Thoughts on Gender and Romance Tropes in The Hunger Games

[glitter_n_gore]

This post is somewhat spoilery--consider yourselves warned.

First and for the record: yes, I'm a Battle Royale enthusiast and dedicated Asia Extreme fangirl, but we aren't here to talk about which futuristic dystopia about a totalitarian government annually pitting its children against each other in a last-man-standing duel to the death came first or did it better. I do have a preference, but they are very different stories, and I happen to believe Suzanne Collins' claim that she hadn't read or even heard of Koushoun Takami's novel before writing hers.

So, what are we here to talk about? Well, first let me direct you to this excellent post by seanan_mcguire: Some thoughts about gender and literature. The Internet is no stranger to gender wars, especially the really nasty ones, and somehow they seem to be getting worse. In the literary quadrant of said wars we have YA paranormal romance in one corner, with their pretty dresses and broody Type A alpha love interests; in the other, we have so-called "boy books" about action and adventure and coming-of-age. The biggest point of contention being, not the actual content of the sub-genres, but the gender of the main characters and, by extension, their assumed target audiences.

Let me put it another way: certain readers who prefer not to read books with female protagonists say they avoid them on the off-chance that a romance will happen. As someone who isn't fond of romance on the whole, I get this . . . kind of. It has a twisted logic to it. Twisted, because, well, not all books with female protagonists are about romance. Just as not all books with male protagonists are without it. Using gender as an excuse to make assumptions about a book's content is perfectly ridiculous.


Now, about The Hunger Games: I saw the movie last week and thought it was excellent, and afterwards went wandering the 'net for forum chatter and amateur reviews (as you do). One thing I saw mentioned, that I hadn't really noted before, is the in-universe audience's reaction to Katniss and Peeta's "star-crossed romance." When I read the book (and I've only read the first so far--more about that later), the love story struck me as tacked-on and silly, and I was annoyed that the author had to go and ruin a good hyper-violent dystopia with something as inane as a (*gag*) romance. But here's the thing, underlined brilliantly in the movie: no one in Panam pays attention to Katniss until she becomes the object of Peeta's unrequited affections. She volunteers herself to compete in the Games in place of her sister, which is unusual and very brave, but it's not enough to gain her any sponsers. For some reason, becoming one-half of a doomed romance is, and she's well aware of this which is why she decides to go along with it.

Why is that? If Katniss were a boy, would the sponsers be more impressed with her sacrifice and protective attitude regarding her sister? Or, since Peeta becomes a media darling as soon as he declares his love for her, is this not necessarily a gender-specific thing? And I also wonder, was any pressure put on Collins to include a romance in her story to make it sell, or was this all part of her original plan?

I have gotten the impression, particularly in YA circles, that it's damn near impossible to sell a novel to the teen crowd without a love story shoved in somewhere. Just reading it as widely as I have, I'm hard-pressed to think of a single one without a romantic element at least as a subplot. Plenty don't use the romance as the focal plotline, and some handle the relationship between the love interests more realistically and believably than others, but there always seems to be one, and I do wonder why that is. Actually the only series I can think of right now without a major romantic element is Katie Alender's Bad Girls Don't Die--a tight, creepy duology about a teenager with pink hair and her kid sister, and their experiences with the paranormal beasties in their hometown.

But getting back to The Hunger Games, what I find so exquisitely ironic about the faux-romance between Katniss and Peeta is the fandom shipping war that's sprung up around them. And I'll tell you here why I haven't read the latter two books in this series: my understanding is that not only does the faux-romance eventually turn into a real romance, but that it becomes my very least favorite type of romance trope: the love triangle. I cannot convey to you how tired I am of seeing this "Who will she choose?" non-conflict come up over and over again, and while I'm sure there's more to both Catching Fire and Mockingjay than the question of whether Katniss will wind up with Gale or Peeta, I have seen quite a few "teams" pop up in forums and social networking sites as to whom readers want her to choose. All I can think of when I see those shipping wars is, "Really? There's still an evil empire to overthrow here and this is what you're focused on?"

One of the things I liked so well about Battle Royale in contrast is the complete lack of romantic entanglements. But here's another thing: the lead character, Shuya, is male, and his relationship with fellow survivor Noriko never goes past friendship. Also, the author is a man. In all the times I've gone looking for this book on the shelf (as you do with books sometimes, even the ones you already own) I have never once seen it in amongst the other YAs, despite the repeated comparisons to The Hunger Games--it's always in either Sci-Fi/Fantasy or General Fiction. Why do you suppose that is? Given the alarmingly similar premises of both books, why is Collins' marketed to the YA crowd, and Takami's to the grown-ups? The tone and execution is different, yes, but is that all there is to it?

Since I haven't read the second and third books in Collins' trilogy, I understand I may be making some false assumptions here. I have only my familiarity with the first book, and now the movie, from which to draw my conclusions, at least so far. But I do wonder, if Katniss were real, and she could see how much attention her supporters are giving to her relationships with the boys in her life, how would she react? Think about it.

