Banned Books: The Hunger Games

After over a year of book blogging, I have finally found a justifiable reason to ramble about one of my favorite book series of all time: The Hunger Games Trilogy by Suzanne Collins. It’s especially appropriate to talk about this bestseller in a banned books discussion because my parents and I have (had?) grave disagreements about it to a point where my mother forbade me to read it. My first act of teenage rebellion actually was reading it anyway.

Justification: Ungranted. This trilogy should not be banned.

Anthem: So much to choose from, but I'll go with Shattered by Trading Yesterday.

Rating: ***** stars.

Risk: XXXX in the wrong hands.



Review: Last year, on the 20th of November, to be precise, my dad decided he wanted to watch the first movie to teach in his university class about religion and pop culture. The next day, an intriguing but uncomfortable civil war took place in my living room over plates of pancakes. My brother and I defended the use of violence and gore in the movie because it was portrayed as something negative. My mom (who refuses to see the movies or read the book) and my dad had numerous arguments against this. It was quite funny, since my brother tried to watch the first movie, too, but found it too boring to get past the halfway point.
I told my dad that same day that loads of parents had filed complaints and forbade their children to read it, to which my father replied, “It seems like such a strange thing to forbid.”

I think most of you already know how I think about the books, so I’ll skip to the accusations immediately.

The following will contain spoilers for The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, and Mockingjay.

Violence

The extreme violence in every book in this trilogy is probably the primary reason for its banning. And yes, from the TV show in the first book to outright war in Mockingjay, no one can deny that Suzanne Collins does not tone down the blood and gore for her teenage audience.
I've had long and painful debates about this aspect of the book, but usually I justify it by discerning between glorifying violence and advocating against it. In the book, Katniss openly expresses her disgust for the Hunger Games. Also, throughout Catching Fire and especially Mockingjay Katniss suffers from PTSD and crippling guilt caused by the events in the Games. Given that the whole trilogy deals with the tragedies of war, the violence seems justified to me.
My parents disagree with me here, stating that the Hunger Games never really happened and never will and that is wrong to fantasize about so much violence and bloodshed. The thing is, though, society has changed and evolved so much in the past ten to twenty years that stories from WWII and even the Cold War almost automatically feel outdated and improbable in the future to today's teenagers. My generation in the Western World has no experience with being in active war with another country. Although the scenario of international conflict with other democratic countries is quite unlikely at this rate, the subjects of civil war and especially armed conflict are very topical. Reminding people what a war and fighting for what you believe in really means is vital and doing so by conjuring up a plausible future that mirrors current issues is, in my opinion, a great way to do so.

Racism/discrimination

This became especially relevant when movie castings entered the picture. Many people have theories about the lack of color in the books, including Christianity Today's article on the idea that the whole book/movie is about race and discrimination. I'm not sure what to believe about this, but here are some facts:
• The only people described as having African American complexions are Thresh and Rue and possible other citizens of District 11. All are positively portrayed.
• For those who didn't read the books: Katniss and many others from the Seam have olive skin.
My conclusions: if Suzanne Collins had actually been a racist, she wouldn't have made such likable and important black characters, nor had she given her MC olive skin. I do understand how touchy of a subject this is and this is probably the only remotely valid reason to be to challenge a book.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/november-web-only/why-hunger-games-is-about-racism.html?start=2

Offensive language

This is the ultimate proof that many challengers do not feel the need to read the book first. I guarantee you that you can read through the entire series without finding a single curse word. Literally. It's true Jennifer Lawrence drops two 'damn you' comments in the first movie and an o my god in CF (+ a bleeped F-bomb by ()), but the books are as clean as YA gets.

Anti-family

As I said earlier, I'm not sure exactly what anti-family means. That being said, judge for yourself with this fancy definition.

Adjective
anti-family ‎(comparative more anti-family, superlative most anti-family)
(sociology) Opposed to the traditional social construct of the family.
2004, Steven P. Schacht, Doris W. Ewing, Feminism with men: bridging the gender gap
Feminism was often portrayed by the media as an attempt to put women's rights ahead of other people's, as being antiman and antifamily...

Now, I can imagine multiple statements in the books that might cause people to think The Hunger Games is a.) anti-family and b.) feminist.

Something that occurred to me recently is that the characters defy traditional family structure in a very subtle way. Katniss takes on a more masculine role, being seclusive and unfriendly towards people outside a small group of loved ones, but also by leading and by hunting, thus being the provider. Peeta, on the other side, has a more feminine role. He's social and kind, which are qualities we tend to seek for in women more than men. He's also a baker, so, to put it bluntly, he works in the kitchen.

