Thanks to Suze Reese for linking this article in her weekly I Heart YA blogfest.
I haven't entered into the whole Hunger Games buzz, other than a few blog comments and my own anticipation about seeing the movie (Next week, spring break. YAY!!!).
But this article got me riled.
I know it's natural to compare the two franchises, Twilight and Hunger Games, but beyond ticket sales and royalty checks, I'd say there isn't much else to compare.
Hunger Games is about an oppressive fictional dystopian society where many starve so few can live in luxury and 23 random children are killed each year for entertainment.
Twilight is about a fictional vampire family and a werewolf pack that both depend on remaining secret from the rest of the world.
The article, I think, makes my point instead of theirs:
Bella...does many things against both her own and everyone else's better judgment, like falling in love with a vampire, jumping off of motorcycles and cliffs, and generally becoming a depressive, whiney teenager. But nothing really depends on this. It's not important for her to act this way, except outside of her own emotions.
The article then criticizes Katniss for going along with The Capital's efforts to turn her into a celebrity...saying this makes her passive. But, HELLO, not going along with the games means she's more likely to die. DIE.
Meanwhile, not acting like a whiny, self-destructive teenager means Bella would be more likely to live. LIVE.
The stakes in the story are why Katniss matters as a positive role model.
It's not Bella's fault. Who knows what gumption she might show if you threw her into an arena for a fight to the death...I'll bet she wouldn't be moping about Edward then.
What about you? Seen this article? What do you think?