You Know What Really Grinds My Gears?

People who say that "The Hunger Games is a cheap knockoff of "Battle Royale." Let me count the ways that this accusation is bullshit:

First point: Suzanne Collins has claimed that she never read or watched "Battle Royale." Unless somebody out there has some conclusive proof that suggests otherwise, I think we can take her word. Believe it or not, publishing companies actually do have people who research this sort of thing before they go forward with publishing a book.

Second point: The basic idea of the novels (people being forced to fight in round-robin gladiator matches by their government) is THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD. Koushun Takami doesn't have a monopoly on the idea just because he's Japanese (I'm talking to YOU, weeaboos). And frankly . . .

Third point: I think that "The Hunger Games" does BETTER in this regard than "Battle Royale" because THG actually gives a good explanation of why the Capitol holds the games, as opposed to BR where the novel doesn't really give any explanation and the movie gives a completely illogical explanation.

Fourth point: The format of the books are completely different. BR focuses on many different characters and shows the POV of all the children in the game and has 3 main characters of equal importance, whereas THG only shows things from the POV of Katniss.

Fifth point: The characters in "Battle Royale" bare little, if any, resemblance to the characters in "The Hunger Games." I mean, okay, there are a few parallels between Seneca Crane and Kinpatsu Sakamochi (both are the game masters and supporters of their respective regimes), and Shogo Kawada shares a few personality traits with Gale Hawthorne, but otherwise they're all different.

Sixth point: "The Hunger Games" handles its sociopolitical subtext WAY better than "Battle Royale." Both have characters that are determined to rebel against their fascist government, but in "Battle Royale," nothing is really accomplished. Sure, two of the three heroes live, but nobody knows about it, so no kind of grand statement is made, and the book ends with them running and hiding, having pretty much forgotten their desire to leave Japan. A few of the bad guys die, but they were just cogs in the government machine, easily replaced and soon forgotten. In "The Hunger Games," when the characters decide to rebel, they stick to their guns, and Katniss puts herself at great risk to prevent the new government from becoming like the old government at the end.

"Battle Royale" is far from being a bad novel, I really like it. But it's just NOT the horribly mistreated masterpiece that every angry weeaboo on in the Internet keeps insisting that it is. The book is good, the movie is okay, but I just can't help but prefer "The Hunger Games."

Comments

[pokefreak13]

Huh, I never thought about it that way.