ND Wilson on Why Hunger Games is Flawed to Its Core

[goldberry]

Katniss promised Prim she would try to survive. She was afraid if she died her family would starve. She kept thinking about if she died, how Prim would watch it on television.

 

So I don't see it as she just willingly played along with the game. She was taking the lesser of two evils.

[Coffeetime]

I guess I'm the OP?

 

Yes, you're the OP. :D I'm glad you read the books and enjoyed them. I simply asked because I have been drawn into conversation about these books by people who haven't read them... and since you hadn't said one way or the other, I was curious. :)

[Sheila in OK]

 

My son (10yo) read his 100 Cupboards book and enjoyed it. Then he went on to the second book and couldn't even finish it. He said it seemed like the same story over again- only written by someone else. He wasn't impressed.

 

 

 

:D

 

This was our experience too. I thought that the second book was HORRIBLE. We couldn't even get halfway through it. Had no idea he was Douglas Wilson's son though--interesting!

[tricia]

I'm just so glad the books don't interest me at all and won't get any of time!

Just saying! Same with Twilight too. Another time waster IMO only.

[T'smom]

I also strongly disagree with pretty much everything he said. Except maybe the Peeta stuff.

[PeacefulChaos]

Blah, blah, blah.... Out of curiosity, does anyone know what this guy replied when people asked him about Harry Potter?

Just wondering if his bad taste is the norm. :D :lol:

 

ETA: Is it weird that I don't know who Douglas Wilson is? Or this guy?

Anyway, some Christians just want to see everything as evil and twisted and wrong. And get all out of sorts about books and such... :D

Edited May 17, 2012 by PeacefulChaos

[Coffeetime]

I think two things mainly bother me about it. Firstly, he had to completely ignore or outright misrepresent major aspects of the story in order to back up his arguments.

 

Secondly, his whole tone is just so...arrogant. Especially his last paragraph. That one is a gem. I finished reading it, and all I could say was "Bless his little heart!".:D (Or something like that. ;) )

[All4one]

This was our experience too. I thought that the second book was HORRIBLE. We couldn't even get halfway through it. Had no idea he was Douglas Wilson's son though--interesting!

 

:iagree:

 

I hate getting rid of books but I gave both books 1 & 2 of his away. None of us liked it. Didn't finish the second one at all.

[kitten18]

It sounds like he would have really enjoyed the book if he'd written it. As it happens, he didn't.

:lol::lol::lol: BINGO!

 

I'm just so glad the books don't interest me at all and won't get any of time!

Just saying! Same with Twilight too. Another time waster IMO only.

It's always so meaningful when people have opinions about books they've never read. JMO.

[Lady Florida.]

[quote=kitten18;3918234

 

 

It's always so meaningful when people have opinions about books they've never read. JMO.

 

:lol:

 

Yep. It's called PRUBON - Presumptive Reader Unworthiness Based On Non-reading. (from Repotting Harry Potter)

[JennifersLost]

I actually thought the author of Hunger Games did a great job of setting up a situation in which people like Katniss would not see a way out of participating in the games.

 

Not only would non-participation or trying to subvert the games end in your own death in the arena. It could end in the murder/torture/etc. of you family, friends and others who barely knew you back in your hometown. Katniss did her best in a pretty horrific situation.

[Ipsey]

 

Lastly, Suzanne Collins can really write. It’s just that we can’t really read.

 

Speak for yourself, Wilson. Maybe it's just you.

 

I'm going to have to go with the writers who indicate that Wilson is critiquing HG as a Christian parable and judging it by his standards of religiosity/Christianity.

 

Forgive me, I get kind of heated in here. This man is patronizing and blinkered, and reading this blew my mind.

 

Examples:

 

"Yay. Self-sacrifice. Christian themes, yadda, yadda." YAYAYAY! "Christian themes"! Clearly, necessary in a good story! :glare: I'm pretty sure these elements of human decency don't have to be merely Christian themes, but he's glad enough to claim them.

 

"But worldview readers are gaming themselves into seeing something that just isn’t there." There we go, there's the dog whistle. "Worldview" readers. His worldview is the only one that counts. We'd better read all books with our "worldview" glasses on, whether the books is really about you and your religious mindset or not. If it doesn't fit your "worldview" something is wrong!

 

And as far as "misunderstanding humanity." He thinks Collins misunderstands humanity?! What a claim! How much of an arrogant kook do you need to be to claim this?! Collins probably doesn't hold the same "worldview" as Wilson, and that's clearly all it takes to "misunderstand humanity."

 

He knows what makes a Christian story work, maybe--but to say that Collins doesn't know what makes a non-sectarian story work shows that he's a dope frankly. He seems to think that something that doesn't align with his "worldview" indicates that it lacks actual humanity. Gag. Me.

 

I had a hard time reading Christian fiction even as a Christian because the stories all followed the same pattern, the characters were all the same, and the themes were cliche. This is clearly what Wilson is after. There are only so many stories that can fit into his "worldview."

[6packofun]

OK, so people can disagree respectfully with an opinion on a good, but not fabulous piece of teen lit, then. :)

 

Theologically and philosophically, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with him, too, because I sure do with his dad. But I think judging every person on their own character, merit and opinions in each circumstance is a good standard. Even someone that I disagree with 95% of the time could be partially right or even totally right on occasion and I'd be silly to just go along and say he or she's wrong just to feel "consistent" in my opinion of him or her.

 

In response to some other post that I can't find at the moment, there are plenty of bloggers who write excellent book reviews even though they have not published a thing. :confused: Not sure why writing less awesome books would disqualify Wilson from reviewing...

[Audrey]

I've read the Hunger Games trilogy and really enjoyed it although I had some of those same thoughts about it. Yes, Katniss takes her sister's place in the games but...after that I think I kept expecting something greater from her, kwim?

 

Great piece, thanks for sharing.

 

I felt the same way. I thought Katniss was a noble character at the start (exchanging her place for her sister's), but after that, she displayed no redeeming qualities at all. In fact, I disliked her more than the other characters because she was set up to be a hero, then acted just as horribly as the rest.

 

I disagree with Wilson's assessment of Collins' writing skill, though. I did not think the books were particularly well-written. They were, if anything, rather overwrought.

 

I'm not going to address Wilson's summary of how the books are Christian or not, though. I have not read anywhere that the author intended them as a Christian parable.

 

ETA: Disclaimer: I only read the first book "The Hunger Games." I didn't like anything about it enough to read the next two. So, if she suddenly becomes something worthwhile in the later books, y'all will certainly tell me, won't you? ;) Also, you should know that I read Twilight and hated that, too. Loved Harry Potter though -- enough to read all 7 books. :D

Edited May 17, 2012 by Audrey

[Word Nerd]

I actually thought the author of Hunger Games did a great job of setting up a situation in which people like Katniss would not see a way out of participating in the games.

 

Not only would non-participation or trying to subvert the games end in your own death in the arena. It could end in the murder/torture/etc. of you family, friends and others who barely knew you back in your hometown. Katniss did her best in a pretty horrific situation.

 

Exactly! This point seems to be lost on a few people.

[Heather in Neverland]

I felt the same way. I thought Katniss was a noble character at the start (exchanging her place for her sister's), but after that, she displayed no redeeming qualities at all. In fact, I disliked her more than the other characters because she was set up to be a hero, then acted just as horribly as the rest.

 

I disagree with Wilson's assessment of Collins' writing skill, though. I did not think the books were particularly well-written. They were, if anything, rather overwrought.

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

I read all 3 books and I didn't like Katniss or Peeta... Maybe Gale, a little. OK, Cinna. I liked Cinna. But that is about it.

 

 

.

[intp4yhwh]

Obviously he was projecting what he thought the story should be onto what the story really was ... no wonder it didn't measure up.

