Tate’s Comments (group member since Dec 17, 2013)

Tate’s comments from the On Tyrants & Tributes : Real World Lessons From The Hunger Games group.

In her live presentation, Professor Sturgis mentioned a list of classic dystopian novels, all of them featuring an authoritarian state. What I would like to explore are the dystopian stories that place little or no state at the center of their dystopian framework rather than the totalitarian state. I'm thinking of titles such as Mad Max and Road Warrior.

According to Paul A. Cantor (https://mises.org/daily/6539/The-Walk...), the government-as-savior is a common theme in disaster movies and television, but "The Walking Dead" serves as an exception. Is this so?

What does it seem that people fear more, no government or too much government? If pop culture is any indication, which alternative seems more prevalent in dystopian/apocalyptic/disaster stories?

Jonathan wrote: "Why the separation of the Districts in Panem? Do you think that the separation of the districts played a large role in keeping the citizens from rebelling? If so, do you think it was successful to ..."

This is an interesting question. I'm not sure if one can make any meaningful analogy between the states that make up the American Union and the districts of Panem. In the former case, I think that the institution of states and local governance are a bulwark against the overreach of the federal government, or at least can (and hopefully will) be. We have a number of examples of state nullification and noncompliance against drug laws, national ID cards, gun confiscation, etc.

I assume that the districts really have little to no autonomy apart from the Capitol, and allow very limited travel or communication between them. If this is so, it's unambiguously the case that such isolation would render the people of Panem less able to organize any resistance.

To your last question of social isolation contributing to the lack of attitude of rebellion against injustice, I think it's more the case that Americans think of themselves as part of a mass society called the United States, more so than they do as "Nebraskans" or "Indianans" or so on, or even as members of local communities. Political decision making has continually been removed from individuals in their communities and states and centralized in the Capitol: Washington D.C. I think this, perhaps more than anything else, makes people feel powerless.

I think this inter-generational discussion is absolutely important. Thinking back over my own life, I wasn't really even aware that the US military was engaged in any foreign interventions during the '90s. I was 12 in 2001; all I knew about the why the US was invading Afghanistan was "because of 9/11." I was never encouraged to think critically about this. In my home growing up, Fox News would be on TV most of the time and when the US invaded Iraq in 2003 Bill O'Reilly said that he would treat anyone who criticized the war as "enemies of the state." It seemed that the media had led me to believe that questioning the actions of the US military was unpatriotic, and that members of the US military deserved our utmost gratitude and respect. It wasn't until I was in college that I started questioning the war and the military (a process started by, ironically enough, Fox News' Judge Napolitano).

As to whether Collins has been successful in fostering these discussions, I don't know. I worry that people might miss the theme of war entirely because I believe that when people think of "war" they typically envision some event between militaries of two or more countries, not a people rebelling against the government that rules them. If this is the case, they may see The Hunger Games as just another story about a rebellion against tyranny, not a commentary on war. But I think what many people don't realize is how intertwined tyranny and war is (I was a bit surprised that, unless I don't remember correctly, Panem wasn't at war with another country or enemy, since it is when people are afraid of some foreign threat that they are most willing to give up their liberties).

Collins definitely brings up some moral ambiguities of war. As mentioned in other posts on the forum, there was a discussion of whether Gale was justified in using the same tactics as those of the Capital; this is reminiscent of the debate of whether torture can be justified or is wise to allow as a government policy. As well, the use of double tap strikes to kill first responders occurs in the trilogy, as it does in Pakistan and Yemen when the US military uses drones. I hope these points aren't lost on readers.

I'm sure some parents feel the need to teach their offspring about the ethical dilemmas of war, but I am not sure it's enough. I sometimes wonder if the citizens of the Capital are an allegory for most Americans, who are apathetic about the wars their government wages; they don't fight in them and they don't feel the financial hardship wars typically create for the taxpayers forced to finance them because of the US government's unique ability to borrow and export inflation, so they effectively ignore them. Thus, I believe education about the true costs of war (as well as the history, the understanding of propaganda, and the like) are imperative for the future of liberty.

Will wrote: "Not only can I spot the Stalin and Hitler in Panem, but I think its extremely prevalent in Washington DC today. The Capitol I think fits this profile completely. The buildings there are totally mea..."

It reminds me what Donald Livingston writes about Aristotle and the idea of human scale, that things have a right size for humans and if they become too large or too small, they become dysfunctional. These buildings are created on a size beyond human scale and are meant to be intimidating.

As you suggest, we don't have to look at the worst totalitarian regimes to find this kind of architecture. I think we can even find it in many American city halls, where the size of the building is often far greater than the functions of the city government would merit. It is not that they need all that space; it is that they desire to build a monument to themselves and, perhaps not fully wittingly, make it appear to the residents that the city government is too large and majestic for them to have a voice.

Personally, I don't find the lack of sex objectionable (to be honest, I didn't even notice it until someone pointed it out to me), but it seems like some people do (see, for example, http://www.film.com/movies/sex-in-the...).

I am curious as to what my classmates here think.

Jacob wrote: "Do they mention her dad in the books? I can't remember."

Lol. I don't remember him either.

I would try to expatriate before taking up arms against tyranny (unless faced with immediate danger of bodily injury). It is only when this option is taken away from me that I would engage in violent revolution.

Kelli wrote: "*SPOILERY FOR BOOK 3 - MOCKINGJAY*




For me personally one of the most relevant themes in the THG trilogy is the consequences of violence and war. From the intimate scale of our own lives to the ..."

I also considered use of drones to double tap targets (and consequently injure first responders) to be a relevant issue in the story. Does anyone know if Suzanne Collins was trying to say something specifically about drones? I have the strong suspicion that she was, as Prim is really integral to the story; she is the impetus for Katniss entering the Hunger Games. Being that protecting Prim was Katniss' primary motivation, the causes by which she fails to protect her would also seem pretty important.