Comments (0)

By jamie, February 29, 2012 8:43 pm

I watch reality television. I even flirted with the idea of auditioning for Survivor, but then “reality” hit me – I don’t even like the idea of camping, unless I can be assured that there will be clean bathrooms and filtered water available. I read Suzanne Collins was partially inspired to write these books because of reality TV, and I can see the connection in the part I just finished (I read through Part II, through chapter 19).

Katniss keeps reminding us that she is on a TV show – she arranges her face so viewers won’t see her cry. Not only does she know her sister, is watching, but she is constantly aware that potential sponsors will only remain interested in her if they can be convinced that she is not about to die. This got me thinking about whether I would watch this show – I guess so because we are told that the people are required to – but how would I feel watching it? These are children but some of the children have trained for their entire lives for this “show” – some of them, we are told, enjoy killing when they are in the arena. Would I cheer for my district, or just be horrified by the entire thing and cheer for no one? I would like to think that’s what I would do – or just leave the television on and refuse to actually engage.

On Survivor, no one actually dies, but the voting ceremony is vaguely symbolic of a death – the flame represents life, and your torch is extinguished after “the tribe has spoken” and “it’s time for you to go.” Then the remaining cast members speak of their “fallen comrades” in past tense (the past tense references happen on all of these shows), and the cast members seem disgusted if past participants are ever allowed to rejoin the game. It’s really kind of ghoulish, if you think about it.

We have another kind of reality television that more closely resembles The Hunger Games, and it’s even more ghoulish and despicable – in this “program,” the cast members are all famous, for various reasons (singers, actors, etc.). We are obsessed with celebrities, demanding to know every detail we possibly can about them. When something goes wrong with them, or when they make a mistake, we can’t peel ourselves away – we are (morbidly) entertained by their failures. And because they have so much wealth and so much pressure (they are constantly on a reality show, with cameras hiding in the bushes or waiting for them everywhere they go, and “friends” constantly spilling their secrets to the tabloids or gossip shows) – their falls can be extraordinary. As I read the scenes in The Hunger Games where the “tributes” (contestants) were paraded about in costumes, giving interviews, performing before the “Gamemakers,” etc., I couldn’t help but think about the way we obsess over celebrities and the particular way we monitor the ones who self-destruct – some recent events have made it feel as though we put them into a giant arena and watch to see who will be next to go up in flames.

I thought about Amy Winehouse and Whitney Houston – two women gifted with incredible talent. When they fell, we couldn’t look away. Their actions were their own, but the public help create the caricatures they became – neither of those women self-destructed in a vacuum. The public was there, ghoulishly obsessed, criticizing their every misstep, judging – constantly judging them. I realize that celebrities, in a way, sign up for public scrutiny when they become public figures, but I think we could minimize some of these tragedies if we gave them room to breathe and judged them less than we do.

Back to the story – my favorite part so far (even though it brought me to tears) is when our hero, Katniss, exercises some subtle subversion after the death of Rue. She can’t give the child a “proper burial” but she adorns her body with flowers instead. She wonders how (or if) this will play on television, and decides that it might force some viewers to remember the horror that they are witnessing. They might also remember that the children in the area are not willing participants.

Small social theory note – there is one scene where the two girls, Rue and Katniss, share information about the separate districts in which they live, and it is clear that the districts are arranged in some type of a caste system – the two tributes from the agricultural district are both dark skinned (this irritated me), are beaten if they eat any of the food they harvest, and it is explained that everyone, regardless of age, is required to work in the fields during harvest season. On the flip side, the people in District 1 and 2 appear well-fed, even though they do not grow food (one makes “luxury items” and the other are masons, which is odd to me – wouldn’t there be masons in every district?) One person I spoke with about this book said that, at times, it felt as though she was being hit over the head with a social theory textbook. This gave me a smile – I hope the kids who read this book don’t get so caught up in the romantic possibilities (and really – if you read even as far as I have, it should be clear that this book is NOT about a teen romance/love triangle a la Twilight) that they lose sight of what the story is about (I haven’t finished, obviously, but certainly this series is about class struggle leading to revolution).

