Preventing the symbolic conflict of "Hunger Games" from overshadowing widespread social plight [closed]
Closed by System on May 28, 2012 at 11:24
This question was closed; new answers can no longer be added. Users with the reopen privilege may vote to reopen this question if it has been improved or closed incorrectly.
SPOILER ALERT: Questions and answers may contain spoilers for all three books in the Hunger Games trilogy by Suzanne Collins.
Symbolic Conflict as the Climax of Social Conflict
I noticed an interesting structure inherent in Suzanne Collins "Hunger Games" trilogy. It seems an unusual structure, presenting an interesting challenge of plotting, setting and structure.
The core of the narrative - the overarching plot - is concerned with the subjugation of Panem's Districts by the Capitol. This core conflict is given an extreme, exaggerated, and intense representation in the eponymous Hunger Games - which are explicitly designed within the story's setting to demonstrate Capitol's complete dominion, to humiliate the Districts, and to pit the Tributes against each other. So the Games are designed to symbolize the social plight of the twelve Districts.
The books focus very heavily on this symbol. They spend the climactic portions of the first two books focusing heavily on the symbolic scenario - playing out the larger conflicts of the setting on a more immediate, visceral level.
Symbolic Conflict as Interruption of the Primary Conflict
However, it seems to me that this structure also presents an interesting difficulty. The Games symbolize the larger conflict, but they don't affect it - not directly. In many ways, both The Hunger Games and Catching Fire start out one type of story (highlighting the abuse of the Districts at the hands of the Capitol) and then shift into a very different type of story (a brutal survival game against constructed dangers and harsh competition). The survival-game story clearly stems from the class-war story, but does not seem poised to directly go back and affect the class-war story in return. In fact, both these books portray, as a climactic moment, ways the Games' outcome does affect the rest of society - and this is seen as unexpected, unpredictable, destabilizing.
In my opinion, this is a problematic structure. The interruption of the "main" thread in favor of a "secondary" thread, which doesn't clearly advance the "main" thread, runs the risk of the "secondary" thread feeling like a side-trek, a distraction - a thread you're waiting to get over with and "get back to the real story."
Question
As I see it, using the Hunger Games to reflect the entire social conflict is the central concept the trilogy is constructed around. So the issue I'm presenting is inherent to the trilogy concept. I think Collins found many ways to alleviate this difficulty. I would like to ask:
- What techniques and structure/plotting choices did Collins make which directly helped make the "survival-game" thread feel like part of the primary narrative, and not an interruption of it?
- What ways can you suggest of dealing with this issue beyond what Collins did in the original books? I am interested even in methods which would require drastic changes to the originals.
NOTE: This is my first attempt at a case-study question. I'd be happy to hear what people think of this type of question, and what guidelines might be appropriate. If you have any thoughts, please join the meta discussion!
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
The disconnection you point to is vital to the initial volume of the trilogy. The Hunger Games are a satirical device, the oppressive Panem actually come from the desire to frame a story around a satirical look at reality television Collins says as much in the interview printed in the tail of volume one in the edition I have.
This does leave a problem when we go from satirical statement to epic adventure. As the story continues the wheels start to come off the premise in various ways. The core of the story is rotten because it really doesn't make any sense. The key clue to this is that Snow's only tactic is to manipulate the Games, he has no other military plan to contain unrest in the districts. The actual concept of the games is riddled with problems if you think about them too hard. The plan was originally that at the outset the holes would be covered by the presumed virtue of the topic.
Collins has some really nice characterization going off, and knows how to craft symbols and dramatic moments. It's a testament to her skills that many of these symbols, moments and characters remain engaging and resonant even when it is obvious that the main story is rather silly. As the epic winds to its conclusion the Hunger Games become more of a problem to the new, weaker story.
I always find it interesting when an author sub-consciously rejects the set up of their story by choosing to kill almost everyone at the very end of the story. I could be wrong but I always think that such an action expresses a dissatisfaction the author has with the shortcomings of their own work.
Dramatically the oppression of the Districts exists to serve the Hunger Games, that is why the Capitol has a very limited play book when proper unrest comes out of their key initiative for oppression and control.
All it really would have taken to strengthen the story would be to evolve and consider the Capitol as if it really existed, instead of as a large piece of set decoration surrounding the Games. If the Capitol had been fleshed out to be far more insidious and evil it would have given more liberation for the Games to be the fostering ground of a revolution.
If the Games were like a special event in among a calendar of "Circuses" (as in Bread and Circuses) the whole televised game industry could be seen as the bedrock of Panem's aspirational society. Gladiatorial combat for adults a la Death Race and Gamer could be seen as the way out of the life of a drudge. The kick back is that people in the Districts could be against the Hunger Games but for the Games in general, allowing the question of how far is too far.
Of course this makes the satire far deeper and more complex in turn and is far harder to stage manage.
But don't be fooled. All things in the books exist to fuel some form of organised combat in books one and two the pantomimic President Snow is the manipulator and the combat is in the form of the arena ritual, in the final volume President Coin is the manipulator and the combat is a real warzone. Only the capitol's "pods" exist to inject that grim gallows jollity that leads Katniss to explicitly dub the climactic military mission as just another stage in the Hunger Games.
None of it particularly holds up to close examination purely because the Games have far more weight than the oppressive ruling class strand. If they were held in an equilbrium of attention and story weight it would have dramatically altered the character of the story and made the whole thing more robust and less prey to the weaknesses described.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/5497. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Not sure if this is along the lines of your question exactly, but:
The first book was great (mostly about the games),
The second book was good (more politics, but still plenty about the games)
The third book was disappointing (all about politics).
I guess if I were to improve the series, I'd simply have found some way to resolve things in book 2, honestly.
(I think Collins did try to find a scenario that could "condense" or "focus" the wider conflict in book 3 like the games did for book 1 - that's what the guerilla fighting, especially through the capitol, seems to be trying to do, but I don't think it really worked).
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/5137. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads