![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Some time ago I read the first book of the Hunger games. So... yeah, I get how people would relate that to Battle Royale. But having read both books now, I don't see a reason why people should compare other of the two and claim which is better. Yeah... they share similar setting in that the story revolved around young people being pit into a situation where they have to kill each other within a certain amount of time. That's all. Aside from that, the two stories have NOTHING similar to each other. So how could people compare the two and claim one is better? Just because one is from Japanese media and one English. Or that one came first...
In Battle Royale, the political situation was based on an alternate reality where the government functioned differently and acted much more extremely. You can say the same as well to the world of Hunger Games. But the reasoning as to why the Hunger Games were held as well as the Battle Royale were completely different. In the Hunger Games... the games was held as a sort of punishment as well as a way to reinforce the obedience to the people in the 12 Districts. Thus the tributes being chosen and sent over. As compared to the Battle Royale, the 'game' was held... as a meant to control the population due to the lack of resources... so they're choosing young students from chosen 'bad' schools and pick the worst class and throw them into an isolated island to make them kill each other. The only similarity here was that the choice were random and at certain situation people can chose to voluntarily join the games. (As with Katniss volunteering in place of her sister, and that crazy dude in BR.)
In Hunger Games, there's this fancy celebration thing before and after the games... but in BR, the only fuss made was AFTER the winner appeared. Before that, the battle game were held in secret... no one from the families of the chosen class knew what fate lie on the kids aside from them going to a 'school trip'.
In Hunger Games, the tributes were given chance to learn things/skills before the games begin. And when the game officially started, they could also risk going after random stuff initially placed at the start of the game. Which is also part of the initial elimination rounds. Unlike in BR, the kids were all given a standard issue bag with a random weapon inside (which is either very usefull or dumb) as well as a neck bracelet thing that would explode if they refuse to participate in the game. Looking at these two scenarios side by side, we can see how (already) the two settings being different. Also, while in Hunger Games... the tributes barely knew each other unless they were from the same district; it was different in BR, where they were classmates that at least knew each other for three years. The psychological game in bothe scenarios are VERY different. While you may be able to try to survive by killing some other tributes you barely knew... would you be able to do the same with friends you've been hanging around with for years? Or very close friends or loved ones? How one's thinking could be drastically changed when pitted in such cruel setting... based on these two very different situation, would have different effect to the readers.
While in both stories the game keepers are able to manipulate the game to force the 'fighters' to kill each other, HG had more of a feel of a game show while BR had the feel of a reality show. Since in HG, there are cameras monitoring the progress... there can be sponsors helping out in sending some help to the tributes and the tributes can also manipulate the situation to attract sponsors to want to send aid. Compare that to the kids in BR, who can only depend on the things they were given... as well as the random things they might be able to find on the island/game area. There were no need for them to be monitored directly... since the neck bracelet simplified all.
And the issue that were raised were different. The message from both were different as well. And the motivation to kill were also different.
That said, Hunger Games turned out to be a good read. As long as you don't compare it with Battle Royale.
In Battle Royale, the political situation was based on an alternate reality where the government functioned differently and acted much more extremely. You can say the same as well to the world of Hunger Games. But the reasoning as to why the Hunger Games were held as well as the Battle Royale were completely different. In the Hunger Games... the games was held as a sort of punishment as well as a way to reinforce the obedience to the people in the 12 Districts. Thus the tributes being chosen and sent over. As compared to the Battle Royale, the 'game' was held... as a meant to control the population due to the lack of resources... so they're choosing young students from chosen 'bad' schools and pick the worst class and throw them into an isolated island to make them kill each other. The only similarity here was that the choice were random and at certain situation people can chose to voluntarily join the games. (As with Katniss volunteering in place of her sister, and that crazy dude in BR.)
In Hunger Games, there's this fancy celebration thing before and after the games... but in BR, the only fuss made was AFTER the winner appeared. Before that, the battle game were held in secret... no one from the families of the chosen class knew what fate lie on the kids aside from them going to a 'school trip'.
In Hunger Games, the tributes were given chance to learn things/skills before the games begin. And when the game officially started, they could also risk going after random stuff initially placed at the start of the game. Which is also part of the initial elimination rounds. Unlike in BR, the kids were all given a standard issue bag with a random weapon inside (which is either very usefull or dumb) as well as a neck bracelet thing that would explode if they refuse to participate in the game. Looking at these two scenarios side by side, we can see how (already) the two settings being different. Also, while in Hunger Games... the tributes barely knew each other unless they were from the same district; it was different in BR, where they were classmates that at least knew each other for three years. The psychological game in bothe scenarios are VERY different. While you may be able to try to survive by killing some other tributes you barely knew... would you be able to do the same with friends you've been hanging around with for years? Or very close friends or loved ones? How one's thinking could be drastically changed when pitted in such cruel setting... based on these two very different situation, would have different effect to the readers.
While in both stories the game keepers are able to manipulate the game to force the 'fighters' to kill each other, HG had more of a feel of a game show while BR had the feel of a reality show. Since in HG, there are cameras monitoring the progress... there can be sponsors helping out in sending some help to the tributes and the tributes can also manipulate the situation to attract sponsors to want to send aid. Compare that to the kids in BR, who can only depend on the things they were given... as well as the random things they might be able to find on the island/game area. There were no need for them to be monitored directly... since the neck bracelet simplified all.
And the issue that were raised were different. The message from both were different as well. And the motivation to kill were also different.
That said, Hunger Games turned out to be a good read. As long as you don't compare it with Battle Royale.
Tags: