Introduction, or, Hold on tight, ladies, it's about to get analytical in here.
The hunger games (the first book in the series of the same name) might be the most compelling book I've read in my life. Note that I do not say the best book. While it's a hell of a page turner, it's not a work of genius. The writing is only decent, a lot of the characters were irritating and/or predictable, and large sections were somewhat tedious. But it's nevertheless an incredibly interesting read, and one that had me stirred up emotionally more than anything I can remember. And if there's one thing I can't stand, it's feeling things. So I've spent an ungodly amount of time trying to pull it apart and figure out exactly what makes it tick. Why is it so compelling, why is it so popular, and why does it bring up so much emotion? Let's take a look inside.
Individually wrapped for your convenience!
A "hunger game"
First, let's discuss the title, because it is absolutely brilliant, and probably a big help to the popularity of the book. The Hunger Games. Ok, so the definitive article is a nice touch (not just ANY old hunger games!), but the meat here is the juxtaposition of the words "Hunger" and "Game". Hunger is generally a downer of a word, since it's killed off more people than just about anything. It's an intense word, too, since it usually describes a very strong desire. It's intense, painful, and dark. Then, we've got "Games". Games are almost polar opposite in mood. They're lighthearted and generally bring pleasure. Another element is that hunger, especially now, is usually something we attribute to the poor, since food is generally easy to acquire if you have much money at all. In comparison, games evoke leisure, something enjoyed by the relatively wealthy. So an element of class warfare is present, in addition to the contrast. And with that contrast, there's an element of mystery as to just why they're together: what exactly is a hunger game? Just these two simple words put together is so intensely interesting that I have little doubt it helped the popularity of the series immensely.
Going beyond the title, into the concept of a hunger game, it does indeed play out as the words do - there's class warfare aplenty, and a sadistic contrast between the leisure of the capitol and the hunger of the districts. Poverty is generally an easy way to acquire sympathy for the main character, since most of us have been poor (to some degree or another) at some point, and certainly all of us have been at he mercy of someone with more wealth and influence. We always root for the underdog, and it's hard to be more of an underdog than facing impossibly grim odds of survival and being forced to perform dispicable acts for the mere amusement of some rich *******s. This insane disparity is a quick vent for anger - how dare anyone be so casually cruel! Something fairly unique about the capitol in comparison to other villains is that they're so distanced from real life that they barely recognize the games as being cruel. In short, they're exactly how we imagine the extremely rich and powerful - so separated from reality that they consider their barest whim more important than someone else's life. Unfairness at this magnitude, especially in these troubled economic times, is a hotbed for anger toward the priveleged and sympathy for the downtrodden. Unfairness is something everyone can relate to, and something we all want to see righted. And being engaged in the protagonist's struggle is, obviously, key to being engaged in the story.
Katniss
So, let's talk about that protagonist. Collins' main character is brilliantly appealing - aside from the aforementioned extreme poverty and struggle against unfairness (and doing it for the most part all alone...or worse than alone, since Peeta is at best useless and at worst an albatross around her neck), she manages to appeal easily to both men and women by being a strong woman - women like that she's a kick-ass symbol for feminine power that easily rivals the men, and men like that she's hot (especially in the film) and kicks ass, and doesn't get very emotional. This popularity is especially important because the story is told through the first person (and present tense to boot), which means we're really experiencing the story AS Katniss. If she wasn't relatable for both genders it might be uncomfortable to walk around in her shoes. The payoff to the first person (and present tense) pov, though, is that it means we're even closer to the action, and that means more engaged in the story: more outraged at the injustices, more terrified by the crises, and more saddened by the losses.
Another perk to being female is that it works especially well in the context of the plot: since women are (on average) less physically strong than men, and less aggressive, the reader is more likely to see her as an underdog even when she's better physically equipped in a fight, and is also more likely to give her the benefit of the doubt should she be forced to do something morally ambiguous; if a male character killed another tribute, the reader might be more likely to attribute it to aggression than a genuine lack of choice, whether consciously or not. The fact that she's only involved in the games because of here extreme devotion to her sister generates lots of sympathy as well.
Genuine uncertainty
A third key element that the hunger games has is the cleverness of how the plot was constructed to allow for a great deal of uncertainty, especially for popular-consumption YA fiction. Now, you might think that most stories have uncertainty, or that the premise made it fairly clear what would happen (1 person leaves, right?), but let me explain. Take, for example, Harry Potter. You didn't know exactly what would happen at all the steps along the way, but you could reasonably guess that in the end (spoiler warning?) Voldemort would die under the weight of his own evil, and Harry would triumph thanks to his virtues. The particulars were up in the air, but you could be pretty sure of the important parts.
"But wait," you're saying, "Isn't that also true of the hunger games? Anyone could have guessed that Katniss would win the games, and it wouldn't have been much of a stretch to think that Peeta would survive somehow too." True, that was virtually a given (especially since it's first person, and first person deaths are awkward as hell), but there were other, more important variables that were very much up in the air. You might think that a character dying is the biggest, most important question in their fate, but I'd argue otherwise. After all, a character is just a thought anyway; they never truly lived, and they never truly die as long as they're in your heart, and all that crap. But a character corrupted is an entirely different matter. If your favorite character isn't killed, but instead, of their own free will, becomes a monster, then they're even farther gone. You can't even hold them in your memory, they're tainted forever. The rules of the hunger games (especially if they had stuck to the damn things) mean that Katniss has got to kill kids, or at least one kid, in order to survive. We know Katniss will live, so we know she'll have to kill kids, but we also know she's basically a good person (made especially obvious with her sacrifice for her sister at the beginning), and most people will agree that killing kids is pretty unforgivable.
That's your uncertainty. How can Katniss kill other children and still remain a sympathetic character? There's never any question of Harry embracing the power of unforgivable curses to combat Voldemort and becoming seduced by their dark power into someone equally twisted. Whatever emporer Palpatine might think, we know there's no chance of Luke taking his place by Vader's side. Because we've been through enough (pop fiction) stories to know that the good guy, however tempted, won't ultimately give in to evil. The Hunger Games' plot, however, makes it a virtual certainty that Katniss will have to embrace evil long and hard. You don't keep reading to find out whether she'll survive - you know she'll survive. You keep reading to find out what she'll look like when she does.
Conclusion
There are more elements than those, to be sure, but I think those are the main ones that have helped the book appeal to so many people in such a strong way. Whether Collins knew she was hitting these elements so well is a matter for debate - personally I found the latter two books to be much, much less engaging, to the degree that I wonder if she merely got lucky with the first book, but perhaps I'm just cold and cynical, since I know most people had less of a problem with them. Regardless, Collins managed to hit a lot of emotional and intellectual buttons extremely accurately, with a plot that's pure genius, even if other elements sometimes fall flat.
Feel free to add your own opinions about why the book has been so successful, or if you think I'm wrong, which, knowing you, you probably do. And you're probably going to be a dick about it.
No, no, go ahead...do it anyway. We all knew you were going to.
Firstly, it's obviously not true that people like it BECAUSE it's a rip off. That would be a very unusual reason for liking something.
Now, if you're referring to Battle Royale, which is what I'm assuming since that's what everyone is usually referring to when they talk about what the hunger games is ripping off (my apologies, ofc, if it's not), it's hard to be sure; obviously the author denies it. Of course, both books have influences from existing material. Ultimately it doesn't really matter where the inspiration came from, and both books are interesting in their own right (taking note that you said "series", which makes me think you're referring to the comics, which I haven't read, but I'm assuming they follow the plot of the book). While they certainly have similar premises - a fight to the death between children rigged by adults - I think they appeal to the reader in different ways.
So let's look at the program compared to the games. Right off the bat, Battle Royale's title sort of sucks in comparison to the hunger games. For western audiences, it will translate to "big fight" (or possibly quarter-pounder battle), which is about as bland as a title can get. It also has no appeal to those who are looking for more than violence in their reading material. As far as the concept themselves, THG spends a lot more time setting up the games - all the public appearances, training, etc. While these sections can be a bit slow-moving, they set up the games themselves as being much more interesting than a mere framing device, which is mostly all they are for BR. They also give a lot more exposition to the villains, which made them a lot more interesting than the boilerplate government thugs in BR. Both stories have 2 types of villains - the villains who created the game, and the villains trapped in the game with them, but while THG focuses a lot on the circumstances of the game, and paints the creators of the game as the ultimate enemy, BR focuses a lot more time on the in-game villains. The unfairness of the situation is given a lot more time to establish itself in THG, rather than jumping straight into the violence. This means more appeal to emotions, and thus a more widespread appeal.
As far as the main character, it's no contest. The main character of BR is vanilla compared to Katniss' triple-chocolate fudge - hell, I can't even remember his name, and his female counterpart is even blander. BR does something very innovative and ballsy in giving almost all of the 42 students some amount of characterization and spends some time in the third person with them, but while this is laudable in terms of originality, 42 is a hell of a lot of people. The sheer number of la-de-da-here-I-am-getting-characterized-I-hope-I-don't-get-killed-oh-crap-I'm-dead chapters distract from the main character and make it harder to care about his journey, for the same reason that THG's laser-like focus on its main character by spending the entirety of the book in her skin is very engaging.
The uncertainty is directly tied to the character - most people care about how Katniss makes it out of the game, but there's a lot less reason to care about BR's main character, so you're less intrigued about how the story will resolve itself. In both books, it's pretty obvious who's going to survive from the outset, but the potential for corruption is way more interesting for Katniss (although it doesn't really play out for either of them, something I found to be pretty lame, but then my heart is three sizes too small).
Now, by contrast, BR does have some things going for it that THG does not. The level of violence is certainly massively ramped up, which appeals to some audiences. The fight itself is a lot longer and more technical. There's lots of detail, and the fight really feels three dimensional, not just a series of stuff that happens to the main character. But a lot of that isn't going to appeal to several major market demographics, not to name any names.
So are they superficially similar? Yes. But while their premises are near copycats, the way that appeal to the reader are totally different. BR was never going to be more than a niche book compared to THG, which manages to hit a lot more buttons that appeal to a much wider array of people, and brought in a far larger audience. Which book is better? Well, they offer different things. Personally I enjoyed reading both. But simply dismissing THG as a rip-off of BR is missing the entire point of this discussion.
The hunger games (the first book in the series of the same name) might be the most compelling book I've read in my life. Note that I do not say the best book. While it's a hell of a page turner, it's not a work of genius. The writing is only decent, a lot of the characters were irritating and/or predictable, and large sections were somewhat tedious. But it's nevertheless an incredibly interesting read, and one that had me stirred up emotionally more than anything I can remember. And if there's one thing I can't stand, it's feeling things. So I've spent an ungodly amount of time trying to pull it apart and figure out exactly what makes it tick. Why is it so compelling, why is it so popular, and why does it bring up so much emotion? Let's take a look inside.
Individually wrapped for your convenience!
A "hunger game"
Going beyond the title, into the concept of a hunger game, it does indeed play out as the words do - there's class warfare aplenty, and a sadistic contrast between the leisure of the capitol and the hunger of the districts. Poverty is generally an easy way to acquire sympathy for the main character, since most of us have been poor (to some degree or another) at some point, and certainly all of us have been at he mercy of someone with more wealth and influence. We always root for the underdog, and it's hard to be more of an underdog than facing impossibly grim odds of survival and being forced to perform dispicable acts for the mere amusement of some rich *******s. This insane disparity is a quick vent for anger - how dare anyone be so casually cruel! Something fairly unique about the capitol in comparison to other villains is that they're so distanced from real life that they barely recognize the games as being cruel. In short, they're exactly how we imagine the extremely rich and powerful - so separated from reality that they consider their barest whim more important than someone else's life. Unfairness at this magnitude, especially in these troubled economic times, is a hotbed for anger toward the priveleged and sympathy for the downtrodden. Unfairness is something everyone can relate to, and something we all want to see righted. And being engaged in the protagonist's struggle is, obviously, key to being engaged in the story.
Katniss
Another perk to being female is that it works especially well in the context of the plot: since women are (on average) less physically strong than men, and less aggressive, the reader is more likely to see her as an underdog even when she's better physically equipped in a fight, and is also more likely to give her the benefit of the doubt should she be forced to do something morally ambiguous; if a male character killed another tribute, the reader might be more likely to attribute it to aggression than a genuine lack of choice, whether consciously or not. The fact that she's only involved in the games because of here extreme devotion to her sister generates lots of sympathy as well.
Genuine uncertainty
"But wait," you're saying, "Isn't that also true of the hunger games? Anyone could have guessed that Katniss would win the games, and it wouldn't have been much of a stretch to think that Peeta would survive somehow too." True, that was virtually a given (especially since it's first person, and first person deaths are awkward as hell), but there were other, more important variables that were very much up in the air. You might think that a character dying is the biggest, most important question in their fate, but I'd argue otherwise. After all, a character is just a thought anyway; they never truly lived, and they never truly die as long as they're in your heart, and all that crap. But a character corrupted is an entirely different matter. If your favorite character isn't killed, but instead, of their own free will, becomes a monster, then they're even farther gone. You can't even hold them in your memory, they're tainted forever. The rules of the hunger games (especially if they had stuck to the damn things) mean that Katniss has got to kill kids, or at least one kid, in order to survive. We know Katniss will live, so we know she'll have to kill kids, but we also know she's basically a good person (made especially obvious with her sacrifice for her sister at the beginning), and most people will agree that killing kids is pretty unforgivable.
