"You're making the unfounded assumption that the hunger games COULD have been better. Why do you think Collins is capable of writing better than she did? Perhaps she is only skilled at teen books? Whether or not this is true, I have no idea. But, you seem to think it isn't. What proof of that do you have? Did she start writing adult novels and downgrade to teen novels? Have you read other works by here that were magnificent?"
This hinges on something I've been debating with my English friends for a bit, so I'll introduce it here, as it maybe explains why I don't agree with this--
I am personally firmly against the whole idea of "young adult novels" insofar as their being any "lesser" than "adult" novels, critically speaking.
Now, to get one thing, quickly, out of the way--
I'm NOT saying, for example, that "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" should be held to the same standard as a George Bernard Shaw play or a Dickens novel or whatever else we may define as being in "the Canon."
That's fine, that's fair, it's not presuming itself to be, at all, a work of literature, it's a straight-up kids' story (albeit a very, very fun and clever one I liked way, way back when) that doesn't assume for itself some position in the critical fields or society as having some sort of "voice," so to speak...that is, Charlie Bucket and Willy Wonka and Roald Dahl aren't trying to SAY anything, socially or metaphysically or otherwise...
Except, perhaps, that kids should read more and stupidly try to steal Willy Wonka's squirrels before getting tossed down garbage chutes less, which we can all pretty much agree with anyway. ;)
In short, Dahl's book are pure entertainment for kids, and GOOD at that job, too, but that's all they are.
"The Hunger Games" doesn't take that "pure entertainment" route, however.
It tries to have some messages in there, it tries to give some commentary on:
-Politics and oppression (we've already debated how the book debates that plenty here)
-Reality TV
-Barbarism
-Death, what it means to kill someone or something, and all that entails
And so on.
Additionally, Collins herself has stated that she saw the book as, in part, a re-telling of the classic Greek myth with Theseus, the Labyrinth, and the Minotaur (hence the name "tribute" for the kids offered up, as in the Theseus story, that's what those sent to the Labyrinth, including Theseus, are.)
So Collins' book is trying to say something, and that's GREAT--I'm completely on board with her trying to do so! Especially if she wants to write a book that she thinks kids might be interested in! It'd be great to have some more kids reading things with some depth to it than reading...another book series involving vampires, werewolves, and then a REAL blood-sucking monster in the form of Bella Swann.
So I'm HAPPY Collins' book tried to say some things and have some depth, and I give her credit insofar as she tried.
HOWEVER--that now separates her from the Roald Dahls and Dr. Seusses and Judy Blooms of the pack.
She's not a children's author now, she's an AUTHOR, full-stop, on the same critical level, in my view, as a George Bernard Shaw or a Dickens...which obviously creates something of a problem for Collins, as her work, like it or not--and for as much as I criticize it, again, I DID like it, I do criticize things and people I like, even Shakespeare--is now open to legitimate criticism for its legitimate flaws.
And therein lies my essential problem with Collins, THG, and the whole "young" adult novel concept as a whole--
She/It/They try and have their cake and eat it, too.
On the one hand, Collins wants to claim credit for re-telling the classic tale of the Minotaur (and on a level, not badly at all, I might add) as well as giving commentary on reality TV and, as many here pointed out as well, an exploration into the oppressor/oppressed dynamic within political structures and states.
But on the OTHER, as soon as I or any (albeit far more learned and experienced) critic wants to treat her work like an adult work, it regresses, so to speak, and suddenly, NOW it's "just a kid's book," or "just a book for young adults," and NOW it's nothing too serious, just fun entertainment, so stop being mean and overly-harsh and critical.
And you can't have it both ways, she can't, and literary criticism can't--
EITHER you fairly open yourself to applause for your genius and criticism for your failings alike, and get a fair hearing, as it were, by those that read and criticize and, over time, your work either slides into happy obscurity or is elevated by critical acclaim into the upper echelon and is anthologized and taught and hailed as a work of brilliance and you take your place among the Shaws and Shakespeares and Austens and Woolfs and so on, all the while allowing your work to be reviewed and re-reviewed through the ages...
OR you take the Dahl/Seuss/Bloom route and own up to the fact that, after all, you were just interested in writing a piece of pulp fiction for kids to entertain, and you get your praise from your "new" critics (happy children who love your work) and that's it, if you're lucky, maybe you stay on the shelves like the above three and children for decades or even, if you're REALLY fortunate, centuries come to love your works...but you have nothing to say critically about the world, no "voice" with which to talk about authoritarianism or satirize the media in the world today or make a political or philosophical statement or claim your story to be a re-working of a classic and draw from that works' story of critical praise and review as well.
