Martha Anglehart, Cassandra Buehler and Alexandra Anderson
The slaughtering of innocent human beings, the fight for life, suffering as entertainment, inequality between rich and poor, and the importance of control encompasses the riveting themes of the popular book and movie series, The Hunger Games. Despite the themes being extremely mortal, readers are drawn to the enticing plot and character involvement. The games are very realistic, leading readers to be drawn to such a life-like story line. We learn early on just how difficult life is for many families in Panem and we learn that the Capital uses The Hunger Games to prey on the poorest of people and that the Capital controls every aspect of the citizens lives.
Control is the main overlaying theme of The Hunger Games. We see how the government, specifically President Snow, has taken control after the Dark Days and the citizens of Panem are at the mercy of him. The extent of his control is centered around the game that he created to keep the 12 Districts in line and to remind them what will happen when they try to defy him and the Capital. To instill fear into the citizens he not only forces two children from each district to fight in the games, he controls what their lives are like in their home districts.
(President Snow talking about why they have the Hunger Games)
He uses the tesserae as a means of control not only as the drawing for who will play in the games each year, but also as a way for the children of each district to help feed their families as they can enter even more times than necessary to receive more help, preying on the weakest and poorest of people. Adding to the already horrible fact that President Snow uses the children of each district as pawns in his reign of control, the fact that this is a story about children who are forced by the government of Panam to play a ‘game’ that is made into a huge parade of entertainment for the people of Panem to watch. The Hunger Games are not just any game that we imagine children playing; these children have to do the one thing we as humans can’t imagine coming from children even if it wasn’t associated with them playing a game - they must murder each other to win - all in the name of ‘reminding everyone what happens when they challenge the Capital’.
(The first time we see these children slaughtering each other)
The complete control of the people by the government continues throughout the games. As the tributes compete for their lives in the games they not only have to fight against each other, but they have to fight against the Gamemaker’s creations, strategically placed to make the games harder for the tributes and of course for the Capital’s entertainment. The first time we see this is when Katniss has found her safe haven in a tree. The Gamemaker is not happy that she has found refuge close to the edge of the arena, so he instructs his workers to create a forest fire, forcing Katniss to leave the tree if she wishes to stay alive. As Katniss is running for her life, the engineers being throwing fireballs at Katniss, causing her to receive an injury on her leg. This is the first time we realize that the Gamemaker’s will stop at nothing to create a good show for the Capital and how little control within the games that the tributes have.
(Gamemakers altering the arena)
The next time we see the Gamemakers interfere with the games is with the creation of the mutts. Because the book is written in the first person, you are unable to see the Gamemakers deliberately create the beasts to stir up the games, but in the movie you see how the beasts are carefully engineered by people wearing white lab coats, who are praised for their work. The factors of the game are continually altered for nothing more than the pure enjoyment of the viewers. This once again, shows the audience that the games are out of the tribute’s control.
(Gamemaker creates the mutts)
The events following Cato’s death demonstrate the control possessed by President Snow and the Capital. After he dies, Katniss and Peeta believe they have won the games, but, the previous rule change is revoked by order from President Snow and now either Katniss or Peeta must die. This is when we see how manipulative the Capital truly is and how they use the tributes as pawns in their game. Katniss then takes matters into her own hands and manipulates the game. She knows that the Capital will not let both of them die, so she and Peeta start to eat the deadly nightlock berries. At that moment, Seneca Crane interrupts them and announces them as the winner of the 74th annual Hunger Games. Here we see Katniss try to take control away from the capital, which President Snow is extremely upset with. As a result, President Snow has Seneca executed as a way to demonstrate once again his complete power and control. When Katniss meets Haymitch before the ceremony Haymitch states,
“Listen up. You’re in trouble. Word is the Capitol’s furious about you showing them up in the arena. The one thing they can’t stand is being laughed at and they’re the joke of Panem (pg.356-357).”
We once again see how President Snow is infuriated with the loss of control he had with the results of the game and how he plans on getting that control back.
Each of these scenes showcases the lack of power the tributes and the people of Panem have. They are forced to do exactly what the government wishes, no questions asked. Even if they attempt to disregard the rules, or go against what the government wishes, the power of Panem will put them back in their place, by punishing, or creating different rules to demean any sort of freedom they may be attempting to obtain.
The books are written in first person narrative from Katniss Everdeen, which is why we read the story the way we do. As the games progress we become more and more emotionally connected with her and our connection makes it possible for us as readers to become part of what is going on. We start to hate the Capital. We see it as controlling, manipulative, suppressing, and even evil. We start to view the people who live there as greedy, selfish, and sick. But, how would we view the Capital and the Hunger Games if the story wasn’t written from Katniss’s point of view? What if it was written from Effie’s point of view, or President Snow’s? If that were the case we would most likely view the Hunger Games as a way for the government to maintain control, instead of the murder of innocent children, and we would think that the government maintaining control is a good thing. This is because we would see the glamorous side to Panem, not the impoverished, suppressed side we with Katniss as the narrator. The way we feel towards the games would change even if the story were written from a Career tribute’s perspective. We would find the games as a way to honor our district, instead of looking at them as horrific and terrifying, like we do from Katniss’s perspective. Having Katniss as the narrator also causes us to want to know what happens with Katniss, Peeta and Gale and through it all we lose sight of what we are actually reading about. We remove ourselves from our initial shock of this crazy reaping, what The Hunger Games actually are, and only want Katniss and Peeta to make it to the end, even though we know that means all of those other children will die. The first person narration by Katniss completely dictates the way we view the Capital, the Hunger Games, and everything inbetween.