 

Unfortunately, to get the whole picture, you really need to read books 2 & 3 as well. (Please, please, please - don't read the one and not the others.) If the intended audience were adults instead of teens, it would have been better to publish the 3 books as 1. Of course, most modern teens would probably choke on it if it were just one book, and 3 books means practically 3x the money when it comes to sales.

 

Personally, I think this short series is just as good (it it's own way) as other dystopian novels like The Giver, 1984, and A Brave New World. It's great how Collins refers to "panem et circenses" in the third book ... it's just a little scary how we're practically at that point now.

[Melinda in VT]

In response to some other post that I can't find at the moment, there are plenty of bloggers who write excellent book reviews even though they have not published a thing. :confused: Not sure why writing less awesome books would disqualify Wilson from reviewing...

 

I think that was my post. :D

 

And I realized after I sent it that I should have clarified. I don't think only good authors can critique books. However, the tone of his article struck me as incredibly arrogant, and I can only tolerate arrogance if there's a lot to back it up.

 

IMO, Wilson is an author who falls far short of the standards he is setting for others, so it would behoove him to be a little less arrogant.

[jenangelcat]

I felt the same way. I thought Katniss was a noble character at the start (exchanging her place for her sister's), but after that, she displayed no redeeming qualities at all. In fact, I disliked her more than the other characters because she was set up to be a hero, then acted just as horribly as the rest.

 

I disagree with Wilson's assessment of Collins' writing skill, though. I did not think the books were particularly well-written. They were, if anything, rather overwrought.

 

I'm not going to address Wilson's summary of how the books are Christian or not, though. I have not read anywhere that the author intended them as a Christian parable.

 

ETA: Disclaimer: I only read the first book "The Hunger Games." I didn't like anything about it enough to read the next two. So, if she suddenly becomes something worthwhile in the later books, y'all will certainly tell me, won't you? ;) Also, you should know that I read Twilight and hated that, too. Loved Harry Potter though -- enough to read all 7 books. :D

 

A lot of people really hate Katniss by the end of book three. She's trying to survive a horrible situation and eventually suffers from severe ptsd. The fact that it's all in her viewpoint makes it worse. Again, if you remember that she is trying to survive and ultimately traumatized by everything she experiences, it makes her easier to bear.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Not sure why writing less awesome books would disqualify Wilson from reviewing...

 

The OP said, "Nate (N. D.) Wilson is one of my favorite writers. He has given us some excellent fiction and non-fiction books. He knows what makes a story work."

 

I was disagreeing with the idea that just because he is a writer, it makes him particularly qualified for reviewing the book.

[Mamachick2]

Even someone that I disagree with 95% of the time could be partially right or even totally right on occasion and I'd be silly to just go along and say he or she's wrong just to feel "consistent" in my opinion of him or her.

 

Or, as my husband often says, "Sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut." :)

 

I read the books. Katniss irritated me, so did Peeta, but I enjoyed the books anyway. :thumbup1:

[Joanne]

Even before I affirmed downthread the family tree of the review author, I heard a severe pationizing, arrogant, and condescending tone. I wonder, too, if the author of the Hunger series were male if N.D. would have the same scathing commentary.

 

I doubt it.

 

I'm forever unsettled by the conservative right's agenda that no one ever enjoy secular entertainment for its own sake.

 

I'm glad N.D. enjoyed the books. He should repent of his envy, though. It does not look good on him, and I suspect it goes against at least one of the 10 rules he's supposed to live by.

[brett_ashley]

The OP said, "Nate (N. D.) Wilson is one of my favorite writers. He has given us some excellent fiction and non-fiction books. He knows what makes a story work."

 

I was disagreeing with the idea that just because he is a writer, it makes him particularly qualified for reviewing the book.

