Thursday, March 14, 2013

Dilemma-Framing: Why The Hunger Games Needs Yellow Boots


“You don’t understand,” whined Pettigrew. “He would have killed me, Sirius!”
  
“Then you should have died!” roared Black. “Died rather than betray your friends, as we would have done for you!”                 
(Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkabaan)

The framing of a question is huge. I could ask, “Should hard-working, undocumented workers receive a chance to earn citizenship?” Yet if I hoped for a different answer, I might say instead, “Should illegal immigrants be required to respect American immigration laws?” My framing would not only reveal my own bias, but would also influence a percentage of poll-respondents and thus shape the final results. Fiction authors are constantly framing moral dilemmas. They do this not only to advance the plot but also to guide the sympathies of the reader.


Suzanne Collins frames the shocking events of The Hunger Games so successfully that readers are able to sympathize with a heroine who kills fellow-teenagers. Her protagonist, Katniss, enters the arena only though sacrificial love for her sister and is clearly a victim of a corrupt system. Furthermore, although Katniss initially communicates a willingness to kill rather than die, the plot is arranged so that she kills only indirectly or when motivated by strong emotions with which reader can identify. In the end she even risks her own life in an effort to save a friend and fellow contestant. In the world that Collins has created, Katniss did the best she could in a terrible situation.


Yet the thing about dilemma-framing is that it involves a certain sleight-of-hand. I can ask a toddler, “Do you want to wear the blue shoes or the red shoes?” cleverly framing the situation in order to prevent discussion of the yellow boots. Collins has chosen to present Katniss’ experience in a way that prevents readers from pondering the implications of the missing options.


While reading The Hunger Games for the first time, I hoped that Katniss would rebel completely. The degradation that she endured, not only by committing horrible acts but by doing so as the slave of masters who wanted entertainment, is horrifying. I wanted her to refuse to participate, perhaps in solidarity with other decent teenagers. Yet Katniss is not a person who is willing to sacrifice herself for an idea, a gesture, or in hopes of inspiring change in the world. Even when she is later made into a political figure by others, her choices are driven only by personal loyalty to a few beloved people.


Collins has created a character who is pragmatic and deeply damaged by the tragedy she has endured. She is believable. Yet something about this world is not realistic: there is no religion, no ideology, no philosophy. No one is guided by belief. Is there any oppressive regime in the world that does not use belief to try to control the population, or any resistance to oppression that does not involve belief in something better? In Collins’ world, characters are influenced only by love for individuals or ambition for power, neither of which is based on something bigger than themselves and their friends. Even the loyal Peta’s reluctance to lose his identity as a decent person does not involve an external definition of “decent”— and by the end of the series, he is willing to support any act so long as it helps to protects Katniss.


The characters of The Hunger Games face their dilemmas without the support of beliefs, and this limits their options. Yet the thing is, in real-life moral dilemmas, there are always options—and sometimes the hidden option is to suffer. Sometimes death is better than degradation. Sometimes doing the right thing in a horrible situation is a victory regardless of the cost. It can be argued that Katniss did the right thing when she risked her life to save her friend Peta. Glad as I was that she did not betray him, I cannot help feeling that this kind of morality is not enough—motivated only by personal loyalty, and perhaps fear of ostracism, it does not free Katniss. She is still trapped within a pragmatic, tribal outlook that leaves her a pawn among both tyrants and rebels, and ultimately does not give her much hope in the face of continued tragedy.


It is tempting to say that The Hunger Games is a series without belief. Yet perhaps the yellow boots are present after all, and the story does communicate a strongly-felt understanding of morality. In this series, it is notable that only ambitious and ultimately dangerous characters think that they know how the world should be run, and are eager to implement this vision. Leadership itself is dangerous because it involves a willingness to assert one’s own vision as superior to another's. In Collins’ world, perhaps belief is too dangerous to be indulged in because it leads to attempts at control, and the only safe option is a kind of moral agnosticism. Perhaps this is the ultimate post-modern morality. If young readers are told that Katniss is a wonderful role-model, they are handed the unspoken message that survival is the highest goal, and that sometimes in life they will have no choices. Also inherent in this message is the understanding that beliefs and ideas (other than individual loyalty to people) are irrelevant in crises, and are certainly not worth dying for.


If an author intends his or her characters to commit some normally-unsympathetic act, it is the author’s job to frame it in a sympathetic a manner as possible. Yet it is also the job of an honest author to demonstrate that the act (as are all acts) is a choice, with a moral weight, and that committing it carries a moral load. Only in this way do books echo real life.


17 comments:

  1. There are plenty of books and films where an Everyman or Everywoman "steps up to the plate" and becomes a freedom fighter, hero or even revolutionary leader. Often they instantly acquire physical and emotional strength, oratorial or hand-to-hand combat skills and crazy driving, and there may be no explanation for their sudden character development other than the time being right.

    I think it's more realistic if, like Katniss, the character is still very much a victim of their brutal environment and does not know any other kind of existence, then their self-discovery and fight back is going to happen in a smaller way.

