Editing Out Sex

Recently, I heard Bruno Mars' "The Lazy Song" on the radio. It's a weird song. It's all about not doing anything all day. I get it; everyone loves a day off. I just don't know that the best way to sing about it is by crying "I'm gonna kick my feet up and stare at the fan, Turn the TV on, Throw my hand in my pants..." No reading?

Anyway, the main problem I have with this song is the way that it's edited on the radio. One verse's lyrics are "Tomorrow I'll wake up do some P90X, Meet a really nice girl have some really nice sex, And she's gonna scream out 'This is great!'" When I was driving along listening to the radio, the word sex was beeped out. Why?



Going back to my discussions on the book, The Purity Myth, and on abstinence-only education, our country is overly obsessed with sexual purity, even while our culture is bombarding us with overly sexual images. And abstinence-only education only teaches kids and teens to stay away from sex: no explanation of masturbation, no explanation of desire and attraction, no explanation of safe sex options. So, somehow, I'm not surprised that just the word 'sex' is considered so risque that it has to be silenced out of a popular song (a song that 13-year-olds are listening to everywhere, a song in which the edit does absolutely nothing to keep listeners from knowing what the silenced word is). But I wondered, if the line referenced drugs, if it said "Meet a really nice girl, do some really nice X,"would the line be edited in the same way? It might be; I don't know. But the fact that I even wonder, that I think our culture might glorify drug use more than responsible sexual encounters, is pretty sad.

What's worse is the attention given to specific words. The only reference to sex in "The Lazy Song" is the word sex: no details, nothing explicit. On the other hand, we have Katy Perry's song "Last Friday Night," a huge hit right now (complete lyrics here). It is all about a hungover morning after a blackout night and a one night stand. The entire song is about reckless drinking and un-remembered sex. However, this song isn't edited on the radio. Why? Because it doesn't use the words sex, drinking, one-night stand, etc. Can kids read between the lines? Of course! Do they know what this song is about? You bet! But without a specific, single word to edit out, it doesn't seem to matter.

Now I'm not saying that Katy Perry's song is inappropriate or should be censored. But I am saying that songs, films, and other forms of popular culture get edited all the time, and for all the wrong reasons. We need to stop focusing on single words and images that seem "dangerous" or "risque" and start looking at the bigger picture.

Science Fiction Boobs

Tonight my boyfriend was playing a video game. I don't know what game it was but it took place in space and many of the creatures vaguely reminded me of Star Wars in their design. I noticed that all, or most of, the female alien creatures had very human like cleavage. I've noticed this in spacey, alien films too. What's the deal?

First of all, it's interesting that when we imagine aliens in space, so many of them are "humanoid," or, human-like, with differences being fairly small, like bright blue skin or gills or a couple of minor features to remind us they aren't human. It's also interesting that more often than not, the characters that look the most similar to humans are the ones our human, space exploring protagonists befriend first, and often the villains look the most outrageous, un-human and scary.



But, returning specifically to the female aliens, why do so many have human-like cleavage, and why do they wear Paris Hilton-esque outfits to show it off? It seems to me that even when we imagine completely different species and the societies they live in, we can't escape the notions of women as sex objects. In so many science fiction films the female explorers wear these tight, revealing, cleavage pumped up outfits. The women are smart and capable, of course, but let's not forget why they're there: for the (supposedly) male fans to look at and for the male characters to lust after. I love the film Galaxy Quest because Sigourney Weaver's character complains about this occupational hazard of working in science fiction as a woman (though she does end up with much of her top ripped off before the film is over; meta-moment, perhaps?).

In the sixties and seventies, many feminists used science fiction as a way to explore alternative places for women in the world. Joanna Russ' The Female Man imagines a future in which women have taken over and learned to breed without men. It's sad, then, that much of today's science fiction, especially mainstream science fiction, continues to relegate the female characters to walking boobs. I think we expect too much of our male audiences (because let's be honest, these films and video games are marketed to males). What would happen if we had a mainstream science fiction film with a woman who wasn't a lust/love interest for our male protagonist and who was smart, capable, liked by the others, and had her boobs covered? What if the women WAS the protagonist? Would audiences boycott? I don't think so. And if we could make this a norm for science fiction, audiences wouldn't expect less.

I wish...

