Reading Response 1

The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins

Upon reading the Hunger Games for a second time, I was curious about whether it was a “feminist novel” or not.  When I read it the first time, I honestly was not thinking about it that way and was only reading it for the story, which I found emotionally engaging.  After reading it a second time, I’m honestly not sure.

From the beginning of the book, protagonist Katniss Everdeen does not conform to traditional gender norms.  She takes on the role of provider for her mother and sister after her father’s death.  Her best friend, Gale, is a boy who is also the provider for his family after his father’s death.  Katniss is tough—she hunts, kills, and guts animals, has no room for sympathy (wanted to drown a kitten, pg 3), and bargains on the black market Hob.  She is jealous when other girls talk about Gale—but only because she doesn’t want to lose a good hunting partner (pg. 10).  She also mentions that she doesn’t want to have children.

However, these qualities seem to come more out of her difficult lifestyle than out of a need to challenge the gender norms.  Life in Panem seems to be more centered on class than on gender—for example, both boys and girls compete together in the Hunger Games, and their capabilities seem to come more from their class/district status than anything else (each of the “Careers” is a worthy opponent, regardless of gender).  Also, Katniss’ entire life has been so difficult and harsh that it’s not difficult to imagine why she wouldn’t want to have to worry about protecting a child from the harsh life in District 12.

Although she may not want to ever have children, by the end of the novel, she isn’t sure about her feelings for Peeta Mellark, the other District 12 tribute who at times seemed to be her ally and at other times, her opponent.  Encouraged by Haymitch, she pretends to have feelings for Peeta in order to garner support from the public audience and wealthy sponsors.  These feelings faked for the cameras, and while in the arena, Katniss mostly competes thinking only of herself, not of her staged feelings.  She doesn’t want to kill Peeta, as she feels indebted to “the boy with the bread”, but at the same time, doesn’t want to be killed by him and his “allies”, the Careers.  This changes when it is announced that they can both win.  She takes care of Peeta, and continues to act out their romance; oblivious to the fact that Peeta isn’t acting.  By the time she does discover that, and as they return to District 12, Katniss realizes just how ambiguous her feelings are.

I was originally annoyed that Katniss “needed” to fall in love or feel some emotions for a male character—it seemed too cliché for a female protagonist.  But at the same time, it’s not like she does fall in love.  She does what she needs to do to survive.  She acts the part; she keeps Peeta alive; and she continues the story to keep the Capitol satisfied.  When watching the carefully curated film of their time in the Games, she sees Peeta looking out for her and she “sees” herself fall in love with Peeta.  She and Peeta have also been through one of the most stressful times imaginable—being hunted and hunting in order to stay alive, while on live TV.  She could easily develop “misappropriation of arousal”, the adrenaline rush of the Games associated forever with Peeta, her one lifeline during this highly stressful time.  It’s also easy to forget that they are still teenagers dealing with such physically and mentally strenuous issues.  The film and the psychological stress and bonding could easily influence Katniss into experiencing feelings that she may or may not truly have, and I think it’s totally reasonable to have this happen as part of the novel.

Reading Response (9/5)

I disagree with positivism as defined in liberal feminism. I don’t think there is a way to form experience and analyze it free from social conditions. Every experience is different based on what biases and what kind of framing takes place. Knowledge is not objective because we cannot decontextualize our experience, our thought, and our means of obtaining knowledge and giving it significance through application. Therefore, I think when it comes to technology development and design, the male experience is inherently different from the female’s. I understand that there are facts we accept universally to be true and irrefutable, but they exist in the space we’ve created. For example, something as basic as our understanding of numbers and language are something civilization just made up. This is, of course, a half-baked idea.

In this respect, I agree with socialist feminism in that it refuses positivism. I do believe that technology is a social product and is developed according to a culture’s values and beliefs. It’s ignorant to say that a white, middle class male’s experience and development of technology would be anything that resembles a black woman’s experience in a racist and sexist society. Essential feminism also brings the great point of saying that because men cannot conceive and give birth, they develop technology that seeks to dominate and exploit the natural world. The evidence is all around us as our Earth is suffering the abuse we have put it through. Interestingly, instead of admitting technology’s faults and valuing sustainability, our patriarchal society decides to invest in colonizing Mars! I wonder what technology a matriarchal society would have designed and believe that it would have been better with coexisting with our natural world instead of seeking to dominate and subdue it. I think Knut Sorenson brings the good point that women bring “caring values” to the science and technology field such as “rationale of responsibility”. With the defense of “out of sight, out of mind” thinking that backs pollution, animal cruelty, economic inequity, etc., our technological world needs the rationale of responsibility.

In terms of sexual identity, I think as a whole society has failed to address this “issue” (and I use the word issue sardonically). I feel there is a need for people to constantly be labeling and defining themselves as well as other as a shortcut to understand sexual identity as a black and white topic. However, I think terms that box us in as having attraction to only one gender or both is constricting. Why can’t we experience attraction freely based on a partner’s personality and individual characteristics instead of strictly being attracted to erogenous zones and body parts? Why does a history of homosexual/heterosexual tendencies mean we cannot possibly be attracted to another gender? This phenomenon is not universal: men in Ancient Greece and Melanesia engaged in gay sex acts, but were not considered gay in the slightest. I think our obsession with normalizing everyone and policing their bodies values being what is considered socially normal instead of natural.

Social constructionism is a new idea to me, but I agree with it. I think that although we have urges that are biological, the way we interpret them and give them meaning is purely social. For instance, a young man in Ancient Greece performing fellatio is not gay, but in the United States, it is starkly defined as a gay act. In this way, the same sexual act can be socially construed in very different ways. Because the social defines how we experience arousal and how we act on it, it influences how we shape it. However, I may be a moderate social constructionist since I don’t believe that without society, we would never acquire sexual drive. Sure, society shapes our sexual identities and somewhat creates it, but I don’t believe that it creates a feeling that is not there to begin with.

The Hunger Games Reading Response

I believe that Katniss’s strength is portrayed through the direct juxtaposition between her values and those of the Capitol. Her main priorities revolve around being able to take care of her family. The capitol revolves around more superficial purposes such as looking good and always being entertained. Katniss seems to be the voice of reason in this dystopian society. One scene that stood out for me was when she was at the dinner before the Games started where citizens of the Capitol took something to expel what they ate, just so that they could eat more. She saw this as wasteful and gluttonous while people of her own district starved to death. By steering away from allowing Katniss to get caught up in her own makeover and new lavish lifestyle, the author makes her a powerful character. Other young adult novels get sidetracked when the main character finds new lifestyle or when she falls in love and the focus shifts to her confusion. This is what sets this book apart from others: Katniss’s focus on the Games is always in the spotlight, with short bursts of information on her own inner turmoil. This also shows how Katniss remains focused on her main goals, to win for her family and do so without losing herself.

As different as this novel is compared to other young adult novels, the author does bring in romance and the love triangle. I wonder why we must live in a society where most books having to do with teenage female protagonists must have a romantic angle to sell books. If books with male protagonists do not have a “search for love” or “inner confusion on where the heart lies” story line, no one bats an eye. But we very rarely find books where the female protagonist’s main goals lie anywhere else but with finding the right boy. I do not think it is practical to have books and other forms of media to have other focuses besides the romantic angle in order for the work to be successful and that fact is very upsetting. Readers must congratulate the author of The Hunger Games for reminding us all that young women are capable of a lot more than just finding the right man.