 

Just a quick clarification--those are not my words, but those of the blog author Trevin Wax who hosted the guest post by Wilson.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Just a quick clarification--those are not my words, but those of the blog author Trevin Wax who hosted the guest post by Wilson.

 

Oh - sorry. Thank you for the clarification. I hadn't made that connection.

[Geo]

Lastly, Suzanne Collins can really write. It’s just that we can’t really read.

 

:smilielol5:

 

 

Not taking sides, just thought it funny...and true.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Geo

[LibraryLover]

I've only read a couple of chapters of the first book. I couldn't continue, emotionally. However, I did not think it was poorly written. I also think Harry Potter was well done. The chapter in Philosopher's Stone; when Harry is free from the Dursely's, and is discovering Diagon Alley with Hagrid nearly made me cry. That was some good prose, imo. The HP books are horribly sad, but it is fantasy. HG seems it could be real. It was real-- if you consider ancient times; Spartan children, slave gladiators etc etc. There was no 'choice'.

 

I don't think I am some kind of dummy, either. I don't think every book has to be Moby Dick to have literary merit.

Edited May 18, 2012 by LibraryLover

[Kirch]

I've only read a couple of chapters of the first book. I couldn't read it, emotionally. However, I did not think it was poorly written at all. I also think Harry Potter was well done. The chapter in Philosopher's Stone; when Harry is free from the Dursely's, and is discovering Diagon Alley with Hagrid nearly made me cry.

 

I don't think I am some kind of dummy, either. I don't think everything has to be Moby Dick to be done well.

 

:iagree:

[nmoira]

If Collins wanted her protagonist to be the kind of rebel who would start a revolution (and she does want that)

Does she? Wilson seems to be thinking in purely black and white terms. There's a wealth of discussion to be had on this question alone.

 

And Gladiator isn't real life. It's a male oriented revenge fantasy in the manner (if not the humour) of Roald Dahl. :tongue_smilie:

[LibraryLover]

Does she? Wilson seems to be thinking in purely black and white terms. There's a wealth of discussion to be had on this question alone.

 

 

I agree. I've heard my children discuss this topic, and Katniss is a hugely flawed and emotionally tortured person. Katniss is not the one to start a revolution.

 

I really need to read these books. What little I read was so haunting and foreboding, I couldn't continue. Yet I need to-- simply for cultural literacy.

Edited May 18, 2012 by LibraryLover

[intp4yhwh]

Katniss is not the one to start a revolution.

 

And she doesn't. Unrest and revolution have already been in the works for years when she comes on the scene. As the books make abundantly clear, she just becomes the 'face' of the revolution. Something totally missed by Mr. Wilson.

[Kirch]

Does she? Wilson seems to be thinking in purely black and white terms. There's a wealth of discussion to be had on this question alone.

 

And Gladiator isn't real life. It's a male oriented revenge fantasy in the manner (if not the humour) of Roald Dahl. :tongue_smilie:

 

ITA. I wouldn't say Collins wanted Katniss to be a rebel at all. If anything, she went out of her way to make it clear that Katniss DIDN'T want to be a rebel but ended up being used and having to figure out what she was going to do along the way. I think the best word to describe Katniss is pragmatic (especially at the beginning). Rebellion is not pragmatic.

[momma2three]

A lot of people really hate Katniss by the end of book three. She's trying to survive a horrible situation and eventually suffers from severe ptsd. The fact that it's all in her viewpoint makes it worse. Again, if you remember that she is trying to survive and ultimately traumatized by everything she experiences, it makes her easier to bear.

 

:iagree:

 

I got into a huge argument about this with my mother, even. She was saying how the quality of the writing goes way downhill and by the end it's like an outline.

 

I thought it was masterfully well done as a chronicle of Katniss's emotional death and complete inability to deal with the world anymore.

 

She is suffering SEVERE PTSD, which just gets worse and worse as she feels responsible for more and more death and destruction. By the end of the trilogy she's just a shell of a human being, and her narration of events reflects that.

