The Hunger Games: The Sound of Silence
Oct. 8th, 2012 04:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
martasficI swear, one of these days I'll get Peeta and Katniss onto the train, and we'll meet Cinna and the Avox and all the other interesting things to talk about. But it seems I'm not quite through with those early chapters about the Reaping. They've always been among my favorite, but I didn't think I had more to say on them, and was just re-reading in order to get back in the swing of things.
But not quite yet, apparently. One of the things that the books make clear that the movies didn't is that the districts were expected to celebrate the Hunger Games. Here's Katniss's reaction to the speech introducing the Hunger Games:
Later, Effie Trinkett tells the various people to give Katniss a round of applause as their newest tribute, as if this is some kind of honor for her.
Right now, there's a drive on FB and elsewhere to get people to vote. I shared the picture just like everyone else, because I do believe in voting. But there's something about this scene that gets across my discomfort with voting just because you're expected to vote for someoene.
The citizens of Twelve are asked to applause Katniss as tribute, because this is what you do, as part of the farce. If they had applauded, Katniss points out, this would have made them complacent. Instead, they offer "the boldest form of dissent they can manage": they refuse to be made part of the spectacle. And I've been thinking of this in light of the question that I've been facing again and again these days: to vote or not to vote?
At a national level, I don't like either Obama or Romney. I really don't like Romney, and some days I decide I will vote for Obama just as a counter-vote against Romney. I know a lot of people look at the national scene and decide to vote for third parties, like libetarians. There's a problem with this, though. By voting libertarian you're not just voting against the two dominant parties. You're voting for something else specific. For some people, this is something they actually believe in; for others, not so much.
I get that not everyone shares my politics. That isn't the point of this post. It's rather to point out that sometimes silence can be louder than words, and this scene at the Reaping makes that point palpably. There seems to be a world of difference between staying silent because you haven't bothered to think of something to say, and staying silent because anything you could have said would just commit you to something you couldn't in good conscience support.
What do you think? Not just about the election issue (that's really just one application of this dynamic among many!) but about the way standing silent can mean something? Do you buy that? How do you sort that out from apathy? Was this enough of a statement, from the citizens, to show they didn't agree with what they were being asked to go along with?
But not quite yet, apparently. One of the things that the books make clear that the movies didn't is that the districts were expected to celebrate the Hunger Games. Here's Katniss's reaction to the speech introducing the Hunger Games:
Taking the kids from our districts, forcing them to kill one another while we watch – this is the Capitol's way of reminding us how totally we are at their mercy. How little chance we would stand of surviving another rebellion.
Whatever words they use, the real message is clear: "Look how we take your children and sacrifice them and there's nothing you can do. If you lift a finger, we will destroy every last one of you. Just as we did in District Thirteen. To make it humiliating as well as torturous, the Capitol requires us to treat the Hunger Games as a festivity, a sporting event pitting every district against the others. The last tribute alive receives a life of ease back home, and their district will be showered with prizes, largely consisting of food. All year, the Capitol will shower the winning district gifts of grain and oil and even delicacies like sugar while the rest of us battle starvation.
Later, Effie Trinkett tells the various people to give Katniss a round of applause as their newest tribute, as if this is some kind of honor for her.
To the everlasting credit of the people of District 12, not one person claps. Not even the ones holding betting slips, the ones who are usually beyond caring. Possibly because they know me from the Hob, or knew my father, or have encountered Prim, who no one can help loving. So instead of acknowledging applause, I stand there unmoving while they take part in the boldest form of dissent they can manage. Silence. Which says we do not agree. We do not condone. All of this is wrong.
Right now, there's a drive on FB and elsewhere to get people to vote. I shared the picture just like everyone else, because I do believe in voting. But there's something about this scene that gets across my discomfort with voting just because you're expected to vote for someoene.
The citizens of Twelve are asked to applause Katniss as tribute, because this is what you do, as part of the farce. If they had applauded, Katniss points out, this would have made them complacent. Instead, they offer "the boldest form of dissent they can manage": they refuse to be made part of the spectacle. And I've been thinking of this in light of the question that I've been facing again and again these days: to vote or not to vote?
At a national level, I don't like either Obama or Romney. I really don't like Romney, and some days I decide I will vote for Obama just as a counter-vote against Romney. I know a lot of people look at the national scene and decide to vote for third parties, like libetarians. There's a problem with this, though. By voting libertarian you're not just voting against the two dominant parties. You're voting for something else specific. For some people, this is something they actually believe in; for others, not so much.
I get that not everyone shares my politics. That isn't the point of this post. It's rather to point out that sometimes silence can be louder than words, and this scene at the Reaping makes that point palpably. There seems to be a world of difference between staying silent because you haven't bothered to think of something to say, and staying silent because anything you could have said would just commit you to something you couldn't in good conscience support.
What do you think? Not just about the election issue (that's really just one application of this dynamic among many!) but about the way standing silent can mean something? Do you buy that? How do you sort that out from apathy? Was this enough of a statement, from the citizens, to show they didn't agree with what they were being asked to go along with?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-10-09 12:27 am (UTC)You argue two divergent stances here, the silence of apathy and the silence of rebellion. There is a third silence, the silence of fear. This is the silence that operated in Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. This is the silence that all too often operates on the familial level in tribal Afghanistan. And often this is the silence that, when practiced long enough, leads to people practicing either the retreat of apathy or the activity of rebellion, often via violence.
People sat silently during kristallnacht, and because they did, there appeared to be support for the policies of the Nazi party. They sat silent while the ghettos were walled off, the freight trains were loaded and shipped off, and the work camps and killing camps operated - some very near metropolitan centers. Because of that history I vowed as a child that I would not sit back silently. I haven't and won't because it is just as dangerous to be silent as to be vocal. If I will be murdered, let it be for speaking out.
- Erulisse (one L)
Date: 2012-10-09 12:36 am (UTC)I think there are lots of bad reasons to be silent. Apathy is just one of them. And like you, I have stood by silently and watched outrageous things happen. I like to think I'd be brave enough to speak up even if there were much worse consequences than I'm every likely to face in America.
What impresses me so much about this scene is that the silence does say something, and it says something in a way that balances the need for survival (you know, to avoid heavy retribution) and the need to not make it look like you're acquiescing to an unjust situation. Sometimes that's not possible. And sometimes it's not enough. In those situations, silence becomes more fear than empowerment. I think it comes down to the situation whether this kind of silence is actually possible.
That's just my opinion. I appreciate you pointing out there are other options, because it's definitely a point worth remembering.