Even though we don’t want to, it is understandable how we can get lost in this story and set aside the fact that we are reading a mortally graphic story about adults who send children into an arena to kill each other because of how the story is written. In the first few hours of entering the arena, we find out that 11 tributes have lost their lives and instead of feeling sadness that 11 children are now dead, we are just glad that Katniss has made it into the woods safely. The attachment the readers feel to Katniss causes us to forget the immoral nature of The Hunger Games. We want Katniss to survive, but Katniss surviving means that everyone else must die. Because of this, we slowly become okay with the idea of the other tributes dying and even the idea of Katniss killing.
Hobbes would argue that The Hunger Games corrupts the fundamental principles of liberal thought. He believed that men should be naturally equalized, and that political power should be “representative” based on the consent of the people. This contradicts the formation of the Panem government, being that they do not create equalization throughout the people. District one is more well off than any other district. The amount of value they have versus the rest of the districts, especially Katniss and Peeta’s district is much greater. Hobbes also believes that the interpretation of the law should leave people to do whatever the law does not forbid. Again the government goes against this. They do not lawfully respect the guidelines set up. The government is not representative of the people, it is not doing what the people of Panem want. If it were Hobbes way, he would equalize the districts, and limit the amount of power the government had without being equally represented by the people. Hobbes would also argue that The Hunger Games are an example of how people act when in a State of Nature, or a State of War. Even though the tributes are being controlled by the government and the state of nature is actually the absence of government, the tributes represent Hobbes’ belief that people are inherently bad.
The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. Rousseau asserted that the stage of human development associated with what he called "savages" was the best or optimal in human development, between the less-than-optimal extreme of brute animals on the one hand and the extreme of decadent civilization on the other. "...[N]othing is so gentle as man in his primitive state, when placed by nature at an equal distance from the stupidity of brutes and the fatal enlightenment of civil man." He would say this is why we like, support, and connect with Katniss. He would also argue that the government of Panem is nothing more than the true founder of the society. They took control and made the districts the way they are, leaving the people in the hands of their power. As he says the people are gentle,not willing to stand up for themselves, and therefore easily played with by the government, almost as if they are puppets.
Woodsworth would say that The Hunger Games is written much like poetry, providing the readers with a sense of both pain and pleasure which keeps them coming back for more. We are drawn to the story of Katniss and Peeta, we gasp when they are in trouble, we smile when they are safe, we support Katniss and her rebellious behavior because we find pain in what the Capital is doing to these innocent people. He would also say that we are drawn to Katniss because of her natural piety because she is from the poorest district and is so far removed from what we know as the Capital that we want this young innocent girl to make it over any other tribute.
The Hunger Games reminds of the gruesome story of a government deciding the fate of its citizens and killing some but sparing others reminds us of the Holocaust and reading Maus: A Survior’s Tale. Maus was written as a comic book but it was not entertaining and did not become popular like The Hunger Games, but why? First, because it was a real historical event; but how is this story of Vladek’s experience fighting for his life any different than Katniss’ fight for her life? No one read Maus because they liked the story and found it entertaining; they read it because it was a story of a real survivor. The Hunger Games can be looked at much like the Holocaust, no it is not real, but the story of President Snow being the one in charge, his rules, his ideas, his laws - they mirror Hitler in a sense that they both had an agenda - they were both Gamemakers with innocent people's lives. We saw Vladek do many questionable things to survive, and as readers it was hard to accept sometimes. We knew those people suffered and many died because of Vladek’s actions, but we don’t question Katniss’ actions - is that because The Hunger Games is not real so we can differentiate between real and made up, and accept even the most horrible of stories just because something is not real and we know it?
As readers, why do we become okay with the idea of Katniss killing? Do we even start to want Katniss to kill? Are we obsessed with violence? Are we okay with the innocent and impoverished being used to fuel the greedy needs of the guilty and wealthy? For most, The Hunger Games is a book and movie series that is pure entertainment, but how? How do we as readers remove ourselves from what is actually going on? How do we overlook the fact that we are reading and imagining a game being played out; where the pawns are children and the entire population is watching for fun? What does our obsession with The Hunger Games say about us and our culture?
Our enjoyment of modern day reality television and turning people into commodities resembles the fact that everything about The Hunger Games is constantly in the media of Panam, from the reapings to the tributes training, to the actual events in the arena, because in both instances we are viewers of the Games like we view the Kardashians. Value is no longer dependent on their skill, or their strengths, but rather what they can provide for satisfaction for entertainment. The Kardashians may not have as many skills that a typical famous family or individual may have, yet their abnormal, extravagant lifestyle provides us with the entertainment we crave. This is similar to The Hunger Games with Katniss and Peeta’s spark of love, their incredible costumes, and their loving personalities, it draws the people of Panam to their peculiar lives. Their value becomes determined by how much entertainment they provide, and as such they lose their identities as people. They are doing what is best for the sake of winning, demeaning who they truly are. The Hunger Games suggest that reality television is a form of objectification.
No comments:
Post a Comment