"It's My Day!": Weddings and Sexism

I have several problems with the cultural traditions and ideas surrounding weddings. I have a problem, as I've said in a post before, with engagement rings and the expectations of spending a specific, certain amount of money on them. I have a problem with the idea that a wedding has to be perfect (marriage sure as hell isn't going to be perfect; why should the wedding?). And I especially have a problem with the idea that the wedding is the bride's day, no matter what.

This bothers me on several levels. For one, women use the "my day" excuse to lose control, boss people around and stress everyone (themselves included) out. The first year of marriage is stressful. A wedding is stressful. By going into all of this with the belief that "It's my day and it must be perfect," is just adding more stress, plus the inevitability of something failing. Now, I'm not saying that all women turn into bridezillas; of course they don't. But I am saying that with our culture telling us it's OK to expect everyone to fall over backwards for us in order to achieve perfection, we are telling women that bridezilla-like behavior is acceptable when they are getting married.

But the idea that a wedding is the bride's day bothers me even more because it focuses on one person.
Forget for a moment the assumption that a wedding is a fairy tale princess day for every woman. Forget that it's about flowers, decorations, food, a band, and everything else. It is a wedding. At its most basic, it is a ceremony to celebrate a marriage. And a marriage simply can not happen with just a bride. You need a groom (or another bride, or two grooms, etc.). It is about the joining of two people. It's about the start of a journey, the start of a life. The wedding is not the culmination of months of planning, spending, crying, etc.; the wedding is the beginning.

So where is the groom in all of this? Why is it all about the bride? Because she's wearing a pretty dress that she'll never wear again? Because women are supposed to be emotionally excited about marriage and men aren't? In the same way that these cultural assumptions allow women to take on the ridiculous behavior of a bridezilla, they allow men to play the role of uninterested, aloof bachelors counting down the last days of their freedom. Until recently, I thought that the story of a groom showing up still drunk from the bachelor night at the strip club was just a movie plot device; not so! A woman I know recently told me about her wedding and that is exactly what happened! I couldn't believe this was real (and I couldn't believe she still married him, but I didn't say that out loud...). Why is it okay for men to care so little about this ceremony that women are supposed to care so much about (and why must women care so much when men get to care so little)? We, as a society, tell men that weddings and marriage are not something they need to be concerned with; if anything, it's something they have to put up with.

A lot of this ties back into gender assumptions that we have about men and women. We expect women to be faithful to one person; we tend to expect less from men, and therefore simply roll our eyes when men go off to strip clubs or to sleep with someone else before getting married. "Boys will be boys" our culture tells us. Meanwhile, the women are supposed to be dealing with flowers and dresses and cakes; you know, because that's what women love to do, and are good at. I, for one, can not imagine entering into a lifelong commitment to a person with these divisions from the very beginning. Marriage is supposed to be a partnership. Marriages are about people vowing to support each other. Marriage is not about boys being boys, or women being bitchy micro-managers. But this, as far as I can tell, is what our culture has made weddings into. With TV shows like Say Yes to the Dress and other wedding reality television, we are telling people that this is what they should aspire to when they find someone they love.

I don't know about you, but when I'm ready to commit to a marriage with one person for the rest of my life, I expect a little more.

Contradictions Galore!: My Thoughts on The Help

Lately, the movie The Help has been on everyone’s minds and most everyone’s websites. Some are praising it as a great film, some are condemning it as another “white person’s civil rights film,” or, as a commenter on Bitch magazine’s blog put it, “racist garbage,” and most others are saying it falls somewhere in between. I’ve gone back and forth, originally more in defense of the book and film than not (though always aware that it is problematic) but looking at some well written reviews today, more of the problems were pointed out than I originally noticed. **spoiler alert**

I want to say first that I enjoyed this movie. Aware that I have white privilege, I wasn’t struck by any horrific, racist or anti-feminist moments/themes/ideas right off the bat (I did pause over Minny’s obsession with fried chicken, it seemed so stereotypical, but then I thought that just because it’s a stereotype doesn’t mean it can’t ever be true, right? And many of us Southerners, black and white, love fried chicken!) The movie made me laugh several times, and actually made me cry once. And I would tell anyone, no matter how problematic/racist/silly you might think it is, the film is worth it for Viola Davis’s performance. It’s absolutely incredible. She’s a fabulous actress (stole the film Doubt while having only seven or so minutes onscreen) and she deserves praise for her performance. She completely inhabits all the contradiction of her character: loving the children she raises, hating the women who hire her, enjoying making fun of the white women when with other black women, feeling constant pain and bitterness since her son’s death, and many more. So, I think it’s entirely possible to enjoy this film while staying aware of the issues (though I do kind of wish I had waited for DVD instead of adding to the box office results).