Another subject is Katniss' reluctance to have children, but if this were a reason to think Suzanne Collins doesn't support reproduction, that's a grave mistake made. Katniss doesn't want to have children because of the world they will be both into. When the epilog mentions the 'terror that felt as old as life itself', it's obvious that she speaks of fear and not outright unwillingness. Katniss' fear represents more than just a trauma she had. It stands for the scariness that comes with the knowledge that the child you beer will suffer the inevitable pain and sorrow that comes with life. This is a fear my own mother had when getting me, and there is nothing antifamily about that.
A book that takes a very interesting stance on marriage and children is Graceling by Kirstin Cashore.

Sexually explicit

Am I missing something here? On my scale of steaminess, I'd say The Hunger Games is one of the mildest out there. Even the most passionate kissing in Catching Fire isn't explicitly described. What I like so much about the romance in this series is how pure and hesitant it is. The Capitol represents everything flamboyant in this world, from prostituting Finnick Odair to dressing tributes in nothing but shimmery dust. Katniss and Peeta sleep in the same bed, but nothing happens. In the Catching Fire interviews, Peeta says he regrets marrying because of Katniss’ pregnancy, implying that without marriage, there is no childbirth.

My dad likes to describe our Western look at sexuality and marriage as a haphazard mix between Sodom and Gomorrah and Victorian times.

For the less biblically educated: Sodom and Gomorrah were two cities in the Old Testament that had some very () beliefs regarding what's okay and what is not.
For the biblically educated: I know that one of the biggest 'problems' there was homosexuality. This is not what my father was aiming at. We are not homophobic, me and my brother least of all.
The lousy part is very well-represented in Suzanne Collins' works and Katniss most often shies away from it.

When it comes to nudity: there's some nudity in the series, but it isn't at all lustful or arousing. It's either part of the Capitol's wavering morals or a life-or-death situation similar to nudity in wartime. Note that even here, Katniss isn’t enthusiastic whatsoever.
"Here, cover yourself with this and I'll wash your shorts."
"Oh, I don't care if you see me," says Peeta.
"You're just like the rest of my family," I say. "I care, all right?" I turn my back and look at the stream until the undershorts splash into the current. He must be feeling a bit better if he can throw.
"You know, you're kind of squeamish for such a lethal person," says Peeta as I beat the shorts clean between two rocks. "I wish I'd let you give Haymitch a shower after all."

Occult/satanic

Emotions: Do I REALLY have to discuss this? Like, not just for this book, but for all those others that have this reason listed?
Mind: You promised…
Emotions: Okay, well then here we go.

Before I am giving you links and counter arguments, I first need to educate you about a.) Illuminati theories and, for my own protection, b.) the power of research.

Note that the first link for ‘Illuminati definition’ on Google is from UrbanDictionary. Speaking of trustworthy resources. (Sorry for the upcoming sarcasm and cynicism, I have a problem with this subject matter.)

Any of various groups claiming special religious or philosophical enlightenment. – www.thefreedictionary.com 

But since we’re talking about the internet, there are really two much more direct and functional definitions for this phenomenon.

Illuminati – noun.
1. A supposed group of people, ranging from media executives, to actors, to world leaders, that secretly controls the world.
2. A supposed satanic movement that does crazy shit.
3. A combination of 1 and 2.

Who actually believes this?
The internet.

The Illuminati is one of the most popular conspiracy theory ever, around both Christians and atheists. You can Google basically any mainstream book/movie/comic in combination with ‘Illuminati’ and it will be declared as such by an arbitrary radical with a very narrow mindset.
Need proof, huh?

If you wanna check whether you’re really famous, Google your name with Illuminati attached and voila, instant answer provided!

So now you want to know what The Hunger Games has to do with a satanic conspiracy theory made by people who live in fear of society, right?

1. http://www.henrymakow.com/hunger_games.html
2. http://illuminatiwatcher.com/predictive-programming-nazis-illuminati-symbolism-in-hunger-games-catching-fire/ 
3. http://vaticproject.blogspot.nl/2012/03/movie-hunger-games-satanic-ritual-for.html 

Well. What now? I don’t actually know much about satanism. (surprise, fifteen-year-old Christian has no idea about occult movements, wow. I should be considered highly informed after all those monstrous books I’ve read.) Naturally, I can’t argue whether this specific detail means this or that. That’s the nice thing about art and literature: it’s interpretable.

Interpretable – adjective.
You can twist it and twist it and twist it, and it will fit your ideas exactly, but sometimes it does become a little mushy.

Because these texts, as well as the books and movies, are clear, but can be read with various mindsets, I’m going to point out some obvious flaws.

Here's a quote from the second article (it’s really long, but those who read it can testify in my favor):

In the first film of the series, Hunger Games, you hear Peeta conflate humans and animals when he tells Katniss that:
“…hunting animals is no different than humans.“

Pardon me, hypocrite. I take the time and effort to examine and research your attacks, can you please return the favor? Anyone who’s read the books CAREFULLY or observed the movies CAREFULLY, will be able to tell you that Peeta is the moral role model in this series. The quote comes from Gale, who Katniss eventually leaves because their ethical ideas no longer correspond.

