chibichan | are you in the mood for a fandom discussion?

Current Mood: blank
Crossposts: http://chibichan.livejournal.com/70335.html

Entry tags:

are you in the mood for a fandom discussion?

I feel like writing an entry today, even though nothing new has happened. The only news I have is that I'm going to the physiotherapist today for my tight psoas muscles (which are so tight, they actually hurt). I know the session is going to be painful, but it'll make me feel better in the long run. So I'm half looking forward to it and half fearing it.

I've been taking 10mg of medicine for the past few days and I've been feeling okay, which is good. :D

If you like or even hate The Hunger Games, I found a couple of interesting articles about how Katniss appears to be a strong female character, but ultimately isn't. Here they are: one and two. Do read them in order, as the second article is a response to the comments on the first one.

I agree with both articles, but then again I never really liked Katniss and consider THG to be an okay series (completely ruined by the last book, imo) which is somewhat over-hyped. But I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts! :) I'm really in the mood for a bit of fandom discussion!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I tried to read The Hunger Games, but I just couldn't - I didn't find Katniss likeable right off the bat and the between the clunky writing and the thought of following around a character I didn't like... I gave up about two chapters in.

I disliked Katniss the moment she said she wanted/tried to drown the cat. I absolutely despise people who are cruel to animals and fictional characters are no exceptions.

I'd say you're not missing much by not reading it - the first two books are okay, but the third one is terrible. Overall the series is nothing spectacular and there are certainly way better books out there.

Feminist Frequency had a couple of videos about the problematic elements of THG that were pretty interesting as well.

I definitely found the first book to be the strongest, and thought some of that strength to be undermined in the later books (especially Mockingjay), but in the end, I'd rather be giving teen girls Hunger Games as opposed to Twilight.

Thanks for the link! I watched both that video and the "THG Film vs. Book" one. They were pretty interesting, although I find myself disagreeing with most of what she says.

It's funny you mention Twilight, because I watch a series on youtube called "Honest Trailers" and in their Twilight honest trailer the narrator says, "For girls who aren't smart enough for The Hunger Games" (haha), which summarises my feelings towards THG vs Twilight perfectly. THG is better than Twilight... but only slightly, imo.

I read all three Hunger Games books possibly one or two years ago, and I honestly can't remember much of the books. That says enough for me, since I can recite more intricate plotlines of books I read much longer ago, I guess just because I enjoyed them more.

I never did like Katniss though, and I was the only person I knew who didn't like her.

That says enough for me, since I can recite more intricate plotlines of books I read much longer ago

The same thing happened to me, actually! Even though I've read THG fairly recently, I can only remember the main bits of the plot, while I remember way better other books that I read a long time ago. Generally not a good sign when this happens.

Well, I never liked Katniss either, so you're not alone on that! :)

I'm in about the same position as

northsky - in my case, they were tolerable to read once, but the kind of thing where I totally stop caring when I'm not reading it. It's a writing style that's easy to digest quickly, but the content isn't anything that stays with me.

As for the articles, I think I agree with them, but at the same time, it felt a little bit like reading one of my own old lit papers where I used to ignore some aspects of the text in support of my point, and I'm not sure why. I'll try and come back to the essays when I'm more awake.

Edited (Spelling other peoples' usernames right is usually a good thing) 2013-09-05 13:35 (UTC)

Yeah, the main reason why I read those books in the first place was because I was in the mood for something easy and quick to read. Just like you, I stopped caring when I was finished with them. (Actually, I stopped caring pretty much as soon as I started Mockingjay. By the end of it I was just glad I could move onto something else.)

at the same time, it felt a little bit like reading one of my own old lit papers where I used to ignore some aspects of the text in support of my point

I can see where you're coming from. I generally agree with them, but I feel like the author wants to show too much that she's right and seems to almost "attack" the reader, if that makes any sense? (At least the second one feels like that, probably because the author wrote it in response to the comments they received.)

