The Odds That Were Never In Their Favour

With the recent release of Mockingjay: Part 1, I felt it was apt to write up a blog on a topic that I've been mulling over for a while now. This isn't a review of The Hunger Games trilogy; I read them a couple of years ago, so any review wouldn't be fair and would be probably be influenced more by the films than the books.

No. What I wanted to write about was the oft mentioned comment, regarding The Hinger Games. The ones that states 'yeah, but it's just a watered down Battle Royale'. Why do I feel a need to comment on this, when both books have been out for so long? Because friends of mine are still comparing them and I honestly don't think the comparision is apropos. This blog is about why The Hunger Games isn't Battle Royale.

Now, before I begin here is your fair warning. There will be spoilers for both books; so if you're still, or waiting to start, reading either and don't want to know what goes down, stop. Close the window. Avoid this post until another day, when you can face the things to come.

With that out of the way, let's begin.

The Hunger Games (by Suzanne Collins, 2008-10) is a book/series about a teenage girl called Katniss Everdeen and her friend Peeta Mellark, who later sort of becomes her lover. They get thrown into a 'fight to the death' situation against their will with a load of other teenagers. Who put them in such an awful situation? Their own government, in legal, sanctified action.

Battle Royale (by Koushun Takami, 1999) is a book about a teenage boy called Shuya Nanahara and his friend Noriko Nakagawa, who later sort of becomes his lover. They get thrown into a 'fight to the death' situation against their will with a load of other teenagers. Who put them in such an awful situation? Their own government, in legal, sanctified action.

So what's the problem then? Near identical plots and Battle Royale predates The Hunger Games, so there is some definite plagarism going on right? All those Hunger Games fans should be ashamed of themselves for buying in to an inferior, Westernised copy of a good, solid, Japanese story?

Well. No, not really. When was the last time you actually read a book that was original anyway? Let me give you an example here. The Lord of the Rings; this is considered by many to be the pinnacle of fantasy literature. It is the beginning of everything we understand as 'high fantasy'; it inspired world renowned franchises such as Dungeons & Dragons and even ongoing series such as The Elder Scrolls. I mean, for goodness sake, there's even essence of Middle Earth in the Harry Potter series (Gandalf and Dumbledore. I'm sure die hard Potterheads will shoot me down for this and tell me they are nothing alike, but stop and look. If nothing else, visually they are similar. Dumbledore is the 'stereotypical' wizard in appearance, which started with good ol' Gandalf. And, again, Ringwraiths and Dementors. Different in practice, similar in visualisation; evil, ghost like creatures clad in black robes. I won't argue the toss as to whether personalities are the same because, to be quite honest, I stopped reading Potter at age six, so like hell I can remember characterisation. Sorry world, but Potter doesn't do it for me.)

I'm digressing. My point is that The Lord of the Rings is often seen as the beginning. But is it really? I'm sure what I'm about to write is no surprise to any die hard Rings fan, but a lot of it is, well... Unoriginal. Tolkien was, first and formost, a historian not a fiction author. I read somewhere that Rings is meant to be a replacement for British mythology, seeing as, sort of Arthur, we didn't have one. You know, like the Norse Gods, or Greek myths. I suppose the closest we have is Roman myhtology, which is only because they conquered us and even then it's mostly a carbon copy of Greek mythology, as the Romans wanted to emulate the (then) most powerful/educated nation in the world. There's Celtic mythology, too, I suppose, but overall Britain has a lack of mythology. Tolkien couldn't rewrite the past, but he could write a story fit for myths of old. That's why the books are so full of detail, with songs and maps and history. Tolkien wrote England's mythology. But! He's a historian. He studied other mythologies, he wrote his own. Hey, guess what? There is loads of influence from other mythologies in Rings.

I studied philosophy with my best friend. We studied Plato's The Republic. In it he mentions the legend of the ring of Gyges. A man accidentally ends up in a cave. Here he steals a golden ring. He then discovers this ring turns him invisible. This ring is ultimately used for evil and when weak men possess it then become enslaved to its power.

Hold on. Why does that sound so familiar?

