![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
glitter_n_goreThis 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![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-04-09 04:10 pm (UTC)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.