★★I'd heard a lot of comparisons between Battle Royale and The Hunger Games, so I wanted to see if they were well founded. Other than the central concept of kids battling it out, it is not particularly similar. I realize that to say that them having the same central concept yet being totally different sounds ridiculous, but I think they are.
The main act of Battle Royale is the fighting, and while the fighting is important in The Hunger Games, it's used as a way to pull out other issues. The relationship with the state and the purpose of the games is much clearer in Hunger Games. I think this makes the violence in Battle Royale more menacing, in that it seems without purpose, but it also makes it seem less important, almost trivial. This is stupid, kids are killing each other.
There is, perhaps a lesson there, that we need the context of Rue and Katniss's family and relationships made clear to us before we care that kids are killing each other. Somehow it isn't horrifying enough that there's child murder, we need a backstory. Maybe that's the point in Battle Royale - that no one cares until it's their kid that's taken.
Despite this potential lesson, there do seem to be some indications that we should identify with the main characters. Shuya and Noriko have a budding love story, and we come to understand some of Shogo's history - he has been in the Program before, giving him additional insight into what's happening. But really, none of that matters.
The crazy situation, the idea of a world with terrible rules and a metaphor for survival at all costs that goes way beyond metaphor and into psycho-high-schooler, it all makes sense. I see what Takami is trying to say, but I just don't enjoy reading it. I felt the same way about Clockwork Orange. There's a point where the violence is so over the top, where the world becomes so farfetched, that I just can't follow it anymore. Battle Royale crossed that line on about page 6. I'd recommend it, it just wasn't for me.
Comments