[FairyMom]

I felt the same way. I thought Katniss was a noble character at the start (exchanging her place for her sister's), but after that, she displayed no redeeming qualities at all. In fact, I disliked her more than the other characters because she was set up to be a hero, then acted just as horribly as the rest.

 

I disagree with Wilson's assessment of Collins' writing skill, though. I did not think the books were particularly well-written. They were, if anything, rather overwrought.

 

I'm not going to address Wilson's summary of how the books are Christian or not, though. I have not read anywhere that the author intended them as a Christian parable.

 

ETA: Disclaimer: I only read the first book "The Hunger Games." I didn't like anything about it enough to read the next two. So, if she suddenly becomes something worthwhile in the later books, y'all will certainly tell me, won't you? ;)

 

:iagree: I was never interested in continuing the series. From what I understand, the second and third aren't any better. I haven't seen anything describing them as a Christian parable, either from the author or another source. This is the first time I have run across the comparison.

[momtokea]

I don't know this author at all, but he sounds like a big baby. He's obviously just a jealous author.

[sagira]

I don't know this author at all, but he sounds like a big baby. He's obviously just a jealous author.

 

Who's he? Oh well, who cares. I have a feeling he has a beef with the Harry Potter series too.

 

Katniss is a human being - flawed, real. Who are we to judge her actions? She's been through more than most any of us. I'm in the middle of the second book - Catching Fire. Ms. Collins knows her craft, but she also knows how to sell books. I believe she's writing to reach an audience who's young, needs entertainment, and doesn't read much. This doesn't mean that her writings cannot be appreciated by those who are well read. As I was reading, I kept getting the feeling that the author had a lot more tricks up her sleeve, that she was holding back her talents, that this was not her magnum opus by far.

Edited May 29, 2012 by sagira

[Donna]

I don't agree with him at all either. I think his reasoning is completely off.

 

One example...Katniss sacrifices herself for her sister. She loves her sister so, of course, would be willing to do this. She then is working to survive so she can get back to her family. She is the sole provider for her sister. Her mother is a shell of a human being who is out of it all the time. Why would Katniss sacrifice herself for the other kids in the game? She doesn't even know them and needs to get back to those she does love.

[laughing lioness]

The book is written from a secular dystopian pov. Why would we evaluate it from a different pov?

[Joyofsixreboot]

The book is written from a secular dystopian pov. Why would we evaluate it from a different pov?

 

:iagree:

[Trish]

I've read the Hunger Games trilogy and really enjoyed it although I had some of those same thoughts about it. Yes, Katniss takes her sister's place in the games but...after that I think I kept expecting something greater from her, kwim?

 

Great piece, thanks for sharing.

 

Wonder if this is part of the Dinner Table Discussions people are having? That Katniss should not have participated in the killing program? Or is everyone understanding of her need to kill because it's part of the rules, and would be expected?

 

The Just Following Orders of our generation?

[ma23peas]

Agree wholeheartedly with the blog....I teach comp/lit courses and our senior class debated whether to add HG to our list of books to round out our year of the study of nature of man v. Nature of God...we ultimately chose another selection but the debate was intense both pro and con...this blog clarifies the chasm we tried to bridge.

[LillyMama]

Agree wholeheartedly with the blog....I teach comp/lit courses and our senior class debated whether to add HG to our list of books to round out our year of the study of nature of man v. Nature of God...we ultimately chose another selection but the debate was intense both pro and con...this blog clarifies the chasm we tried to bridge.

 

Wonder if this is part of the Dinner Table Discussions people are having?

 

I personally think these two points are actually why Hunger Games was a great book series- it got people talking about books with their kids. I know many of us on this board want "more" for our kids, with frequent discussions about classic literature. But if we're honest, we're in the minority in this society, and I personally love hearing my friends talking with their kids about this book.