            

Now, the problems. I admit, I did not notice all of these originally; some I didn’t think about until reading other reviews. First, while everyone has been praising the film for portraying well-rounded, three-dimensional female charaters (white and black) this isn’t really the case. The (black) maids all tend to be slightly plump or overweight while the white women are all thin and attractive. Yes, the white women are taking the time to do their hair and make-up while the black women may not be, but that doesn’t exactly size and shape, does it? The black women do seem to be physically filling the “Mammy” stereotype, even if their personalities aren’t. And, come on, I’ve grown up around Southern women and Southern food; all those white women wouldn’t be that thin, even if they are in bridge club and Junior League. No way.

            

Also, the male characters are a problem. Both the film and the novel focus mainly on the female characters, with all the men relegated to side roles (Stuart’s role may be a little bigger than that, as he is a love interest). In the film, the black men are completely absent; we only hear about Leroy, Minny’s husband, and in one weird scene he comes in yelling and clearly about to beat her but he is never actually seen by the camera (a scene that seemed so strange when I was watching the film; why didn’t they just show him?). But in both the film and the novel, the black men fit into the stereotypes of absent fathers, abusive husbands and lazy good-for-nothings. And the white men? College educated, polite, supportive. Now, of course, white and black men at this time had very different opportunities for money and education, and this made a difference for them in lots of ways. But it didn’t make all black men abusive and all white men upstanding citizens. Why do none of the maids have a husband who helps support the family and struggles through the civil rights movement with his wife? Why don’t the white women have any husband troubles, be it over money, children, mistresses, abuse, alcohol, or anything? (You might say that Celia Foote has husband trouble, but that’s not really true because she just thinks she does; once he knows everything, he is completely supportive.)

           

I especially have a problem with Stuart and Skeeter’s relationship. Stuart is nice enough, and Skeeter really seems to fall for him, but, as expected, their relationship falls apart when she has reveals that she wrote the book on black women and their jobs as maids (in the novel, the relationship is already falling apart by this point, but this moment is still the most crucial). As a reader, I was expecting this scene, and in fact anticipating it; I was ready for Skeeter to face someone (white) head-on with her views and stand strong. But she doesn’t!!! In both the book and the film, she’s just crying, sad that he’s ending their relationship. To me, this seems completely out of character. She’s just spent so much time on this book, working in secret, risking some danger for herself and much more for the black women, it’s finally been published, and people are reading it. She’s done what she wanted to do, and I expected her to dismiss anyone unwilling to support her. Instead, she just pouts over Stuart’s exit (again, it especially bothered me in the novel, because with their relationship headed downhill, I wanted her to end it sooner). It seemed out of character, it seemed out of place, and I just didn’t understand it. She went through all this to get published and isn’t willing to speak out for it?

            

Then there’s the implication in the film that all women’s issues are similar and comparable. They’re not. Everyone has problems, yes, and everyone has a right to feel however they need to feel about their problems. Just because I know there are children living in countries where wars are being fought who witness death everyday doesn’t mean I’ll be any less sad when my grandmother dies. And I shouldn’t have to be; I have a right to grieve. However, when it comes to a film/novel about white women and black women in 1960s America, the problems are not equal. I don’t feel as bad for Celia as I do for Minny. They do have different problems: Celia is dealing with several lost pregnancies, a lack of friends and social standing, and a fear of her husband; Minny is dealing with finding and keeping employment, supporting her family, and keeping herself and her children protected. But ultimately, Celia has money when Minny doesn’t, and her fear of her husband is totally unfounded; he’s a really nice guy. Now, if we saw a white woman and a black woman both dealing with similar issues (death of a loved one, abusive husband, etc.) it might become more about women dealing with their problems together, race aside. But that scenario is not presented. Instead, the white women’s problems are mainly (not completely) much smaller than the black women’s.

Are you tired yet? Well, now, for the things I liked. I did like that it’s a film about women, and about women accomplishing something. Emma Stone said, “It’s not really a story about racism. It’s a story about three women coming together to make an extraordinary positive change.” We certainly need movies like that, movies that put women at the forefront, working together and making a difference, without men playing a central role.