I liked (and still do like, although I haven't read them in a while) The Hunger Games but I won't deny that there's issues with it. There's some points in the linked articles that I think are stretching it though (the 'she's only a badass in front of men' point jumps out at me, I'm fairly sure there's women in the scene the author of the articles is complaining about and Katniss already shows she's a capable archer well before that, with and without an audience).

I'll also agree with you with the last book being kinda terrible, it's way too removed from the tone of the first two and there's a lot of things that seem really lazy (Prim being offed, Gale being effectively written out so that Katniss/Peeta could be a thing without issue). :T

I hope your physio goes well, by the way!

There's some points in the linked articles that I think are stretching it though (the 'she's only a badass in front of men' point jumps out at me, I'm fairly sure there's women in the scene the author of the articles is complaining about and Katniss already shows she's a capable archer well before that, with and without an audience).

You're right on that one. I think the author of the article is very eager to show that they're right and so they chose that particular scene. Tbh, though, I can't think of any scene that struck me as "Katniss being badass".

I... don't even know where to start when describing why Mockingjay was so terrible. The useless deaths (Prim and Finnick come to mind), the cringeworthy love triangle in the middle of a war, Katniss's characterisation... I have just so many problems with it. Also, the third book was a missed opportunity to go into the politics of the dystopian Panem, which was ultimately the biggest disappointment for me.

Thank you! It was painful, but I really needed it. :)

Ok to start off I did love the Hunger Games series.

But one I despise reading first person and two I never really like Katniss.

Despise that I quickly inhaled all 3 books in 3 days.

The first was the strongest to me by far. I think I even read that she had intended it to only be a one shot book. (I can find no prof of this now, but I believe the way the 2nd and 3rd read seem like it coud be true)

The Second to me seems rushed beyond belief, it could of been so much better imo had the games and the pre games been more drawn out.

The third seemed like it would never end and was just trying to wrap things up without knowing what the plan to wrap things up was. And killing people just for the sake of killing.

Plus the final book turned how she was such a strong character into a broken shell and I really did not like that, but that is more my desires for her life and says nothing on that being a perfectly viable option for it to end....did that make sense?

I would call myself a Hunger Games fan...but I can also easily see all the flaws and agree with them, but I still remain a fan of it.

You can love something and still acknowledge its flaws, it's completely fine! :) I have my share of things that I love, but that I know are flawed. Doesn't make us any less of fans!

I think I even read that she had intended it to only be a one shot book.
I read this somewhere too. I think I read her reason to keep on going was that "she couldn't leave the series like that, given Katniss's choice and how it was going to affect the world", or something of the sort. But who knows for sure, maybe she felt obliged to continue the series, or maybe she felt pressured into it? I read she was definitely pressured into putting more love triangle stuff in her books.

The Second to me seems rushed beyond belief, it could of been so much better imo had the games and the pre games been more drawn out.
Agreed. I quite enjoyed the second one, it was very entertaining... but I was definitely more interested in what happened outside of the games. I was a bit mad at the author that she had basically rehashed the idea from the first book.

The third seemed like it would never end and was just trying to wrap things up without knowing what the plan to wrap things up was. And killing people just for the sake of killing.
Agreed on this as well. I, too, felt like she didn't know what to do now that the games were not part of the book. I dreaded reading it, it was boring and I hated reading from Katniss's POV (because 1) I grew to really dislike her and 2) she spent half the time in the book being unconscious/on drugs and not being there where the interesting stuff was happening). Also hated all the pointless deaths.

Plus the final book turned how she was such a strong character into a broken shell and I really did not like that
Yeah, agreed. I really feel like Katniss's character took steps backwards instead of forward. I wasn't much of a fan of her to start with, but even I noticed this and was not pleased with it.