 

Finding out this guy, who I've never heard of before this, is a Christian fiction writer put this in perspective for me. As a Christian, I cannot really get through any modern "Christian" fiction, it's all so unreal to my real life. The characters are exactly as this blogger tries to hold up as the "right" characters- all good, all the time. Or if they're bad, they have this wondrous conversion and everything is all peaches after that, cue the strings. I'm a Christian and I think this portrayal of Christianity and Christian lives is just, I don't know, silly. To me, even if his points didn't completely misconstrue ALL of the books and authors he referenced, they would be things that make me LIKE the series. Katniss is neither a hero, anti-hero, flawed hero, turkey and salami hero... She's just a person some of us like and some don't and that is what makes her worth talking about.

 

It's like the great Seely Boone says- We are not all just one thing.

[Miss Marple]

The Hunger Games is indeed flawed as a Christian allegory, in much the same way a saber-toothed tiger is flawed as a household pet. It seems a silly thing to point out.

 

Exactly! The comparison with Lewis's Narnia series is simply illogical. They are two authors with two different worldviews. Their writings can only be compared by comparing worldviews. I don't believe The Hunger Games was meant to convey the Christian worldview - maybe those pieces of it the author embraces, but not to the extent of Lewis.

[Miss Marple]

The book is written from a secular dystopian pov. Why would we evaluate it from a different pov?

 

:iagree:

[radiobrain]

I agree with those of you who disagree with the author of this piece. ;)

 

I can see where someone would come to the conclusions he did, though. However, I think that they were not written from the POV that he seems to filter ideas through. Tedious, really.

 

It reminds me of the OYAN dude explaining to me that unless a novel is based in Christianity and belief it has no meaning, only the illusion of meaning. :confused: I think this guy comes from that school of thought. Everything has to relate somehow to belief, faith and God...if it doesn't it is somehow lacking in worth.

 

And it is Dystopian, which by its very nature must be totally messed up. :D

 

People can have their opinions, and his is valid...for him. However, his feelings are not absolute and true for everyone else. I personally found her writing compelling yet simple, which I hadn't analyzed as a device to show PTSD. That's an interesting thought. Although, she might have just needed to get it finished and didn't work on it very hard. :lol:

[Candid]

I think he is dead on. Those saying this isn't a Christian world view novel maybe right on that point, but they've missed the point he was making with those examples. Each of those writers, in his view, has an insight into how people really act. Collins does not, her characters do things that are totally out of keeping with their previous behavior and for that matter what real people do.

 

I had read a series of works prior to reading the Hunger Games that gave me the other half of his equation: totalitarian governments don't work the way we see the one in the Hunger Games work either. Once again Collins doesn't understand how people really act. No way do such governments survive setting up the Hunger Games for 75 years; why? Because by having the violence be totally predictable they would have allowed those under them to device strategies against the games themselves.

 

Think about the success of the Civil Rights movement. Because leaders of the Civil Rights movement knew exactly what the other side would respond with, they made sure to put that violence in the face of the TV viewers. How long did we as a country need to see peaceful demonstrators beaten and pushed down the street by fire hoses before we stopped it?

 

Totalitarian governments are much more subtle. They don't allow people to feel bound together by any ties like each district does. Instead they quietly and subtly destroy those sorts of ties. They certainly don't host a yearly kill kids fest that binds each group of people more tightly not only to their own group to others as well.

[FaithManor]

Exactly! The comparison with Lewis's Narnia series is simply illogical. They are two authors with two different worldviews. Their writings can only be compared by comparing worldviews. I don't believe The Hunger Games was meant to convey the Christian worldview - maybe those pieces of it the author embraces, but not to the extent of Lewis.

 

 

:iagree:

 

By his reasoning, people should not read the Old Testament. It is a work of dystopian regimes, corruption, murder, mayhem, chaos, bad decision making, slavery, torture, R rated in most respects, gritty, and a historical catalog of the depths of depravity to which humankind is sometimes willing to sink. In the "Hunger Games", Katniss acts much more noble, much more "Christianly" (if that is a word), than a fair number of OT "heroes".