          

I also personally liked the portrayal of the contradictory relationships between black maid/white child/white mother. Aibileen loves the little girl she’s caring for, Mae Mobley, and she does her best to teach her to see people as people without color. She also does her best to support this little girl whose mother gives her no encouragement, and seems to be embarrassed by her child’s chubbiness and lack of cuteness. Aibileen, on the other hand, constantly reminds the child, “You are smart. You are kind. You are important.” I grew up in the South in the 1990s, and this stuff rings true with me. Not the absent mother part, just the relationship with a black caretaker. The woman who watched me and my sisters after school every day still knows which foods I like and don’t like; my paternal grandmother does not (and never has). These relationships exist. The problem comes when the portrayal of these relationships makes them out to be the only relationships of the black women. The movie seems to try to show an outside life for the black women: we know about Aibileen’s dead son and how that loss changed her, and we see Minny’s home life and children. But the movie still puts these white relationships at the center of their lives.

This post is incredibly long. But there’s been so much talk about the film, and I’ve read so many conflicting opinions, that I had to get all my contradictory opinions about it out in the open. At the end of the day, I think the film is worth seeing for two reasons: 1) for Viola Davis’ performance and 2) in order to critically analyze a hugely popular film that may not be presenting its “issues” in the best way. After all, as one of the many reviews/blogs/comments I’ve read online recently said, the problem is not really that the movie exists; the problem is that this movie is the one that gets mainstream attention and funding, instead of those written by/made by black women that portray a black woman’s perspective. 

Crazy, Stupid Reverse Objectification

So, if anyone has not yet seen the film Crazy, Stupid Love, this post may contain some mild spoilers.

First of all, Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone totally made this movie. Ryan Gosling is hilarious, Emma Stone is sarcastic and awesome as always. My favorite scene from this entire film was between the two of them. Let me lead you up to it: Ryan Gosling is, as Emma Stone and her friend call him, "the hot guy from the bar," the guy who's always hitting on women and getting them to go home with him. We know he never calls women back, we know he uses the same moves on every woman he tries to get with; he's totally sleazy and predictable. So, as often happens in the romantic comedy, he's most attracted to Emma Stone's character, because she is not seduced by him, and she blows off his attempts to hit on her.


Jump ahead to a later scene, in which Emma Stone realizes that her boyfriend is a lame-ass douchebag, and she starts drinking heavily and builds up her courage to go have some R-rated fun (her friend tells her repeatedly that her life is PG-13). So she goes after "hot guy from the bar."

This is where things get good. Emma storms into the bar, yells "You!" and kisses him. Then she tells him to take her home. And he does.

When they get back to his fabulous house, she's starting to get nervous. But she keeps talking about what she does, and does not, want from him. When he tells her she's adorable, she cries, "NO! I'm sexy. And we are gonna bang!" She makes it very clear that what she wants is hot sex with the hot guy from the bar (he reminds her a couple of times that his name is Jacob; she doesn't call him that). Then, she makes him take off his shirt so she can see what he's got going on. After making him uncomfortable and telling him that he looks "photoshopped," she refuses to let him put his shirt back on.

Why do I love this scene? For one, it's wonderfully acted and comically timed by the two actors. But more than that, I love it because Emma Stone is showing Ryan Gosling exactly what it feels like to be objectified. She's not trying to mess with his head or teach him a lesson; in the moment, she is objectifying him, or at least trying to. She's trying to have an R-rated one night stand the way that he does, and in his world, objectification is required. (So in her mind, and I would say the collective mind of our culture, R-rated fun is masculine and sexist.)

I think this scene is important because, in order for Ryan Gosling to open up to a relationship beyond one-night stands, he has to understand what he's been doing to women. He experiences being wanted and used just for his body, sex, etc., and he doesn't necessarily like it.

I don't think that reverse objectification is the way to solve problems of men objectifying women, but I don't think the movie is saying that, either. After all, (*spoiler!*), they don't end up having sex; they end up talking, laughing, and Gosling is the one to pass out before anything else happens. Emma Stone's character is, ultimately, unable to truly objectify someone; she's too interested in other people. I think the movie uses Ryan Gosling to show that objectification of others leaves people empty and lacking in actual relationships (not saying that this means all casual sex is wrong; just that manipulating women/men for casual sex consistently can lead to sad, lonely lives).