Those articles are hilarious! Did this author even read the goddamn books or watch the goddamn movie? And fucking Alice from Resident Evil is a better character than Katniss? I laughed so hard I scared the dogs. I think that while these articles have beginnings of good points here and there and that there are legitimate problems in THG, most of the arguments presented are seriously stretching it and the author seems to ignore any evidence counter to her pre-established opinion. Also, she comes across as really smug and defensive, especially in that second article, and her insistence that practically every single thing that happens to Katniss is a deus ex machina --even when the event makes sense within the context of the story-- gets old fast.

The Hunger Games isn't a perfect series, and Katniss is far from a perfect character, but I don't like how these articles act like her flaws and the flaws of setting makes THG "more sexist than a rap video" (which is itself is kind of a bigoted statement). It all kind of smacks of "stop liking what I don't like! I am more feminist than you!"

I haven't seen the Resident Evil films, but I think the point that the author was trying to make is that Alice is "more badass" than Katniss, or more worthy of the "badass" title when compared to Katniss. I can't say much about the character of Alice, though.

I think I agree with you that the articles, especially the second, could be written in a less smug and defensive tone, but I do think they have a point once I can get past the tone.

I don't think THG is sexist, I think that's an overstatement. But I do think that Katniss is far from being one of the best female characters ever featured in a book/film.

Having only seen the first RE (and once was enough; I don't like gory stuff), Alice annoyed me because she was perpetually operating in God-mode. She never faltered, was never overwhelmed, always had a smart-ass quip, and kicked everything's ass while wearing a cocktail dress and high-heeled boots. Like the female equivalent of Wolverine, only sexier and, I will admit, much less annoying and overrated. I'll also say that some of the hate she gets from the fandom is pretty sexist, as many will tear her down for having the same qualities that they praise in male characters. And I think that a lot of Katniss hate is similar. It's common for a male lead to start out the story with PTSD, be angry, bitter and resentful at the world, and to often make bad decisions because there are no good ones available, and who doesn't care about being likable because they've got much bigger things to worry about. That kind of male character is practically expected in action movies, but when those exact same traits are seen in a 16-year-old girl, it throws a lot of people for a loop.

Katniss is a majorly flawed and damaged character, but my argument is that not only is she supposed to be viewed as such, but also that given her circumstances it wouldn't be realistic for her to be a whole lot different.

I can see why a character without flaws would be annoying. To be fair to the author of the article, though, she did say that Alice is a superhero (in her words, "you go with Alice, which is also why she isn't popular among women: There's no aspiration, no wish fulfillment, it's too fantastic, too impossible because Alice is, in fact, a superhero. It's not real"). Resident Evil doesn't strike me as a particular deep film, so it only seems obvious to me that its superheroes are not very "deep" people either. But I haven't seen the films (and I don't plan to, as I can't stand the gore), so maybe it's just me.

That kind of male character is practically expected in action movies, but when those exact same traits are seen in a 16-year-old girl, it throws a lot of people for a loop.

You bring up a good point and whoever hates Katniss for those reasons, but would be perfectly okay with a male protagonist in her place (without any change of personality) is being a bit sexist, imo.

Personally, I don't hate Katniss because she has PTSD, I think that's quite realistic (perhaps even too realistic in Mockingjay; Katniss does very little in that book and I get it that it's because the stress of the war and of the two games she's been through is catching up with her, but it's still a fictional book with Katniss being somewhat the hero of the story. Heroes can go through horrible moments in their lives, but at the end they overcome their fears and decide to do the right thing, it's the moment where they have an epiphany and decide to fight back; that never happened with Katniss, imo). I dislike Katniss for different reasons. I do like other female characters in the story though (Johanna and Prim). I also hate Gale, who is a male character. I don't care if the characters are male or female, if they give me reasons to hate them, I probably will, haha.

Thanks for the reads. They were interesting, though ultimately I disagreed with the author on many, many points. I agree that Katniss isn't a Strong Female Character (TM), but ultimately, though I don't consider the books feminist, I don't consider them sexist like the author seems to be saying. My reaction to reading certainly helped clarify my personal thoughts w/r/t the books.

