The Hunger Games question

why can't it be both?

I would assume it's both. A post apocalyptic dystopian society

Hmm, good question, I've thought about this a bit too. The thing is, you're right, at no point is Panem depicted as a "perfect society", since the story's told from the point of view of a girl whose whole family has suffered under the current system.

I think the series would be more dystopian if it was told from the point of view of someone living in the Capitol who was perhaps raised to believe in the government, Snow, and the Hunger Games, and then realized how sick it all was.

As it stands, I think the series is perhaps more post-apocalyptic with some dystopian elements.

I agree with your dystopian definition- and I would definitely call HG post-apocalyptic. But I think that dystopia has just come to mean the supposedly-perfect-not-perfect society.
I sort of view post-apocalyptic books as a branch of dystopia.

It's more dystopian than post-apocalyptic. The seemingly-ideal society with one fatal flaw is one type of dystopia, but not the only one. Another word for that type of story is "negative utopia". This book is dystopian because for just about everyone who doesn't live in the Capitol, it's a terrible place to live. Another note, post-apocalyptic doesn't have to be dystopian. "The Stand" is post-apocalyptic, but contrasts two societies which emerge out of the rubble, one rather utopian, the other quite dystopian.

I would not call The Hunger Games post-apocalyptic. There was an apocalypse, long before, but it is barely even mentioned. The rebellion is more of a focus, and that took place some time after the apocalypse. If anything, I would call it post-post-apocalypse. I consider post-apocalyptic to be stories that take place either in the immediate or medium-range aftermath of an apocalypse. Once a new society has arisen, and a new normal is created, then I see it as post-post-apocalyptic.

I think the definition of dystopian is spot on. It is literally a utopia that is dysfunctional. In that case HG would not be Dystopian because only people in district 1 would consider Paneam a utopia. So unless HG was told from the point of view of someone from district 1, HG would fall into the post-apol category.


Leti Del Mar

Was the reason for Panem's creation ever explained? I've only read the first book. Yeah, sets and subsets. I'm going with Jordan (the Greek) on this one. Post-apocalyptic for how the society came to be that way, dystopian to describe the type of society in place.

dystopian novel no world disaster just corrupt government and stuff

I think it depends on where you are in this world. From the point of view of someone in the Capitol, it might be a utopian society. Everything is just perfect if you don't care to think for yourself and don't care that other people are oppressed and slaughtered.
From the point of view of the people in the districts, I'm not really sure it would qualify as either one. At this point in time, the 'apocalypse' was a long time ago and doesn't have much effect on them - they're not really worried about further disasters or destruction of inhabitable land. It's just life for them. It's sort of like asking a Native American today if they feel they're living in a post-apocalyptic society. No, they just feel like this is life even though their ancestors may have felt like it was the end of the world.

Although, throw in the Hunger Games and maybe some of them do feel like it's the end of the world.

So, I don't know. It could be both or neither depending on how you look at it.
Good question.

I believe it's a Post-Apocolyptic.

I agree with Jordan. The two are not mutually exclusive, and I think Hunger games fits both categories, as opposed to somthing like, say Matched by Ally Condie, which is really just dystopian with no signs of the post appocalyptic.