Comments (0)

By jamie, February 27, 2012 11:30 am

I have a confession to make: Whenever I read a suspenseful book (or see a suspenseful film) I either ask someone who is familiar with the text, or a find a plot synopsis before it gets to stressful – that way I can relax, because I know what’s coming. For this book series, I decided not to cheat – I even told GB, to keep me accountable – “This time I’m just going to find out what happens as I read. Anyway, it’s written for kids – I”m sure I will be able to handle it.” Roughly 20 minutes later, there I was on Wikipedia, trying to find out who survives the Hunger Games. Oh well.

I have read through Chapter 7, and it’s well done so far – better than I expected. I wasn’t all that enthusiastic about this series because it is being touted as the new “teen” series (the stars of the upcoming film are, after all, embarking on a mall tour!) – Twilight was great in the beginning, but by the end of the series it was clear the author had run out of ideas. (J.K. Rowling produced a masterpiece in the Harry Potter series, though; I will read those books aloud to Little Mama in a few years.)

When I heard about the Hunger Games [obligatory spoiler alert - be careful when you read my posts about fiction, because I'm talking as though we have all read to the same point in the book], how young people in a dystopian future would be forced to engage in a fight to the death, I was not impressed. So far, however, it’s pretty smart, vaguely Marxist in philosophy – the evil government keeps the masses hungry and distracted, petit bourgeoisie fighting against the lumpenproletariat (with both parties constantly fearful of oblivion) so they don’t attempt to rise up and take control.

And was it just me, or is the Capitol clearly modeled after the Emerald City in the Wizard of Oz? The people have pink hair, gold tattooed eyeshadow, one even has her skin dyed green. The residents have a funny, high pitched way of talking, and the one woman we have met so far seems unnaturally cheerful. When the tributes arrive, they are first taken to the “Remake Center” where they are washed, shaved, etc., much like the place Dorothy and her friends were taken before they were given an audience with the wizard.

One more thing – everything is televised, yet the tributes go to the roof to whisper when the want to share a secret. I am suspicious about this. So far the building they are in at the Capitol reminds me of the television show, Big Brother – much of what they have done so far has been televised. Surely every single inch of that place is bugged, yes?

Comments (0)

By jamie,

I have a lot to do. And of course I want to learn how to be more productive. On my list: teaching, blogging, research, and don’t forget those most important family-related responsibilities. And keeping the house clean. And personal development, spiritual and physical. Oh, and making time to read plenty of books. And I’m sure I have left out a bunch of things.

So I decided to read this book. For the blog, I’m just going to point out the most valuable point or two I learned in each section – I think I’ll read two chapters at a time (For this post, I read Chapters 1-2).

My take away from the first two chapters – having too many tasks in process (or unstarted) but not logged somewhere keeps our brains constantly cycling through all we need to do, hurting our productivity and wasting time. This makes sense to me – when I read, and even when I write, my brain is running through my to-do list. Also, because housework is the first to go around here, I glance up from my work and think, for example: I should pick up that knocked over wastebasket and the newspapers on the floor, and when did Little Mama take out her backpack? And I should empty the bag I packed for her other other day when she was sick – are there still crackers in it? And I have to wash the blankets and pillowcase from her couch bed; I’ll add them to the pink load, and did the dryer buzz? – It should have buzzed already – or did I turn off the buzzer?

David Allen describes a system to categorize activities that need to be completed. He does not advocate to-do lists, but instead suggests that you only write it on the calendar if it absolutely MUST be done that day. This is because life is unpredictable, and it’s demoralizing to have to rewrite all of yesterday’s unfinished tasks onto the calendar to tomorrow and tomorrow. I will have to consider this, because I agree – it stinks copying over everything I wanted to accomplish yesterday but didn’t get to. Instead, he suggests making a master list of activities that need to be done soon, and whenever there is time you can choose something off the list.

His lists include everything – even things you would like to accomplish someday, and then you review your lists every week to help train yourself not to be constantly worrying over unfinished work.

Comments (0)

By jamie, February 26, 2012 11:49 pm

A new month is coming up next week, so here is my list of planned books. You will notice that, though my goal it one book a week, there are more than four books on the list. I started reading digital books this month, and I love it; although paper books remain my favorites, there is something to be said about always having a book to read as long as your book reader (mine is the Nook tablet) remains charged. I read more than usual this week, and I’m sure this was the reason. So my list contains both digital and paper choices – I will see how the month goes, and I’ll consider it a success if I get four finished in March. I haven’t forgotten about my Unfinished Business, either.

The Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins – Our niece has enthusiastically recommended this series since before it was complete. The first film will be released in March, so I am going to try to get at least the first book read before I see the movie. [Digital books]

Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition, by Daniel Okrent – My mom picked this one up for me awhile ago. We talk about the Prohibition quite a lot in my classes, and I’m looking forward to have more details about this time in U.S. history. [Paperback]

Telling Memories Among Southern Women: Domestic Workers and Their Employers in the Segregated South, by Susan Tucker – Kathryn Stockett mentions, at the end of The Help, that she used this book as background. My mom is reading it right now, and really enjoying it. When I go go home for Spring Break next month, it’s my turn. [Paperback]

The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement, by David Brooks – This one is already out in paperback. Sadly, I have had my copy for a long time and just haven’t gotten to it yet. It’s time. [Hardcover]

Imagine: How Creativity Works, by Jonah Lehrer – I have another Jonah Lehrer book hanging around in “unfinished business.” That’s because I misplaced the book and then started too many others. Rather than beat myself up about it, I will try to get both of these read over the next month or two – he is one of my favorite authors. The book will be released mid-March, and I have pre-ordered my copy. [Hardcover]

The Overachievers: The Secret Lives of Driven Kids, by Alexandra Robbins – My daughter is only three, but I see some of my students juggling multiple responsibilities and I wonder how it will be when Little Mama gets there. Our nieces are teenagers, and they seem to do an excellent job of balancing advanced level classes with other activities – I hope they will always be able to do this. [Digital]

Comments (2)

By jamie, February 24, 2012 10:37 am

I finished the book. Having seen the film, I already knew how it was going to end, but I still found myself crying during the closing pages. Since then (and since the film) I have been thinking about the characters – What happens next? How do their lives change as the country continues to change?

So, was the movie better, or the book? It’s usually the book, isn’t it? This time I think the book is definitely better. One of the main reasons for this – the movie squashes more than a year into what seems like a far shorter period of time. Kennedy is assassinated, the Woolworth’s counter becomes integrated, as do some of the schools, the Vietnam “skirmish” begins and some people become “hippies.” [Trivia question: What is the worst-ever movie adaptation of a book? My answer, and GB's answer, at the end of this post]

My favorite thing about the book, which could not really be conveyed in the film is the relationship Aibileen has with the little girl she takes care of. She genuinely adores that child. I was intrigued by the techniques she uses to teach little Mae Mobley about race and civil rights. For example, she wraps two tiny treats, one in white paper and the other in black, then tells the little girl about how we are all the same under the skin – Mae Mobley unwraps the treats, and sure enough – the same.

Another thing I really like, and it becomes clear in the final section, is that some of the women (not just the ones you see in the film) are able to have real friendships with one another, even though they do not share skin color. This is very significant because the story is set during a time and in a place where not only was this socially discouraged, it could even be illegal. In the film you see it with Celia and Minny – the book has more time to convey this, and if this was her intention, Kathryn Stockett succeeded, despite any mistakes she made along the way.

Kathryn Stockett preemptively addresses her critics in the closing pages of the book – she talks about the black maid her family employed until she was 16, and cites her as the primary motivation for the book. She addresses some of my complaints: “I was scared, a lot of the time, that I was crossing a terrible line, writing the voice of a black person. I was afraid I would fail to describe a relationship that was so intensely influential in my life, so loving, so grossly stereotyped in American history and literature.” I think she DID cross some lines, and I wish she had done a little less stereotyping herself, but overall, I had a positive experience reading this book.

So, those of you who read this book – what do you think? Did you share my experience, or have a completely different reaction to it? I’d love to hear your perspective.

Trivia Question: Midnight in Garden of Good & Evil, based on the fabulous nonfiction book by John Berendt (again, because they squashed several years’ worth of events into a couple of weeks)
GB’s Answer: FreejackFreejack (adapted from Immortality Inc., a 1959 novel by Robert Sheckley).
What is your answer?