You CANNOT have it both ways, that is, you CANNOT have your praise as you're being taken seriously and THEN duck criticism when it comes.
For one thing, it's not fair to those who came before--Shaw had to face angry critics who would call him awful names and lambaste his plays...Dickens had to face critics as well...as did Orwell, certainly...and Austen...and the Bronte sisters...and, yes, even Shakespeare himself had to deal with criticism when he tried to produce works with messages and themes and ideals presented (notably, critics and audiences alike were mixed on "King Lear" when it first debuted, many not happy that Shakespeare had changed the original story he'd borrowed from so Lear did NOT regain his seat and had to suffer for his actions and things did NOT end happily ever after.)
Part of the deal of being an author or a politician public intellectual or a public Internet-pseudo-intellectual is that you WILL be criticized, and you NEED to take it and take it like a man (or woman) and realize that if you're going to try and say something, if you're going to open yourself up to a public by trying to speak to that public, they have every right to question and criticize and evaluate you every which way.
For another, it's academically dishonest to try and claim credit and shirk all responsibility towards criticism.
You write with a message you want to share with the public, and you're fair game for them.
You write strictly to entertain and maybe make some money, and you're out of the crosshairs.
To borrow a term from British politics:
To write something with a voice and message is to formally open yourself to a sort of Literary Questioning Hour, where the opposition may criticize and attack and disagree with what you have said or tried to say or might have said...and here, we have the critics, but also advocates, and here, they, too, have a voice, and can help the author out and defend him/her as best they can.
If you want to call Shakespeare garbage, you can go right ahead--and Leo Tolstoy will be right there with you in critical support...of course, I can respond, and to face off with Tolstoy, I can draw on Orwell's response to Tolstoy's criticism of Shakespeare, or call upon T.S. Eliot's opinion, and then you might cite someone else...
And on we go--THAT is opening yourself up to peer and public review, THAT is how you share a message and get evaluated on it...THAT is academic and critical fairness.
It is NOT fair to hide behind an invented notion that you're "suddenly" a children's author when you've written about authoritarianism and referenced Theseus and Greek mythology and paid homage to Joseph Conrad and George Orwell and Aldous Huxley for the better part of your novel, JUST because someone DARED criticize you and say, maybe, just maybe, your work and your ideas had some flaws in it.
It's disingenuous to the academic community, and it's disingenuous to teens and kids themselves, I think--
THEY KNOW when a work is trying to get a message across, they're not stupid...they're probably not going to catch every nook and cranny, but they'll probably be able to figure out "Farenheit 451" is about censorship and how that can affect society, or that "Huck Finn" deals quite a bit with racism and societal roles.
So to string them along and have them read your ideas, have them see, plain as day, you have ideas, and that you were courageous enough to put those ideas out there...
And THEN to say "These are my views, and this is what I'm referencing...but if anyone criticizes this view, though, I don't have ideas,, kids, it was all just entertainment"...
THAT is dishonest.
There is no such thing as a "young" adult's novel, thus--it's half a marketing gimmick and term to hook in readers, and half an escape for authors who want to cut and run back to the safe alcove of Willy Wonka Land the second they get treated like adult authors...
Really, it is like teens wanting to be treated as adults and mature members of society until they run into trouble, and then, suddenly, they're "just kids" and it's unfair to pick on them or hold them accountable.
Harry Potter is a series of novels--it is judged as such.
The same goes for The Lord of the Rings.
The same goes for Ender's Game and its series.
The same goes for The Chronicles or Narnia.
The same (help us all) goes for Twilight.
And the same goes for The Hunger Games--Collins is clearly presenting ideas and is on record citing the Theseus story as what she's retold, and she clearly has, and she also has clearly been influenced by and has made stylistic reference to authors in the Canon...
She's not a kid's author with illustrations on some of the pages and all...she's a novelist, and she deserves to be treated as such--for good and for bad.
Thus, when I say THG could have been much more, I'm making a judgment about it's literary quality as a novel...not as a "young adult" novel, as I assert, outside the world of marketing, there is no such thing critically. Teens are not so feeble as to need "young" adult novels, they can read novels, and can read them fairly critically and get their meanings...so, whatever meaning THG had, good for it.
But it could've been better, critically, in my opinion--and I WILL treat is as an adult, so to speak, and not as a "young" adult and let it off the hook...it's more mature than that, it deserves better than that--and so do it's supporters and fans.
POST YOUR CHEATING ACCUSATIONS HERE
)
)
)
)
)