I'm kind of amazed I was able to write this much about this romantic comedy. I'm not sure if it all makes sense. But if nothing else, this movie is worth it for Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone, and don't worry, I have definitely not spoiled the best moment between the two of them!

Socialization and Smiling

I just read a great article on Sadie Magazine's website about the gendered act of smiling. It discusses how women are expected to smile more than men, regardless of how they feel. We are socialized to smile just to be polite, even when we don't feel like it.

I have dealt with this all my life. I used to be asked all the time "what's wrong?" when my face was in a natural, relaxed position. People find me standoffish or even snobbish when I don't smile. I'm a nice person. I'm generally pretty happy most of the time. That doesn't mean my face has to show it (and come on, forced smiles are exhausting!). I have a female coworker who tells me stories all the time and I can see her waiting for me to laugh and smile. I think she's great, her stories are funny sometimes, but they rarely inspire huge grins and loud laughter. Yet I do it, because otherwise I feel I'm being impolite. I've been socialized to feel like I'm being rude when I don't find someone else as funny as others do.

My boyfriend called me out on this. He makes a lot of corny jokes and I would often laugh at them without thinking about whether they were funny or not. He finally asked me why I was fake laughing so often. I hadn't even realized I was doing it! It was so nice, though, to be called out for smiling/laughing too much and nongenuinely instead of being asked to smile more. (By the way, even though my computer is putting an ugly red line underneath it, nongenuinely is a real word. I looked it up. Ingenuinely is not.)

Remaining Childless

For as long as I can remember, or at least since early high school, I've been telling people that I don't want to have children. I've been open and frank about it, yet the reactions I get are so amazing. Sometimes people are shocked. They don't understand how I expect life to be in any way fulfilling if I don't have children. Others laugh politely and tell me to just wait a few years; eventually that "natural" desire to mother will kick in. Others tell me I am being incredibly selfish. Almost no one just nods their head and says ok.


I've gotten pretty used to these reactions over the years but I also found that as I get older, people who have known me a while tend to be surprised that I haven't yet changed my mind. Most recently this happened with one of my best friends, and I was kind of hurt. We have always agreed that we want to marry later in life, after getting to live, and hopefully travel, on our own and get jobs that we like. We agreed on wanting to live for ourselves before getting married and having to live for a couple or group. And she always knew that I didn't want to have children, and I always knew that she was one of the few people who truly understood that I could be a human and a woman and not want to have kids.

Recently, this came up at dinner, and I made a comment about not having kids. She looked at me, all shocked and basically said, "I just don't get it, that's so weird. I mean I knew people in college who said that but they were just trying to be hippie and cool."

I couldn't believe it. Had she always thought that I was just trying to be cool and different? Had she just been humoring me?

I find it so interesting that people tell me I'm being selfish by wanting to live without kids. I think people who have children just because they need extra fulfillment or because they are trying to save a marriage or because they just think a mini version of them or their spouse would be so cute are the selfish ones. And I'm not saying that this applies to all or even most parents. But there are tons of people who have children for poorly thought out or selfish reasons. Just as not having children doesn't automatically make one selfish, having them doesn't automatically make one selfless.

No. I don't want to have to balance my life between raising kids and having a career. Yes I want to balance my life between a marriage, some form of social activity, and a career. Does that make me selfish? According to some. But there are a lot of women like me out there who want to remain childless, and the rest of society is alienating us by treating us as abnormal or subpar women. In the difficult times that we are having, we should be celebrating different lifestyles, not condemning them.

And I think every parent whose kid eventually has to get into a college or get a job should thank me for not bringing more competition into the world.

Hugs vs. Handshakes

I've noticed recently that, among the many gendered aspects of our society, we have assigned different greetings to each gender. This is something I've often noticed without really thinking about. Men get to shake hands and women are expected to hug. Now, I'm not saying this applies everywhere, all the time. When I'm in a business situation, no one is confused when I make a point to shake their hand. However, in social situations, I seem to always be expected to hug people to greet them, while my boyfriend gets to shake hands.