 

Some people do not follow their own "logic" to its logical conclusion. This is one example of that.

 

Faith

[radiobrain]

I think he is dead on. Those saying this isn't a Christian world view novel maybe right on that point, but they've missed the point he was making with those examples. Each of those writers, in his view, has an insight into how people really act. Collins does not, her characters do things that are totally out of keeping with their previous behavior and for that matter what real people do.

 

Totalitarian governments are much more subtle. They don't allow people to feel bound together by any ties like each district does. Instead they quietly and subtly destroy those sorts of ties. They certainly don't host a yearly kill kids fest that binds each group of people more tightly not only to their own group to others as well.

 

How can one know how people will react within a dystopian society, really? It is fiction. Like Star Trek. I thought that given the situation created, and the way that each district was isolated and pitted against each other and always equally punished (even the winning district loses one child) seemed quite feasible to me. Over history many people do the wrong thing and have no problem sacrificing others to save themselves. If districts are kept starving and get rewards based on performance in the games, doesn't that give each kid in the games an incentive to win the games, for those at home? It seems more than plausible that people would do this. I think that it is less likely for people to do differently. History is littered with examples of people doing EXACTLY the "wrong" thing, but at the time I am sure those people didn't think if it that way at all.

 

But this is my personal opinion.

 

If it were more common for people to "do the right thing" all the time, then why do those who do stand out so brightly? Why does the situation exist at all? I think the idea was interesting yet simplistic, not on par with Brave New World and its ilk, but a ponderance that could only come from the world we live in today. The other thing is that the whole book is an exagerrated example, it lacks subtlety. the totalitarian government is not subtle. It is totally in your face and makes no attempt to hide it. It creates the situation through brute force and pain.

 

Whatever. I need to do our history now. ;)

Edited May 29, 2012 by radiobrain

[nmoira]

Candid, I'm curious if you've read the entire trilogy, or just The Hunger Games.

 

I think he is dead on. Those saying this isn't a Christian world view novel maybe right on that point, but they've missed the point he was making with those examples. Each of those writers, in his view, has an insight into how people really act. Collins does not, her characters do things that are totally out of keeping with their previous behavior and for that matter what real people do.

Through three books, Katniss has one overriding concern: to save what is left of her family.

 

I had read a series of works prior to reading the Hunger Games that gave me the other half of his equation: totalitarian governments don't work the way we see the one in the Hunger Games work either.

Just curious which series you're referring to.

 

Once again Collins doesn't understand how people really act. No way do such governments survive setting up the Hunger Games for 75 years; why? Because by having the violence be totally predictable they would have allowed those under them to device strategies against the games themselves.

Again, have you read all three books?

 

Totalitarian governments are much more subtle. They don't allow people to feel bound together by any ties like each district does. Instead they quietly and subtly destroy those sorts of ties. They certainly don't host a yearly kill kids fest that binds each group of people more tightly not only to their own group to others as well.

The districts were isolated from each other, pitted and played against each other (think about how you as a reader feel about the tributes from District 1, even though at least one of them would be dead at the end of the games?), presented to those in the Capitol and other districts in entirely stereotypical and diminished terms, stripped of any semblance of authentic individuality in favour of costumes, tricks and scripts.

[Lady Florida.]

The books are not just about totalitarian regimes but about people who accept what is thrust upon them and who commit horrendous atrocities rather than attempting to change the unjust status quo.

 

 

:iagree:And we know from history that this has happened, and will continue to happen. Eventually, in most cases, the people rise up and and attempt to change, but there is usually a period of time where they just go along.

[nmoira]

:iagree:And we know from history that this has happened, and will continue to happen. Eventually, in most cases, the people rise up and and attempt to change, but there is usually a period of time where they just go along.

And in the end Katniss not only realizes this but also that despite a hard-won period of respite, it's going to happen again. It's a bleak ending.