That's your uncertainty. How can Katniss kill other children and still remain a sympathetic character? There's never any question of Harry embracing the power of unforgivable curses to combat Voldemort and becoming seduced by their dark power into someone equally twisted. Whatever emporer Palpatine might think, we know there's no chance of Luke taking his place by Vader's side. Because we've been through enough (pop fiction) stories to know that the good guy, however tempted, won't ultimately give in to evil. The Hunger Games' plot, however, makes it a virtual certainty that Katniss will have to embrace evil long and hard. You don't keep reading to find out whether she'll survive - you know she'll survive. You keep reading to find out what she'll look like when she does.
Conclusion
There are more elements than those, to be sure, but I think those are the main ones that have helped the book appeal to so many people in such a strong way. Whether Collins knew she was hitting these elements so well is a matter for debate - personally I found the latter two books to be much, much less engaging, to the degree that I wonder if she merely got lucky with the first book, but perhaps I'm just cold and cynical, since I know most people had less of a problem with them. Regardless, Collins managed to hit a lot of emotional and intellectual buttons extremely accurately, with a plot that's pure genius, even if other elements sometimes fall flat.
Feel free to add your own opinions about why the book has been so successful, or if you think I'm wrong, which, knowing you, you probably do. And you're probably going to be a dick about it.
No, no, go ahead...do it anyway. We all knew you were going to.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Sexy Sig by mchief111 @ Rising Studios
EDH
G Isao
Now, if you're referring to Battle Royale, which is what I'm assuming since that's what everyone is usually referring to when they talk about what the hunger games is ripping off (my apologies, ofc, if it's not), it's hard to be sure; obviously the author denies it. Of course, both books have influences from existing material. Ultimately it doesn't really matter where the inspiration came from, and both books are interesting in their own right (taking note that you said "series", which makes me think you're referring to the comics, which I haven't read, but I'm assuming they follow the plot of the book). While they certainly have similar premises - a fight to the death between children rigged by adults - I think they appeal to the reader in different ways.
So let's look at the program compared to the games. Right off the bat, Battle Royale's title sort of sucks in comparison to the hunger games. For western audiences, it will translate to "big fight" (or possibly quarter-pounder battle), which is about as bland as a title can get. It also has no appeal to those who are looking for more than violence in their reading material. As far as the concept themselves, THG spends a lot more time setting up the games - all the public appearances, training, etc. While these sections can be a bit slow-moving, they set up the games themselves as being much more interesting than a mere framing device, which is mostly all they are for BR. They also give a lot more exposition to the villains, which made them a lot more interesting than the boilerplate government thugs in BR. Both stories have 2 types of villains - the villains who created the game, and the villains trapped in the game with them, but while THG focuses a lot on the circumstances of the game, and paints the creators of the game as the ultimate enemy, BR focuses a lot more time on the in-game villains. The unfairness of the situation is given a lot more time to establish itself in THG, rather than jumping straight into the violence. This means more appeal to emotions, and thus a more widespread appeal.
As far as the main character, it's no contest. The main character of BR is vanilla compared to Katniss' triple-chocolate fudge - hell, I can't even remember his name, and his female counterpart is even blander. BR does something very innovative and ballsy in giving almost all of the 42 students some amount of characterization and spends some time in the third person with them, but while this is laudable in terms of originality, 42 is a hell of a lot of people. The sheer number of la-de-da-here-I-am-getting-characterized-I-hope-I-don't-get-killed-oh-crap-I'm-dead chapters distract from the main character and make it harder to care about his journey, for the same reason that THG's laser-like focus on its main character by spending the entirety of the book in her skin is very engaging.
The uncertainty is directly tied to the character - most people care about how Katniss makes it out of the game, but there's a lot less reason to care about BR's main character, so you're less intrigued about how the story will resolve itself. In both books, it's pretty obvious who's going to survive from the outset, but the potential for corruption is way more interesting for Katniss (although it doesn't really play out for either of them, something I found to be pretty lame, but then my heart is three sizes too small).
Now, by contrast, BR does have some things going for it that THG does not. The level of violence is certainly massively ramped up, which appeals to some audiences. The fight itself is a lot longer and more technical. There's lots of detail, and the fight really feels three dimensional, not just a series of stuff that happens to the main character. But a lot of that isn't going to appeal to several major market demographics, not to name any names.
So are they superficially similar? Yes. But while their premises are near copycats, the way that appeal to the reader are totally different. BR was never going to be more than a niche book compared to THG, which manages to hit a lot more buttons that appeal to a much wider array of people, and brought in a far larger audience. Which book is better? Well, they offer different things. Personally I enjoyed reading both. But simply dismissing THG as a rip-off of BR is missing the entire point of this discussion.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6