The Hunger Games by Susan Collins

So, this was the first book in a while that I couldn't put down. As usual I'm 8 years too late, but even though the Hunger Games isn't truly fantasy, I thought it worth reviewing. At the very least to bolster my stats. Which, by the way, I'm proud to report are at nearly 30K hits. Averaging about 500 a month now. Leave a goddamn comment people!  I did see the movie for this book, though I did not see the two sequels.  And, all pictures of Katniss in this blog, are of the talented Jennifer Lawrence. And for the purposes of SEO, Jennifer Lawrence is hot, Jennifer Lawrence is sexy, Jennifer Lawrence is a goddess.  Glad that's over.  She's ok, I have no dog in that fight.

I recall, when Harry Potter came out, being late to get on that train as well. I had a conversation recently with a tenured anthropologist who shall remain nameless, wherein she basically encapsulated my feeling about Harry Potter, pre-reading:  "I've been reading adult fantasy my entire life, why am I wasting my time on this kids stuff?" Of course, as anyone who has actually read the novels knows, the rewards are startling, immediate, and not at all vindicating for a former hater. So for Susan Collins (btw, while I do not understand the her reference, I know exactly where Susan Collins was standing in Central Park when that photo was taken--GOD I MISS NYC).

This is classified as teen lit, but teen lit, The Hunger Games ain't. Seriously, I'm not really sure why it's classified as such, other than that the two main characters are teenagers. The Hunger Games themselves are about the yearly slaughter of 23 young people for spectacle and sport, something which is neither trivial, nor funny. The dystopian society Collins has created is simply awful, and yet completely real. This is social commentary at its best, and The Hunger Games really needs to be added to the English curriculum in years to come. And the writing is actually really excellent. Much better, in fact than J.K. Rowling's prose. (That was an early turn off for me, in my Sorcerer's Stone reading.) "Collins’ adjectives are often used in a utilitarian manner, to describe processes (as in “One of the heaviest days of betting is the opening, when the initial casualties come in.”).Collins' prose is terse, spare, and utterly fitting for the bleak subject matter. And for all of that, the level of detail that I demand (and I demand copious amounts) is largely there.

Katniss, bringing the bow and arrow back for the new millennium

The other elements that make teen drama: are an over emphasis on sexual tension, sexuality, hormones, and teen drama. Well, this book ain't that either. Katniss is a largely asexual creation. And none of the anecdotes of the story feature any overt sexuality. There is frankly a lot of kissing. But it is all in the context of duress, where the heroin feels that she must provide a show to save both her life and that of her compatriot. Therefore the uncomfortable romance of the novel is one driven by political expedience. I think this novel could even be called feminist lit as, the subject of Katniss' body becomes everyone's business, and the ideas of disinterest, individualism, power, and objectification are all explored in some very subtle ways, and other more direct approaches. I will read this book to my daughter one day, not all that long from now, either.

A strange, but supposedly accurate map of Panem

Even though everyone in the world has either read the books, I think I should provide some basic info.  In this future, the world has largely destroyed itself (likely through Nuclear war/winter.  A surviving remnant of humanity (though there may be others) has organized itself into 13 outlying districts and a major metropolitan area in the Rockies which feeds on the mercantile production of the outlying districts.  Each district provides a different commodity, though that in itself is a very strange, unlikely economic reality. It does make things easy for young readers I suppose. While it is certainly true that there are regions of the world which provide principally one export (oil based economies for example) in any sophisticated economy, such single export based economies are unlikely. And if it were true, a coal based economy like District 12, would likely be a good deal richer, providing as it does a major energy export. (Adherents to the series might say that nuclear power, in District 13 might have done for the District 12 what nuclear power did to coal rich regions like Wyoming and West Virginia. My counter would be: what District 13, it was destroyed, even with nuclear facilities in District 2, the price of coal would have skyrocketed.) Regardless of how unlikely such a scenario would be, the districting provides a useful structure for the books, a lot like "races" in a fantasy book. At one point in this post democratic society, a 13th district rose up, complaining about the excesses of the megalopolis, and the unfair treatment of those in the districts. And of course, brutal war followed that, destroying the 13th district altogether.

