What Did Everdeen Ever Do? PDF Print E-mail
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Thursday, 06 January 2011 20:27

Fisking The Hunger Games: Part One

There are ethical dilemmas, and then there are the phony baloney ones. The famous National Lampoon magazine cover did not pose a genuine ethical dilemma—buy this magazine or we shoot the dog.

Many years ago I was working on a television show with the local PBS station at WSU, and Nancy and I were invited over to dinner by the producer and his wife. They were very gracious, and we enjoyed our time with them. But one of the events of the evening that turned out to be a dud was when our host brought out a game which was called, I think, Scruples. Something like that. At any rate, the point of the game was that you drew a card that dealt you some kind of thumb-sucker from a stack of ethical conundra, to make up a funny-sounding plural. If you are stuck in a lifeboat, and you will most certainly die if you don’t do something, do you eat the fat guy or the skinny guy first? That kind of thing. You were then supposed to say something like whoa, and think about it for a while, twisting in the wind. I can really see how a living room full of wealthy relativists in an upscale neighborhood in the eighties could really be flummoxed by the game, but we were no fun at all. There are certain things you just don’t do because the Ten Commandments were not suggestions, and the game is over.

This said, The Hunger Games specializes in a similar kind of elaborate set-up for situation ethics. In this series of reviews, I will probably not be going after the book for stylistic faults. The writing in this book seems to be competent enough, and the pacing promises to deliver. I do reserve the right to change my mind and make a comment on the writing style if provoked, but the real problems here appear to lie elsewhere.

The country is Panem, set future and really dystopic North America. The place is run by the Capitol, and there are twelve districts run by the harsh and cruel guys in the Capitol. The book is written in the first person, and the protagonist is a young girl named Katniss Everdeen. Her father is dead, her relationship with her mother is strained, and the only person she really loves is her younger sister, Primrose, but then Prim is chosen by the lottery for the Hunger Games. Katniss volunteers to take her place, which is good and sacrificial and noble, and that is the point of the set up. We’ll come back to it.

Every year, each district is forced by lottery to send one boy and one girl to the Hunger Games, where they are all put into a closed off area, a vast outdoor arena, and forced to fight it out to the death. Kat is tough and edgy enough to be a survivor in the Hunger Games (which means she will have to kill other people’s brothers and sisters), and soft enough to be likeable. The reader can begin to identify with her . . . if the reader takes his eye off the ball. I don’t like books that make me choose between the fat guy and the skinny guy.

Suppose the Capitol bad guys had decided to set up a different required sin in their games. Suppose it were the Rape Games instead. Suppose that the person who made it through the games without being raped was the feted winner. Anybody here think that this series would be the bestselling phenomenon that this one is?

In short, when you have the privilege of setting up all the circumstances artificially, in order to give your protagonist no real choice about whether to sin or not, it is a pretty safe bet that a whole lot of people in a relativistic country, including the Christians in it unfortunately, won’t notice.

Share the goodness
Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Free and Open Source Software News Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! TwitThis
javaJake (Registered) 2012-03-23 19:09:18

As much as I appreciate Doug Wilson's insights, I think this one went a bit too far. He does several things in this article that didn't sit well with me at all.

"The real problems", he guesses, is that Christians didn't the book down for having a main character that followed non-Christian morals. Isn't that something the Bible actually tells us to do? I'm pretty sure the Bible says we ought not to judge the world by our standards; that would be unfair. Finally, he's claiming this problem is "a pretty safe bet" without backing that up with any statistic or reference at all.

The whole thing is very subtle, but it's clear he's looking to make a point. He wants Christians to be suspicious of The Hunger Games, and I'm afraid he's encouraging another hyper-spiritual Christian reaction. No, I don't agree with the morals set up in the movie, but I don't generally make a big show of disagreeing either.
Only registered users can write comments!