Here’s another one:

And we get one more shot of the butterfly symbolism on Katniss **Correction; I’m being informed that she is turning into a mocking jay; not a butterfly. I didn’t know that because I don’t read children’s books 🙂

This is hilarious, because you would never disgrace yourself as to reading children’s book, but you will rant about their satanic influences on ‘the poor children’. Sweetheart, if I had a child, which I don’t, and bears would become cannibals, I wouldn’t be so poorly informed on bears. I would literally Google the shit out of bears and bear attacks and watch documentaries about bears to keep my babies safe from cannibalistic bears. You haven’t studied your bears!

The third article suggests this is what the ‘satanists’, who make these movies, intend to do to us. If so, can I just say that they are the dumbest morons that have ever walked this earth? Because if I was planning to take over the world and ruin people’s lives, I wouldn’t distribute massive amounts of pamphlets that all say, “Hey, I’m going to murder your children.” If the Illuminati is so secret and intelligent, then why would they pop their face up everywhere? The celebrities are merely using these symbols because doing so will get them attention. Stop giving it to them on silver platters!

Here’s another quote from the third article I just had to touch on:

2. Drug the children with psychotropic drugs to treat bogus diseases, such as ADD, Bi-Polar disease. These drugs side effects are "violence against self (suicide for depopulation) and others" So they can be used in the military or law enforcement with no inhibitions to kill others.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Classic conspiracy theorist and his stupidity. My brother has autism and he got new medicines a while ago. They are working great for him. Without those medicines, my brother wouldn’t function in this inconsiderate society we have. People need to stop looking at medication for mental illness like it is inherently evil. It works for some people, for others, it doesn’t. The key is going to the doctor regularly and checking whether the user is okay.

I could go over the entirety of every article and point out any other reasonable interpretation of a described scene or piece of world-building, but I'm way too lazy.
For any parent reading this, please check more reliable websites like Common Sense Media.

Religious viewpoint

Okay, so let's look at a more sensible version of the previous complaint. Here's the first video I ever stumbled across that protests against The Hunger Games from a Christian point of view.

Being able to understand this better than the last issue, I feel like this person has much the same trouble with the series as most secular challenges do. The main 'problem' with Collins' writing is that she isn't patronizing. She doesn't point the finger at her readers teaching them what to do and what not. She has crawled into the mind of this teenage girl and tells the story completely from her narrative. She presents situations, not the morals that may or may not apply to them. The reader gets the chance to explore these situations, forming his/her own opinion of them.

On the absence of religion:
This review here touches on the fact that there is no religious activity in Panem whatsoever. This is undeniably true. The writer explains all this using the Bible and history and I agree with him. On most parts. Yes, religion will never fade. Yes, I believe God has ingrained us with the natural tendency to seek Him. What I disagree with is how he applies this to the book.
Many YA books leave the subject of religion completely alone, but I do not think this a reason to leave those books alone. When you read The Hunger Games, the what-would-you-do? question is all but unavoidable, as with most other books I read. I have the immediate urge to ask myself that question whatever I encounter in literature, history, or life. Suzanne Collins has filtered religion out of her story. But that does not mean that I do. When I wonder what I would do, my religion is always part of my consideration. I find myself making different choices than the MC all the time because of it. In the arena, I would probably pray. (Oh, I feel so vulnerable typing this.) During the revolution, I would try my best to get strength from what I believe. I see so many characters in literature struggling with guilt and I understand what they mean, but I would treat my guilt so differently. Even secular books give me a perfect opportunity to reflect on my faith. I'm a teenager, but I'm not stupid.
The review also expresses the fear that children (in this case teenagers) will forget that their religion is indestructible. I'm basically the target audience of this trilogy. I never doubted it. You are grossly underestimating your children. You raised us. Your upbringing is almost immortal, as long as its solid. A book isn't going to define me, because I read it within the mindset my parents, genetics, and experience handed me. My friend and I both read and loved the entire trilogy. I read it four times, she read it once. I would never play a violent video game. She does. A book series, no matter how much I love it, won't ruin me. But my parents, my friends, my teachers... All those physical people that love me or teach me or befriend me or everything at once. Those people make me who I am. Along with myself.

Unsuited for age group

This is a fairly general one, so I'm going to showcase all the good influences these books have had on me.

1. Better understanding of war and trauma.
2. Interest in politics.
3. Motivation to read.
4. Motivation to become more independent and develop my own taste and opinion.
5. Questioning and curious outlook on topics that interest me.
6. Aspiration to work for the UN or EU as a future career.
7. Critical mindset towards media and authority figures like teachers.
8. Stronger morals and a fervent act upon them and discuss them.

Wow, this review is long.