Finally, to hearken back to my second paragraph and give a well-deserved shout-out, Ms. McGuire has just made history in the 2012 Hugo Awards: [This] is the first time a woman has ever been on the ballot four times in a single year.

Well done. Let's hope it's a sign of good things to come.

Comments

[spitphyre.livejournal.com]

You know? I am getting really fucking sick of being told I'm overreacting when I say the sexism on the internet has both increased and gotten more vile. First of all, fuck you, I've been on the internet for the better part of two decades and in that time have never shied away from drama. Second, fuck you, it is. There's always been a seedy underbelly but it's never been this overt, violent, and prevalent. Yeah, the lone unstable creeper has always been there but there wasn't the hubs of misogyny that exist now. Third, while it isn't related to my first "I'm tired of this," I'm tired of being told men get harasses too. Yes. Yes they do but the threats are never as personal, they're not as descriptive, and they're not as coordinated. Yeah, male gamers may get called f*g or told to "suck ny dick" but they're not PMed with instructions on HOW to do that sucking. The "rape" threats they get are all the "haha jk" kind (because rape is hilarious mirite?), they're not something that dude lives in serious fear of or, you know, deathly serious sounding. And when multiple female bloggers express serious fear for their lives based on the comments they get (several in this case being nearly all of them) to the point that male bloggers have written to say"yeah no, I don't get that level of vehemence in response to ANYTHING I say" I think everyone should STFU and admit there's a goddamned fucking problem.

And for the record? No. It.hasn't been just men who respond like that. And no, it hasn't just been women with high levels of internalized misogyny who have said this to me. Yes, I have had feminits dismiss my concerns and that almost makes me MORE angry.

[spitphyre.livejournal.com]

(I should probably also mention that I did a panel on this subject earlier today so grrrrrr)

[glitter-n-gore.livejournal.com]

Here, here. There's no such thing as misogyny that's "not really that bad." Anywhere it exists is too much. Period. And it has most definitely been getting worse.

Part of the problem with YA especially is I think because it's such a female-dominated genre, and for some reason maybe people who aren't female feel threatened by that? Like now that there's a hugely popular and successful corner of literature written mostly by and for women, they have to nip it the bud before it gets out of hand--it's absurd. Just a theory, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's what's behind it.

But that is another reason why the romantic element in The Hunger Games bothers me so much--women are so much more than just lovestruck teens pining after one boy or another. I hate to see a resourceful, intelligent, physically and emotionally strong character like Katniss reduced to her relationships. It's infuriating.

And your panel--do you mean online, or elsewhere? Cause I'd love to see what you had to say on the subject.

[spitphyre.livejournal.com]

I had a panel on feminism in fandom at a con this weekend. We're recording a recap of the panel tonight for Geek Girls Rule. Part of what we talked about was how women writers, their books and books just "for" women are dismissed, miscategorized, and marketed poorly. It's freaking infuriating (more so when an audience member tries to.derail with "I'm insulted that everyone lumps the men's view..." No, stfu. We have an HOUR to.do one panel on this. We are NOT going to talk about the feelings of the poor men just so YOU don't have to feel insulted at a panel for and about women. -.-)

But yeah, we touched on YA, how lots of writers of legit fantasy and sci fi feel more comfortable at romance conventions and get more respect from fellow romance writers and that means that a good chunk of fantasy and sci fi is completely overlooked by readers and other writers (for the purposes of such things as voting for awards). Unfortunately an hour was NOT enough

[glitter-n-gore.livejournal.com]

I haven't thought about that, being more comfortable at romance conventions. Because sci-fi and romance are both marginalized in different ways--one would think that any and all contributors would be welcome in the geekdom. But then again, romance tends to be marginalized just because it's seen as a woman's genre, so there's that to consider as well.

[gothrockrulz.livejournal.com]

I'm so glad I'm not the only one to wonder why it seems that there always has to be a romance inserted somewhere in a story.

I don't understand why so much of the fandom focuses on Gale vs. Peeta, either. I have a marked preference for Gale, yes, but it's Katniss and her journey that makes me want to turn the page, not Gale's.

[glitter-n-gore.livejournal.com]

If you find a good one without romance at all, point me at it. Particularly if it has a female protagonist.

You know what bugs me about the shipping though? I know that YA readers exist who don't give a shit about that stuff, but the stereotype is that girls only care about boys and twu lurve. This kind of thing just perpetuates that stereotype, and with The Hunger Games being such a potential game changer I really, really wish they'd not do that.

[xerinmichellex.livejournal.com]

I know that YA readers exist who don't give a shit about that stuff

Yes, they do exist. They just aren't as vocal as the readers who are involved in the shipping wars. My personal theory on why this is (just like you alluded to) are the "immature" readers focus on the twu luv aspect and cream scream all over it, while the more "mature" readers can recognize that the oppressive government needs to be overthrown. It's all about priorities.

