I went to see The Hunger Games the other day with a friend here in Halifax who is not only a literature professor at a local university but also a big fan of Young Adult (YA) fiction like I am.
Not surprisingly, over dinner after the movie, we enjoyed several hours of lively conversation that worked its way from the film through the original Suzanne Collins novels and finally, of course, to Harry Potter.
One of the things we noted about The Hunger Games, the movie, is that the screenplay attempts to incorporate some aspects of the second and third novels of the series into the film of the first book. Whereas that first novel focuses entirely on Katniss and her personal struggle to deal with the challenges she faces, with little thought until the end of the greater political impact of some of her decisions, the film version actually presents that potential political impact on-screen throughout, making politics a more important part of the story.
For example, in the film the people of District 12 salute Katniss for volunteering herself for the slaughter in place of her sister. This is an act of defiance that would never have been considered by the people of her district at the start of the first book. It is only when, in book two, Katniss visits Rue's district on her Victors Tour that such a salute takes place and it is greeted with cruel violence by the Capitol. Further, the film shows Rue's district move into an actual uprising when Katniss stands over Rue's flower-ornamented body and salutes her solemnly, an uprising that didn't start until late in the second and possibly early in the third book.
We discussed the implications of this on the entire story arc of the expected three-film Hunger Games series, comparing this compression of the story to the way the Harry Potter film-makers actually expanded the seven novels into eight films in order to J.K.'s story justice.
This led to a discussion of the epilogues included at the end of both series of novels: J.K.'s infamous 19-years-later section that brings The Deathly Hallows to a close and Collins' denouement wherein we find Katniss and Peeta married and taking care of their two children in the slowly recovering District 12, now that the revolution has been successfully completed.
And, as is quite natural for two people with such similar political viewpoints, our discussion of the two epilogues necessarily raised our discontent with the decisions made by these two strong women writers to use their epilogues to show their equally strong female characters (Hermione and Katniss) as having chosen to settle down and raise families, rather than continue to pursue a more public life.
We are not arguing that the decision to raise a family is an inappropriate one; we simply wish that the authors had at least left open the possibility that their characters could have pursued other opportunities in addition to, if not in place of, the more traditional route.
With regard to Katniss, we both agreed that this character was too badly damaged by her experiences (starting with the death of her father and the temporary "absence" of her mother, through her years of keeping her family alive by hunting and trapping and ending with the brutality of not one but two trips into the games, followed by leading a bloody revolution) to ever be able to settle into any kind of normal or stable life and was probably less capable than any literary character we could think of at the end of her trials to take on responsibility for raising children.
With regard to Hermione, on the other hand, we simply could not understand the message that Rowling is trying to send by showing Hermione as Ron's wife and the mother of his children at the end of the novel and mentioning nothing about her continuing to study, her taking on an academic career, pursuing advanced research or perhaps even taking over as Hogwarts Headmaster (or, for that matter, helping to establish the first wizarding university for advanced magical studies). Her intellectual curiosity and academic leanings are so pronounced in the seven novels that it is completely bewildering to us that they would not continue to form part of her life once Voldemort was vanquished. And, as so many people have proven, it would be completely believable if Hermione were to be shown to be accomplishing both: raising a family and continuing in a more public, academic role.
No, Rowling doesn't say anything in the epilogue that precludes the possibility that Hermione continued to develop herself in these areas but she certainly makes no effort to suggest that Hermione does so. Rowling states that Neville is a professor at Hogwarts by that point: why not Hermione?
Perhaps more problematic for us is the fact that both Rowling and Collins make a point of showing these strong female characters settling into more traditional female roles at the end of their narratives: what message are they trying to send to their readers by deliberately defining the decisions of these characters in this way?
No comments:
Post a Comment