As a note, I'm not a huge THG fan, or a huge Katniss fan, though I like her. These are just ~thoughts~ I have.

Damn I want to reply properly, but I can't get my thoughts into the right shape. I always thought, though, that the oft-but-not-always present "lack of agency" the author mentions was a very conscious choice on Suzanne Collins's part, not least because the men's manipulations are portrayed as Katniss's tragedy, not as her salvation, which is in itself a critique of robbing her of her agency. I don't think that portraying a woman completely free of patriarchal influence (which I suppose the men around Katniss are, in part, supposed to represent) would make her more feminist either--we operate in a world of limited agency.

The second article is rather telling IMO because very little of what the article brought up is what makes me think of Katniss as BAMF. Yes, I do think she's a deft hand in the arena, but I'm impressed that she fed her family for years by deliberately breaking protocol and hunting, with the skill to do it. I don't think her survival in the arena is down to luck either. Yes, Katniss spends time impressing men--but what about the sheer fact of her survival in THG arena, reading the forest, when she avoids fights in the first place, before she receives assistance? Isn't that a perfectly valid and smart decision in the first place?

And there are points which I do think are relevant to a feminist reading of THG that the article hasn't brought up--Johanna and Paylor to name two, but also, I think, Katniss's relationship with her mother. Katniss's relationship with her mother is one of the reasons I think Katniss isn't supposed to be a Strong Female Character (TM), but a Strong Character, Female - and a critique of the SFC type... and one of the reasons I actually love Mockingjay.

Before THG begins, Katniss is contemptuous of her mother for breaking down after their father's death, for failing to provide for her family. In the beginning and the end of MJ, Katniss breaks down herself, in two parallels to her mother's story--and it's understated, but she no longer judges her mother for not returning to District 12 with her, accepting that "her mother" is more than simply "her mother". I think that (1) this is a understanding on so many levels that strength/being strong has an arbitrary standard in the first place, (2) that Katniss's mother, in the end, isn't judged for moving outside her original narrative role is great, (3) Katniss's break down co-existing with her survival instincts is great, especially set against Johanna, who doesn't break even after torture except for one specific phobia.

ETA: I can't believe I forgot to add this. The author (of the article) claiming that Katniss never makes the decision to kill someone, never has the agency, is not quite true either -- what else is killing Alma Coin? I'm guessing the author's only considering the first book, but that seems narrow when there are three books, and the entire climax of the story centres around a moment where Katniss isn't being advised at all.

:/ this got longer than I expected. Never thought I would have actual thoughts about THG, but the articles prompted it.

Edited 2013-09-06 00:49 (UTC)

I don't think THG is sexist, I think the author is exaggerating. As you said, there are other pretty good female characters in the story (Johanna was particularly a favourite of mine, along with Prim, who I considered pretty badass, given how young she was, that she was helping people in the war by curing their wounds and she was essentially training to be a doctor/nurse to help people. At least in the third book, I think Prim is a better character than Katniss).

I think the "lack of agency" is definitely the author's fault, as she is the one writing the story and ultimately the one behind what happens. When I read THG, I was always very conscious that I was reading a fictional book - I guess because the "influence" of the author was so strong and noticeable. Every time something happened, it wasn't just an event in the story - I always thought it was the author trying to pull something.

I can't remember much of what Katniss does in the arena, tbh - I remember her hunting and making sure she had enough water to keep her going, but I can't remember her making the decision to avoid fighting. I think it was definitely lucky that she had to kill so few people and I was a bit disappointed that she didn't have any big inner turmoil over killing perfectly innocent children who were just trying to survive, just like she was. Sure, she killed when threatened and she just killed "the bad guys", but it's still killing. I think it's also lucky that she didn't have to kill anyone that she liked (i.e. Rue, Peeta or Foxface).