There's no evidence to prove that Tolkien was inspired by the ring of Gyges, but either way it proves the point that nothing is ever really original. If he was inspired, so what? It doesn't detract from the wonder he creates in his own work, it doesn't lessen its value. If he wasn't inspired? It shows that people can independantly have the same idea, which at a later date can be percieved as 'copying' or 'inspiration', even if it was not. To be fair, how many modern fiction novels are based off of Greek or Roman mythology, or even fairy tales and folklore, yet readers don't scream 'blatant rip off' (in fact, Collin's cites the Greek myth of Theseus and the Minotaur as inspiration)? If you've actually read Gyges and Rings you'll know that although there are similar elements, they're not the same story; thing is, if you only pick up on certain elements or only expand on the basics they can sound the same. If you actually know the full story (no pun intended), you realise they're not the same.

Gyges is about a man who finds a magical artifact, which he uses for his own gain. He abuses the power to kill the King and seduce his wife, putting himself in the position of power. The ring doesn't
corrupt, it just allows the unjust man to act corruptly with out being detected.

Rings is about a group of unlikely heroes who set out a long quest to destroy evil and bring the world to peace. The ring is actively malicious and breaks even the most saintly of people.

Shifting the focus, suddenly the stories don't really seem all that similar at all.

And so it is with The Hunger Games and Battle Royale. There is too much of a focus on the similarities (and screams that Collins should at least 'acknowledge' her inspiration from Takami's earlier work, even though she claims she was not aware of it until post-publishing. And do you know what? I believe her; as I said earlier, it is possible to come up with the same idea independantly) and not enough focus on the differences.

For me, the biggest difference between The Hunger Games and Battle Royale, is that the Game is only the start for Hunger Games. It develops in to so much more after massive defiance from its core players. It is the start of the revolution, the start of the downfall of the Capitol, the end of the Games. In Battle Royale, it's one isolated event. The novel ends, but the programme continues. Sure, our heroes managed to save two lives instead of one, manage to thwart the plans of the overseer but... Bring down the government? Prevent the programme ever running again? No. They don't. They escape with their lives and become fugitives, with expectations that the government will someday catch up with them and finish off what the programme started.

The Hunger Games is hopeful. Battle Royale is hopeless.

Secondly, one of the major differences between the two is how the rest of the country percieve the Game/programme. I get the feeling that The Hunger Games is very much an allegory/social commentary for the Western obsession with reality TV. You know, trash TV where people do stupid, often embarassing or dangerous tasks to win prizes? It's not really such a great stretch of the imagination that, with our other obsession of needing more and more visceral imagery (e.g., the fact that scenes of actual war are often projected into our homes on a daily basis and the rise of 'splatter/torture porn' films; I do forensics so am expected to see horrific images, but who hasn't seen a decapitated corpse on the screen, even if it wasn't real? Gore seems very much part of the every day in modern culture) that we could possibly end up in a world where we watch people fight to the death for entertainment purposes. It wouldn't be the first time (the gladitorial games spring to mind; hold on, if that pre-dates Battle Royale, does that mean Takami just ripped off history? What a fiend; can't possibly like his work now, it's just watered down as he only had fictional people killed... Yeah.) The Capitol revel in the Games; it's like a national event for them. They get excited and place bets and watch avidly.

But the programme? It isn't broadcast, save for the announcement of the winner at the end. The public reaction is horror and revulsion. Parents and guardians are terrified that their child will be taken and used; while most parents in The Hunger Games also have this fear, some Districts see it as an honour to fight in the Game. There's nothing honourable about the programme, no one wants to experience it. It isn't glamorous. There's no betting. Kids are abducted and made to fight each other. The point of the Games is to emerge with a winner; one person will always win and they will run for as long as they need to. The programme has a time limit. A winner isn't necessary. Some times there is no winner; if there is more than one person alive when the time limit runs out, everyone gets killed. The programme is not a game (I mean, the Games aren't much of a game either, but there are still clear 'winners' and 'losers', however messed up it is). The programme is not, in any way, like reality TV. It is not grotesque and vile entertainment. It's a form of opression. The government uses the programme to keep the country in a constant state of fear and panic. The public are told that the programme is for military research, that the kids are abducted so that they can test out weaponary. It's horrific, but necessary, to keep the country safe in case of war. The kids are dying for their country. Of course, that's not what the programme exists for at all; it's to subconsciously induce mistrust into the public. If a group of teens will do anything, including brutalise, maim and kill their friends to survive, then who knows what might happen in the real world? If you can't trust your best friend to not, literally, stab you in the back, who can you trust? No one. If the community has no trust in one another, they cannot band together, they cannot rise against the government. They are divided.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that the Games are to opress the Districts and too remind the people that rebellion results in punishment (even though the Capitol call it 'remembering sacrfice' or some such). It's also more overt; the public know the Games exist as a reminder to not rebel. The programme's goals are more covert and subtle, working into the public's psyche.