Following the war, for whatever reason, the Capitol decided that a ritualistic killing of young people was the best way to keep the districts in line. While this invention can be debated, it really forms the crux of the book, so there's little point. What matters is that the contestants for these games are randomly selected, but they can volunteer if they want. They have no recourse for selection, and they know that all but one will be killed in the game's arena. Our heroine, an aggressive, ornery, teenager named Katniss Everdeen is not picked. Instead her sister is, and she rushes forward to take her sister's place. The early pages of this novel feel a lot like Shirley Jackson's famous short story, The Lottery, where winning means death.

The rest of the book is one brutal killing after another, mixed with harsh social commentary on life in the Capitol, describing the profligate, media-driven, obsequious and superficial 1% of Panem. These critiques are stinging, though as always with such platitudes, it is easy to point "to the other guy" as the one who lives in excess. Still, I had to admire the grittiness of the tale. These were hard-bitten cynical people who had endured real suffering: starvation, beatings, cold winters, mal-nutrition. These are real things and they are not frequently in adult fantasy, let alone young adult fantasy. To add to this, Katniss is not a particularly eloquent character. She is terse, and represents SELF-ALIENATION to a fault. She is really a very difficult character to like, which for fiction of this kind adds a great deal of charm. Her relationship with her sole surviving parent is sketched out in rather broad strokes, but her mother's depression following the death of her husband, caused Katniss to withdraw in a wonderfully original way. A parent's failure to parent, whether it be for mental illness, or even death, is nigh-unforgivable to a child.

The tracker jacker nest that kills one of the participants

Perhaps one of the markers of real fiction, of fiction that actually makes the grade is the ability to show a character change. And Katniss does, and it is not the one that the reader wants--one more reason Hunger Games is a really phenomenal and unpredictable story. She does not get kinder, she does not fall in love, she does not turn into the Capitol's creature. Her personal growth is, to my opinion, a fairly subtle shade. She's very introverted, very in her-own-world, and as she becomes the media star of the Hunger Games, and then the wider symbol of a subversive movement she becomes if not a thrilled participant, certainly a willing one. Also, like many selfish people masquerading as selfless people, she begins to understand that people other than her sister depend on her.

One thing about Katniss which I find off-putting as a dyed in the wool liberal is her willingness to kill, and the ease with which she does so. That said, the other main character, her male counterpart in the games, Peeta has enough conscience for both of them.

SPOILER ALERT: I think the lack of love triangle with Peeta, Gale, and Katniss is an unusual one for a teen drama, and it drives the whole series forward. (A whole genre of fanfiction exists to explore this relationship) Katniss, who loved and revered her father, became emotionally crippled when he died in a mining accident. And with her mother's depression she was forced to assume too much responsibility for a child to have to endure. Perhaps as a consequence to this traumatic event her emotional growth really stopped at this time. There are two boys however, Gale and Peeta who have developed an abiding love for Katniss, and have multiple instances to prove said love. In all cases, Katniss rejects/or is completely ambivalent to this love. It's not that she can't choose, it's that she can't choose to not have either. This seems highly unusual for all fiction, let alone teen fiction. It also seems to be a pretty strong feminist interpretation of womanhood. The other important relationship, touched upon briefly, is the relationship Katniss has with her mother. It's a relationship described mostly by its absence. Our heroine does not crouch in the hard rain of the arena, desperately crying for her mommy, as any reasonable person would. But the anger and resentment against her mother is tangible in its absence. In some respects, I felt like this gaping hole was a problem, unbelievable. At other times, I felt that the absence spoke more eloquently than the pages of backstory would have.

The Hunger Games was such a good novel I read all three books in three weeks. Basically pushing off all other assignments. I think, ultimately, that is the highest review a bonafide reader can give.

Women in SFF

Tor.com recently sent out their weekly email with its attendant blogs, stories and news.  And Liz Bourke wrote an interesting column and interview following a piece I did not read.  There seem to be several points to her post, and the one previous, which I will first sum up.

1) There is a bias against female SFF writers
2) There are fewer new female SFF than male authors each year because of it
3) There is a bias amongst reviewers that indicates the same
4) Does it matter?

I wanted to add my own two cents here.  I'm going to make a little list.

My feelings:

1. If I am guilty of reviewer's bias, it is certainly not a conscious one.  Unfortunately, that doesn't make it any less of a bias. 
2. I certainly am guilty of reader's bias.
3. I like central male characters, a bias that has nothing to do with the sex of the author, but my own preconceptions about viewpoint have, in ignorance, played to that point.
4. Publishers have to play to their audiences.
5. Yes, it matters, and yes we should at least make the occasional effort to expand our horizons.

