of dying of hunger. I even know that this isn't just because there isn't enough food in the world to go around, but that the food is poorly distributed. Though I didn't really think about it, I guess I would have assumed that starving people would be jealous of people like me. It never occurred to me that they might be disgusted by me. Or that they'd be justified.
I think there's something special about the science fiction genre to make me understand this. Had the main character in a story set in the real world made a similar observation, saying that Americans with their excess of food (note: there are many Americans who are hungry; please excuse this generalization) disgust them, I would be defensive. Well, it's not my fault that I was born to a family with enough money to provide me with adequate nutrition. It's not my fault that my society is like this. I'd help you out if there were some easy way to do so--actually, I'll have you know, sometimes I do donate to the hungry! Because I already have my own place in this world and my own views, I am already biased and resistant to criticisms. But in a foreign world like Katniss's, the only place I have is hers. Hers are the only eyes through which I can see Panem. From the first-person point of view, I can see that she is a flawed but overall good and reasonable person, so I trust her. Thus I have no choice but to view the world the way she views it. And so I accept on face value that if the people of the Capitol disgust her for how much food they have while others starve, they disgust me. Then, when I then put down the book, I can see that this particular way in which the Capitol residents are disgusting applies to me as well. It's a trick. I have been tricked into finding myself disgusting.
I don't know what will become of this revelation. Having caught the trick, I can pull up my defenses again. But the Hunger Games definitely hit a chink in the armor. Not only was it an exciting, fun, imaginative, beautiful book, it also upset me in surprising ways. That's what you can hope for from a great book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)