There's a slew of other differences too. The Games has its 'tributes' fight strangers. The programme has its students fight friends and even lovers. The Hunger Games is dystopian, post WWIII American while Battle Royale is alternate universe, pre-millenium Japan. The Hunger Games only follows its main character (Katniss) and her allies, Battle Royale follows every single character, meaning every death you read is a character you know (yes, some characters you care about more than others, some characters you even actively dislike, but still the book has at least one chapter dedicated to eaach student). As I mentioned earlier, the actual 'fighting to the death' bit, is only the beginning of a much bigger story in The Hunger Games. The 'fight to the death' is the story in Battle Royale. Really, actually read them and you'll see the books aren't really that similar at all.

The Hunger Games is about a girl called Katniss who is forced into futuristic gladitorial games, where she has to fight to the death for the entertainment of others. She manages to deceive the system and becomes the figurehead for a revolution against this cruel government that put her there, becoming the last of the 'tributes'/'victors'.

Battle Royale is about Shuya and his classmates, who are abducted and placed into 'the programme', whereby they are forced to kill one another. The programme, which is mostly run in secret, seeks to place fear and mistrust into it's populace to prevent revolution. Shuya manages to survive the programme, but he remains on the run forever, knowing that next year more children will be put through what he was.

Suddenly they don't seem so similar after all, do they?

For the sake of argument, I like Battle Royale more than The Hunger Games. It's a book for an adult audience, which makes its descriptions more graphic, more harrowing in my opinion, which for a topic that's mostly about murder, you need. I have a friend who says (having not read Battle Royale) that The Hunger Games are horrifying and vile things do happen (such as Peeta's torture and brain washing) but... I just can't agree. The Hunger Games does seem a little too sanitary. It's written for young adults, it can't be as violent or psychologically screw with you the way it really needs to. And that isn't that  'Battle Royale does it better', because I felt that about The Hunger Games long before I'd read or watched Battle Royale. The fact I feel that The Hunger Games falls short of expectations isn't because of something else; even as an independant piece, it just wasn't what I wanted. If I'm going to compare Battle Royale to The Hunger Games, my comments would be that the former has better, more likeable main characters (Katniss is actually pretty uninspiring in my opinion) and that, to be perfectly honest, I just think Takami is a better author than Collins. The Hunger Games didn't evoke emotion in me. I did not care at the end when the big 'oh shit, you didn't' happened. I did care when that final 'fuck, I thought there was hope' event at the end of Battle Royale happened (actually, having already seen the film, I was really reluctant to read those last few chapters because I knew what was coming). But those comparisions are comparisons I could make between any two books, regardless of topic. I like Battle Royale, but I prefer Beyond the Deepwoods, by Paul Stewart and Chris Riddell, despite the fact the latter is kid's book about an elf like creature who gets lost in a forest, has many fantastical adventures before eventually finding his long lost father and becoming a Sky Pirate. I can say that I think Stewart is the better author, that I felt the tone of his book matched the topic as well as Takami. And, to be fair, that's the only way Battle Royale and The Hunger Games should be compared. They are not the same story; one is not a better telling of 'modern day gladitorial fights' than the other. They are both independant works, with a similar theme (like The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter have similar themes) but they are not identical. Yes, Battle Royale is one of my favourite books, yes, I got bored and only rated Mockingjay two stars out of five on Goodreads (the 'it was okay' rating), but those opinions aren't linked. I didn't ditch The Hunger Games after I found Battle Royale. I'd already dismissed it (that said, I really enjoy The Hunger Games films. I think its the better format for that story).

So, Battle Royale versus The Hunger Games? No. It isn't a fight. You can like both equally, hate both equally or have a preference, but that should't be based on one being 'better' at telling the same story. If after all this, you still think that The Hunger Games is just stealing ideas from Battle Royale, well... I urge you to pick up William Golding's 1954 novel, Lord of the Flies and tell me that Takami's work is the first of it's kind again.