1. To start, that there is a bias amongst reviewers clearly holds with me as well.  I have reviewed only Dragonsdawn by Anne McCaffrey, and Azure Bonds, by Kate Novak and Jeff Grub.  Both of which are at least twenty years old.  So, keep in mind, I don't review "new" titles.  My reviews are long-winded, seldom read, and I have no particular following to keep up with.  When I find a book particularly bad or good, or thought provoking, I write a review.  If I have time.  Publishers don't send me books hot off the presses (please do publishers! I've been using the friggin' Library for the past six months!) The selection process is random at best, and stilted, heavily leaning to books already in my collection at worst.  So I don't have the same kind of operators that Stefan Raets, or Renay, neither of whom I had ever heard of before today.  As all three of the bloggers, Raets, Bourke and Renay point out, the fact that I'm not consciously choosing titles according to author sex is still a bias, and a grievous one.

2.  I had to think, in my history, what else have I read by female fantasists?  Certainly almost the entirety of Margaret Weis's collection.  Raistlin Majere is certainly one of my favorite fantasy characters of all time, and he was her creation.  Recently, I read Robin Hobb's series, Assassin and Magic Ship, and Fool, or whatever the three series are called together.  And, I just found out that C.S. Friedman was a female, and I loved her Coldfire Trilogy.  All three of these women wrote incredibly strong, very detailed, and very interesting male central characters.  Did I think them less genuine because of that?  Not at all.  I was impressed by Robin Hobb's epic, but I confess, it wasn't my cup of tea.  I don't know if that had anything to do with the sex of the author.  It was a problem, or question of the theme.  I just left feeling somehow disastisfied.  I also read some C.J. Cheryh back in the 90s.  That's about it.  As I confessed years ago, I typically pick out books by the covers.  So if the publisher laid out for a good bookcover, and the book was at least four-hundred pages... there was a pretty good shot I'd try it. 

3.  Even though I quite like Jim Butcher's Furies series, I find the parts with Amara and her husband Bernard saccharine to the point of distaste.  I am a man, and the story has to appeal, find common ground with me.  I know a number of people who hated Rand al'Thor and the Ta'veren Trio, but his story always had a great deal of appeal to me.  Particularly as the 'nice' boy began to fade, and rage began to consume him in the ladder half of the series.  And I've spoken to some female fandom who find all three of them, Rand, Mat and Perrin inherently boring.  Still given what I pointed out above at the capacity of female authors to write excellent male characters, I suppose this bias really must end.

4.  I had this conversation with a female anthropology professor (not my wife) once, regarding the sexualization of female body parts in comic book characters.  And she showed me this image:

It is a pretty funny image, but she looked thoughtful when I told her that most of the readership of comic books are men, and that they wouldn't sell much if their characters all had bubble butts like this!  I also said, to say that male characters aren't over sexualized is ridiculous.  They don't frequently have gratuitous butt shots like those above, sure, but they all have tight abs, large shoulders, strong chins, cheekbones, large packages, and let's not forget, tight asses.  Interestingly, that's not to sell to women.  That is to play to men's insecurities about our own bodies.  I told her that if she were to look at any of the comicbooks from the eighties, their pages are filled with ads for muscle enlargement, how to get women, etc.  Their consumers were skinny, weak white dudes, and that was why you saw covers like this!  Still though, if you don't know about the HawkEye Initiative, check this out.

 

To apply that to fantasy authors, I honestly don't know what the breakdown is.  I was told about five years ago that men are reading less and less.  That was true then, of the overall market.  But SFF is a genre, and can the same be said?  If the majority of the consumer market is male, than publishers and reviewers choosing titles that best reflect their clients needs, is pretty if not fair, than standard practice.  I have lately seen more women than men reading in the genre, but that might also be a product of a completely different bias.  I didn't have the courage to be seen reading a fantasy book all through Highschool.  I kept them in my bag, and went off to secluded corners of the library to read them.  I frequently had my books stolen and ripped up.  I even had to chase them through the cafeteria from time to time because it just wasn't cool.  I'm not sure women and girls had to face the same bias in fantasy, though they certainly had to face a number of other ones.

5.  None of that matters.  The critics are right.  An effort must be made, it is simply the right thing to do.  I have three library books in my possession right now, all male authors.  But my next review, I promise will be by a female author.