A Tale of Two Kingdoms: The Hunger Games and Harry Potter

"God has ordained the two governments: the spiritual, which by the Holy Spirit under Christ makes Christians and pious people; and the secular, which restrains the unchristian and wicked so that they are obliged to keep the peace outwardly." -Martin Luther, On Secular Authority

"God rules the earthly or left-hand kingdom through secular...government, by means of law (i.e., the sword or compulsion) and in the heavenly or righthand kingdom (his spiritual kingdom, that is, Christians insofar as they are a new creation who spontaneously and voluntarily obey) through the gospel or grace." -"Doctrine of the two kingdoms, Wikipedia.

I was at the theater last night at midnight along with one hundred people younger than myself and one or two older for The Hunger Games spectacle. At this point I should probably spout the usual necessary background info: I read the books, enjoyed them thoroughly and was looking forward to the movies, and I also didn't particularly care how closely they followed the books because it is a different medium--and if you continue to pout because directors don't make movies word-for-word out of books (especially 30 seconds after getting out of the theater) I might just punch you in the face... but I digress. The HG trilogy is a story that grabs you with characters that make you care whether they live or die. Many tales don't ever reach that point, so it's obvious enough that Suzanne Collins tapped into something... but what?

I struggled with this. For all their entertainment value, I wondered all through my reading where to find the moral center of the Hunger Games universe. An author can craft any story, theoretically, when she first puts pen to paper (or fingers to keys), so why this one? There are a few simple readings: this is an underdog story, a political warning, and a cautionary tale of the forces outside of ourselves that consciously or unconsciously rule our lives. I think all of that is true, but it doesn't exactly answer the question of ethos. I mean, Collins could have sent any final message in such a story. She could have utterly decimated the villains; she could have made the symbols of purity and helplessness (Prim and Rue) win the day instead of the symbols of defiance (Katniss and Peeta). One could say--and I think they do--that Rue wins vicariously through Katniss and through the revolution. That is the underlying message, isn't it? And therein lies the ethos. The Hunger Games is tied to a kingdom of this world philosophy where secular authorities wage war with and often against their own people. The kingdom of the left-hand is ruled by laws that humans can so easily manipulate for their own political agendas. So we have the reaping.

With this insight in mind, let me be clear about one thing: I don't think it is a bad thing for this story to be one of the left-handed kingdom. There's a reason it resonates and I'd be willing to bet it's because we experience that kingdom and its laws and rules (principalities and powers, says Robert Farrar Capon) everyday of our lives. It's not impossible to imagine a reaping, or a corrupt dictator--we know intuitively that our leaders may very well show those same colors in a different political environment. This is the left-handed kingdom; a place where force rules and we can only wonder, as Peeta does, if there's any way to show them they don't own us.

A wand over a bow

There is, Peeta, but in your universe it will only be a shadow of a promise. This is why I cling to Harry Potter over against Katniss Everdeen. You could say it's because she is a female protagonist, but I think that's an unfair out. In the Chronicles of Narnia I am drawn in by Lucy over the many boys in the story because hers is the vision I want to dream. Katniss is a strong female character and should be applauded for it; she is everything she can be in such a time and place. My own favoritism has nothing to do with the characters and everything to do with the resolution of the stories and the ethos of the authors. While Suzanne Collins was out to tell a story of the kingdom of the left, J.K. Rowling offered us a portrait of the right-handed kingdom that dwarfs politics. She made death into a calling, an invitation home, and claimed all the while that ultimate victory does not come through the ethos of Voldemort ("flees from death" in French) but Harry who walks willingly to his demise and so becomes "master of death." She changed the rules of the game.

Katniss has no choice but to escape death; it is the haunting specter over everything that she does. And rightly so, since her most immediate need is to come home to her mother and her sister, Prim. The fact that she is able to achieve that end speaks volumes about the human spirit, the power of love and the triumph of good over evil. But I need to make a weighty distinction here: Katniss' love is not as powerful as Harry's. I realize that might sound borderline blasphemous; after all, she is willing to die for her sister. What greater love is there than that? I think Jesus would say, "Not much!" However, the answer lies again not in Katniss' motivation (in truth she is as strong a character as Harry and probably by necessity stronger given the circumstances she faces) but instead in the universe in which she was planted. Collins created a world lacking what C.S. Lewis described as the "Deeper Magic."

In the left-handed kingdom love is still king, but it is a kind of love marked by grief. As Wendell Berry wrote, "The world of love includes death, suffers it, and triumphs over it. The world of efficiency is defeated by death; at death, all its instruments and procedures stop. The world of love continues, and of this grief is the proof" (from Health is Membership). Katniss tries with all her might to inject the world of efficiency with love, but ultimately the only reason that love wins is her indomitable will. But wills do not last and the specter of death never hovers from her life--not through three books of immense loss.

I applaud The Hunger Games for their honest portrayal of ourselves as who we are. It is never sugar-coated or served up with useless platitudes. Every one of us can see ourselves in Katniss or Gale, Peeta or Rue. Yet, I ultimately want more than what we see ourselves to be in this little life. I want a story that gives weight to the mystery that is our purpose; a story that overthrows the tyrants of this world--yes--but that doesn't stop there; a story where romantic love conquers not just because it is love but because it is a symbol of a deeper something that points beyond our meager feelings. I want not just an underdog story but resurrection.

And so, Katniss Everdeen, I applaud you for being one of the greatest heroes of fiction I have ever come across, but if I ran into you in this world I would find you a preacher... and his name is Harry Potter.