In my opinion, there are two things going on here. For me, as a woman, the hug seems to represent my supposedly natural nurturing, friendly qualities. The men, on the other hand, are representing their natural strength and assertiveness. I'm assertive, yet more often than not I find myself getting folded into the arms of a guy (and I'm short so I always feel enclosed) as if he's being protective or something. And if I'm greeting a woman, I feel like I have to hug her to show that we are friends. I have plenty of friends whom I actually want to hug but I also know plenty of people that I don't want to hug. And it seems that when women don't hug the person they're greeting, they end up standing awkwardly and slightly waving. Why do I feel so comfortable shaking hands In the workplace but not at a bar? And why does it create such awkwardness when I don't hug someone? Are we made so uncomfortable by a woman not immediately expressing caring (and yes, mothering) qualities?

The other thing that's going on is homophobia. When men greet other men, they have to shake hands. If there is a hug involved, it comes after a handshake, usually with the clasped hands creating a barrier between them (we all know the bro hug). Just as women are kept from greeting others in an assertive "nice to meet/see you but I don't feel close enough to hug you" way, men are kept from expressing affection for each other. It's just so dumb! Is our society really that afraid of bonds between people who may be of the same sex/gender?

I'm really curious to try to change this and see what happens. If I shake the hands of my girl friends will they be offended, like I'm not showing the proper amount of female affection? Will my guy friends think I'm being pompous or stuck up? I think it's likely that people will see it as standoffish or unfriendly when coming from a woman. Because you know, women just love to hug everyone they know. We love to pull them to our bosom where we will one day pull our children.

That idea is just getting so old.

The Hunger Games

I am very much in love with the young adult fiction series, The Hunger Games. For one thing, the series is a well-written series that doesn't condescend to its young, target audience; just because these books are written for teens doesn't mean that they stay away from difficult issues. In fact, the books deal with extremely heavy issues (death, murder, government control, loss, love, war, etc.) and showcase young characters handling their problems, even when they think they can't.

But I also love the series because it screams feminism without saying anything about feminism.


What does that mean? I'll tell you. (And don't worry, no spoilers here!)

The series is written by a female author, Suzanne Collins, yet the books are violent and dark. Feminists have always known that women can write about themes that have been dubbed "masculine," but thanks to Suzanne Collins, a few more people in the world may finally realize it too.

Along the same lines, the main character is a female, yet she is not "feminine." Sometimes she likes to wear pretty dresses, yet she is most comfortable in her baggy hunting clothes. She doesn't spend all of her time thinking about boys. Actually, until the books get going, you get the impression she's never thought about boys at all. She is not overly emotional; in fact, in order to care for her family, she has often blocked out emotions in order to be efficient and to appear in control. She doesn't let others see her cry. I don't mean, of course, that she doesn't feel; on the contrary, she feels a lot. She just doesn't show it.

Basically, what I'm saying is that she's a human being. She doesn't fit into the molds of masculine or feminine. And the best part about these books is that all of the characters are like that! In the Hunger Games competition, boys and girls compete against each other and no one questions the girls' capability to handle themselves. Differences between the sexes are rarely important, or even mentioned, when it comes to a person's personality, talents, intelligence or capabilities.

Like in other young adult fiction (I'm thinking specifically of Twilight), there is a love triangle in the story. What I love about this book, (again, as compared to Twilight, since I've (sadly) read it too) is that the love story is complicated (like in life). Let's be honest, we all knew that however loud Team Jacob fans shouted, Bella was going to end up with Edward. No shock there. The suspense was not in "Who will Bella end up with?" but rather, it was all about "How can we end this series with Bella and Edward together without Jacob wanting to kill himself?" Now, I'm not going to talk about the silly plot devices that Meyers used to solve the latter question (imprinting? the baby? for REAL?), but I want to point out how much more mature Collins' love triangle is. You truly never know who Katniss is going to end up with, if she will even end up with either one, and you know that your heart as a reader will be a little broken either way. There's no team to cheer for, there's no last minute love interest to distract someone, there's just three people stuck in a mess with no easy way out. Is it like a fairy tale? No. But Collins seems to think (and I agree) that her young readers can handle a little reality and maturity in their love stories. And based on the popularity of her books, I'm thinking that she's right.

This series is great. The books deal with difficult issues, and not all of them get tied up neatly with a bow by the end. The world Suzanne Collins has created is messy, tragic, and rough, but it is also challenging and hopeful. More young adult fiction needs to be like this book, providing a good storyline with an easy-to-read narrative style while not compromising on intelligence or dumbing down difficult plot points.

I highly recommend The Hunger Games. You won't regret it.