I had never thought about Katniss's relationship with her mother like that. Thanks for the insight! :)

As for killing Alma Coin, I would like to believe that it was Katniss's decision to do so, but in one review I read of Mockingjay, the author pointed out that maybe Katniss was manipulated by president Snow into killing Coin, so maybe it was not even a proper thought-out (or even rushed) decision on her part.

Oh, it's perfectly fine! I love long comments and discussions! :)

I think the "lack of agency" is definitely the author's fault, as she is the one writing the story and ultimately the one behind what happens.

Mm, I guess I disagree with you here because I thought this was a deliberate choice, not an authorial weakness.

I was a bit disappointed that she didn't have any big inner turmoil over killing perfectly innocent children who were just trying to survive, just like she was.

Huh, that's interesting, because it's one of the things that I personally don't have a problem with. I think in a lot of ways, Katniss is practical -- living in Twelve, starving, before learning how to feed her family would probably do that to you. Lol what's interesting to me is that I don't think any of the children in that games had to kill someone they liked. Cato-Clove and Rue-Thresh are the only non-Katniss-involved duos I remember that seemed to like each other, and they didn't have to kill each other either... in fact, they actually did go get revenge for the other dying. Or in Thresh's case, thought he was getting revenge for Rue's death.

As for killing Alma Coin, I would like to believe that it was Katniss's decision to do so, but in one review I read of Mockingjay, the author pointed out that maybe Katniss was manipulated by president Snow into killing Coin

I think, actually, that I do read it sort of that way too, but in a much more limited sense. I always thought that Katniss wouldn't have gone through with it, if it weren't for that meeting where Coin brought up reinstating the hunger games--she made her decision then and by herself, had time to reconsider, but ultimately didn't. I do think, though, that either way, this event contradicts the article author's claim that Katniss never kills deliberately, and never does anything irreversible.

I think in a lot of ways, Katniss is practical -- living in Twelve, starving, before learning how to feed her family would probably do that to you.

I guess the conditions she lives in and seeing people in Twelve dying of starvation every day would certainly influence her view. But that just makes it more interesting to me and makes me really want to know what she feels like when she is the one putting an end to a human life, rather than an animal or seeing a person die of something else.

what's interesting to me is that I don't think any of the children in that games had to kill someone they liked

You're right! I can't believe I never noticed it before. This makes me like THG less though, haha.

I always thought that Katniss wouldn't have gone through with it, if it weren't for that meeting where Coin brought up reinstating the hunger games--she made her decision then and by herself, had time to reconsider, but ultimately didn't.

I think I agree with you. I remember Katniss thinking that having a hunger game with the Capitol children was wrong. I think she thought that it was wrong and she was having doubts over Coin being in charge, but president Snow made her realise that she had to kill Coin, otherwise nothing would change? He triggered something in her, but I don't think he would have triggered anything if the "spark" wasn't already there. Hope that makes sense.

this event contradicts the article author's claim that Katniss never kills deliberately, and never does anything irreversible

I would actually really like to hear the author's opinion on Katniss in Mockingjay and on the matter of Katniss killing Coin. I was a bit disappointed that she focused on the first book/film only.

You're right! I can't believe I never noticed it before. This makes me like THG less though, haha.

Lol.

Oh yes, that makes sense. Coin fanned the flames.

I would actually really like to hear the author's opinion on Katniss in Mockingjay and on the matter of Katniss killing Coin. I was a bit disappointed that she focused on the first book/film only.

Mhm. Maybe the author will write more, when the next films come out.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

are you in the mood for a fandom discussion?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Spoilers for the whole series, so. Yeah.

Re: Spoilers for the whole series, so. Yeah.

Re: Spoilers for the whole series, so. Yeah.

Re: Spoilers for the whole series, so. Yeah.

Re: Spoilers for the whole series, so. Yeah.