[gothrockrulz.livejournal.com]

You're absolutely right about The Hunger Games having the potential to defy the stereotype. Looks like the rest of us need to be more vocal about girl vs. oppressive government, so other people can remember that there's a lot more at stake than Gale vs. Peeta. (Though I do have a hard time wrapping my mind around how anyone can lose sight of that oppressive government. It's ironclad fingers are everywhere in the books.)

[xerinmichellex.livejournal.com]

I read somewhere that Collins's editor had her add a romance to the series. I don't know if this goes all the way back to the first book; or if this was the following books. But the editor--and I'm paraphrasing here--said that "Suzanne was all about the battle scenes and war; I had to coax the romance between Katniss/Peeta/Gale/whoever out of her." Either way, the whole Team Peeta/Team Gale was concocted by the publisher/media because, in all honesty, it's pretty clear who comes out ahead in that battle.

Either way, this makes me so nervous because many, many of my WiP's don't have romantic plots (or if it's a series, there's hardly any romance in the first book) and they're all devoid of love triangles. And I absolutely refuse to add one in to capitalize on the Team Ball and Team Chain phenomenon.

[glitter-n-gore.livejournal.com]

Ugh--see that's what I was afraid of, and it freaks me out too.

I remember being in a creative writing class in college and I had a piece (supernatural horror, of course--eventually sent to the trunk, although one or two characters might be worth reviving eventually) with a female protagonist, a male best friend, and a married couple, and my teacher tried to talk me into turning at least one of those relationships into a love triangle. My response: "HAHAHAHA--no."

Anyways, what I want to know is if that pressure would hold if the author and/or protagonist were male. Would an editor try to shove in a romance if that were the case? I wonder, and I am worried about having to fight for my lack of romance in certain WIPs. Hell, I actually made a character gay once so my workshop would stop saying, "They're going to get together, right?"

[xerinmichellex.livejournal.com]

Heh. That's why, of my three leads (one female, two males), one is asexual and the other two are "related". Can't force a love triangle--or romance, for that matter--out of that!

That isn't to say I'm against romance. In fact, most of the romantic subplots happen more frequently between my secondary characters than the main ones. I just...I can't see how it can be the main focus when there's an evil time traveler trying to change our timeline. There's no time for love if someone's about to erase your entire existence.

[gothrockrulz.livejournal.com]

So the romance was forced? Ha! Great. If Suzanne Collins couldn't be left alone, aspiring writers like us are pretty much good as toast. Only one of the stories I'm mulling over features a love triangle--and it's a vicious parody.

[xerinmichellex.livejournal.com]

Like I said above, I don't know at which point/story the editor asked for more romance. Because I could see Collins throwing shade at the whole romance-must-be-the-centerpoint with Katniss being forced into a romantic situation to garner sponsors that happens in the first book. Like, wake-up girls; you shouldn't need a romantic relationship to define you! But then potential commentary got taken away when the editor suggested the romance be a major plot.

But, at the same time, Collins could've said no to the romantic plot. So, for the sheer fact that she made the ping-pong battle for Katniss's furry heart more prominent, I can't say that Collins was, you know, forced or the editor should be blamed entirely for the Team Bread/Team Storm selling point.

[gothrockrulz.livejournal.com]

Okay, maybe forced is a strong word. But this is all very fascinating. Makes me want to go grubbing around for interviews for more info. :)

[wordlarceny.blogspot.com (from livejournal.com)]

This bothered me too. Especially when watching the movie, and I'm all clenching my fists and wincing at the near-death experiences, while the teen girls around me are going "siiiigh look how hot Peeta is, giggle giggle!"
... so not the point.

Also. Team Haymitch ftw.

[glitter-n-gore.livejournal.com]

Exactly--it's a good story without that nonsense. Why get all wrapped up in the love triangle when there's a war going on?

[stormkpr.livejournal.com]

That point is really fascinating, about no one in Panem noticing Katniss till she becomes the object of affection of a guy!

[glitter-n-gore.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Now I know you're a fan of Peeta, and I respect that, but his role in the story is really fascinating in a very creepy way. That not only are Haymitch et. al. pushing Katniss to go along with the romance for her own survival, but that the author's editor (going by what xerinmichellex said above) pushed her to go along with the romance to make it sell. The irony, it burns.

[elialshadowpine]

I like romance in stories, personally, although I certainly don't mind ones that don't have it (I loved Girl of Fire and Thorns for that the heroine didn't need a romance). It bothers me a lot, though, how in so many books, everything gets boiled down to the romance. I mean, I remember being on Tamora Pierce's Sheroes board in 2001-ish and people arguing over Alanna and Jon/George/Liam. >_<

As far as THG, I personally liked the second and third books better than the first. The first is a good set-up, but the second and particularly the third get deeper into the characters. And the impression I got from the story is not that Katniss so much wanted to be in a relationship as that by the end of the series, she and this other character had been through so much together, that nobody else in the world would understand her the same way. It seemed much more borne of trauma and desperation than romance, and it bothers the fuck out of me how that gets romanticized.