    Think of Brave New World where characters such as Lenina show early signs of awakening but it all fizzles out, or, even better, Never Let Me Go, where the clones never question their ultimate fate, and only show any signs of wanting a different life when they pursue the rumour that their lives can be extended if they are in love.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a really good point. I think the difference between The Hunger Games and Brave New World is in how we read them (and how we present them to young readers). In Brave New World, the lack of heroism and convictions-- or of awakenings, if you will-- is presented as a wrong, sad thing that shows how messed-up the world is. It's supposed to make the reader uncomfortable. Is Katniss's lack of heroics realistic? Absolutely! Far more realistic than any of the instant heroes you describe above. Yet Katniss is treated as a wonderful role-model just because she breaks old female stereotypes by being quick to fight, act, and defend herself. While this misinterpretation (in my view) is mostly the fault of readers, I think it is facilitated by the way Collins frames the story so that readers may not wonder WHY Katniss doesn't awaken.

      Delete
  2. The Hunger Games also tells a different story which is much more about the gap between rich and poor. It's the rich that have the time and ability to make moral choices, while the poor - just as in our world - may have to focus on survival and more basic questions of loyalty out of necessity. I think given that Katniss has never seen yellow boots, she'd have to deduce their existence for herself before she could even think about them much less choose them - in fact she chooses self sacrifice or personal risk several times in the story but as you rightly say her motivation to do so seems to be loyalty rather than morality or revolutionary zeal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you say reminds me of Katniss' line to Peta: "I just can't afford to think like that." Yet I can't help arguing that, much as we should cultivate compassion for people trapped in difficult circumstances, we deny some of their humanity if we say that they cannot/need not act in accordance with principles-- even if those principles cost them far more than the rich might pay. Principles and beliefs are a kind of equalizing factor, because they are part of being human. I understand and sympathize with Katniss, but I think that the author created an unreal world by not allowing ANY character to demonstrate a wholly different way of thinking. Anyway, that's my argument!

      Delete
  3. It is an interesting idea, and a good article, but I am not sure if I agree. As you showed in your Nazi image above, as many thousands gave the salute, only one man did not. Katniss was constantly walking a tightrope between the maximum she could rebel and her certain doom if she went too far, any greater rebellions may well have been the end of her.

    "If young readers are told that Katniss is a wonderful role-model, they are handed the unspoken message that survival is the highest goal, and that sometimes in life they will have no choices."

    Yes this is very concerning, this book should never be used as a moral lesson to children. Modern society often steers people the wrong way I believe, for some reason people grow up thinking Money > People far too often, beyond even the level of money to survive, but just more money to buy "stuff".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps our culture is so eager for strong, female role models that we misinterpret books like the Hunger Games, and present young readers with a very limited view of "strong."

      I do agree with you that Katniss' loyalty to her sister and friends is admirable.

      Delete
  4. This is SO true- I'd have never looked at it this way!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you Anna! I've thought there is something "off" in the Hunger Games but couldn't identify it. I appreciate your insight and agree. Well done!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you, Tricia and Susan. I'm glad that you enjoyed reading the post!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think your Nazi image is perfectly justified and apt. The point is not (as you say) whether it is realistic for a single kid to defy a whole system, it's whether it is morally right to represent her acceptance and connivance with a system she believes to be wrong as the 'right' tihng to do.
    You put your finger on it I think when you say the author 'arranges' the killings to let Katniss off the hook. She, the author, is aware that murdering kids is wrong, but she wants the readers to accept murder as 'right'. In other words it's a moral cop out.
    Had the little girl (I forget her name) not been bumped off by one of the nasties, Katniss would have had no compunctions in doing the deed herself, she says so. So quid Saint Katniss?
    Bravo Anna. I hated this book for lots of reasons, and I'm glad somebody else has pointed out some of its obvious flaws.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jane, I'm gad you enjoyed the post! I agree that it's important to judge a a story not only by what the characters do, but also by what the author set them up to do (or in this case, not do). I feel as if I am honestly not sure whether the author intends Katniss to be a role model or tragedy, but I do know that most adult reviewers of YA books take her as the former.

      Delete
  8. I think Suzanne Collins "wiped the slate clean" when it came to religions, creeds and ideologies so that Panem could be any country and its people could be any people. Her inspiration for writing the series was seeing news footage of young American soldiers fighting in the Middle East, but (I think) she didn't want to make the book pro-American/anti-American, pro-Democracy/anti-Democracy, etc. She wanted to show only things that were universal across all political spectra and belief systems.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This post is AWESOME. SO good. I hadn't made it this far back in your blog yet, but a friend of mine linked this piece, and... yeah. You said about a dozen things that I've long wanted to say.

    People like to talk about art and story presenting truth, and authorial sleight-of-hand is just not taken into account enough where that is concerned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Jenna! Yes, artists must choose what slivers of life to present and in what order, and therefore art can't be objective. Not unless it's just hours and hours of footage of real life, which would be really boring.

      OOh, that's exciting that someone somewhere has linked to my post. :-)

      Delete
  10. Anna, love this post. I read Hunger Games before it was a big thing and really enjoyed it, despite the obvious weaknesses of it's heroine. Then it became a big thing and I found myself having to decide whether or not to try to defend it. I think the best approach for me was to read it alongside books like Nineteen Eighty-Four and The Hiding Place, to be able to comepare her against another fictional character who failed even more obviously to stand-up to an evil government, and an actual historical characer who made all the right choices when confronted by a real-life evil government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kendra, I really like that approach. It could make a great unit study/homeschool class! Interestingly, Collins' previous serious, for younger readers (Gregor the Overlander) is somewhat parallel to the Hunger Games but with the genders reversed and without being a dystopian novel. That book ends on a similarly non-cheerful note (the hero will just have to survive in a world where no one really understands) even though the actual events qualify as a happy ending, and seems to present a similar moral message in which only loyalty really matters.

      Delete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...