Amy H.’s Comments (group member since Dec 16, 2013)

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

Hello, everyone! Relevant to the cultural impact of The Hunger Games, I thought this might be of interest. The Hunger Games: The Biggest Fan Awards is a new web series. The first episode is now up here for free viewing: https://youtu.be/ruCzHT9wpFE. Viewers choose the winner.

You can find out more about the show (and how to apply to compete) on the official website here: http://biggestfanawards.com/.

FYI, a new seminar opportunity that may be of interest: "The Dystopian Tradition: What Worlds Gone Wrong Can Teach Us."

FYI, new from Reason this week: "Not Your Parents' Dystopias: Millennial fondness for worlds gone wrong."

Wow. Timely and troubling indeed. I wish I could say I'm surprised.

Thank you for sharing this!

Greg wrote: "Having more time to thing and reflect on this, The Hunger Games resembles post civil war reconstructionist south than anything I can think of. Here were states (districts) who had been defeated in..."

Great point, Greg! This interpretation also puts The Hunger Games in dialogue with another dystopian "text" that is based on the post-Civil War Southern experience, made up of the combined works of the television series Firefly and its sequel film Serenity . There are some very interesting parallels in how these dystopias address the cause of liberty.

What are some of the key quotes/passages from the books that best reflect the message of The Hunger Games for you? What are your favorite quotes?

I'll be Captain Obvious and start with two related quotes from the first novel:

Quote 1: Between Peeta and Katniss
"I don't know how to say it exactly. Only... I want to die as myself. Does that make any sense?" he asks. I shake my head. How could he die as anyone but himself? "I don't want them to change me in there. Turn me into some kind of monster that I'm not."

I bite my lip feeling inferior. While I've been ruminating on the availability of trees, Peeta has been struggling with how to maintain his identity. His purity of self. "Do you mean you won't kill anyone?" I ask.

"No, when the time comes, I'm sure I'll kill just like everybody else. I can't go down without a fight. Only I keep wishing I could think of a way to... to show the Capitol they don't own me. That I'm more than just a piece in their Games," says Peeta.

Quote 2: Katniss
I want to do something, right here, right now, to shame them, to make them accountable, to show the Capitol that whatever they do or force us to do there is a part of every tribute they can't own. That Rue was more than a piece in their Games. And so am I.

Curtis wrote: "One (perhaps obvious) comparison I would make is to Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia," in which he ties his ideas of freedom and liberty to the government, culture and - yes - land..."

Great connection, Curtis! Wonderful. FYI, Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia" is available online here.

Jacob wrote: "What other things beside the video can I look at to explore this subject? I'm really interested."

Great question! My first recommendation would be to look at the Learn Liberty Academy archived course Making Sense of the Great Depression. If you'd like other resources, let me know!

[I've included no spoilers for Mockingjay in the following post!]

In this interview with School Library Journal, Suzanne Collins talks about how part of her reason for writing is to encourage inter-generational dialogue on very serious ethical questions about history and war:

My father was career Air Force. He was in the Air Force for 30-some years. He was also a Vietnam veteran. He was there the year I was six. Beyond that, though, he was a doctor of political science, a military specialist, and a historian; he was a very intelligent man. And he felt that it was part of his responsibility to teach us, his children, about history and war. When I think back, at the center of all this is the question of what makes a necessary war—at what point is it justifiable or unavoidable?…

One of the reasons it’s important for me to write about war is I really think that the concept of war, the specifics of war, the nature of war, the ethical ambiguities of war are introduced too late to children. I think they can hear them, understand them, know about them, at a much younger age without being scared to death by the stories. It’s not comfortable for us to talk about, so we generally don’t talk about these issues with our kids. But I feel that if the whole concept of war were introduced to kids at an earlier age, we would have better dialogues going on about it, and we would have a fuller understanding.

What do you think of this goal? Would you say Collins has been successful in fostering such inter-generational discussions? How does "the concept of war, the specifics of war, the nature of war, the ethical ambiguities of war" relate to The Hunger Games trilogy as a whole? To the subject of liberty?

Do you think others today share her father's conviction that it's the responsibility of parents to introduce their children to the subject of war and its ethical dilemmas? How well do you think this has been accomplished in the 21st century? Does such education have any implication for the future of liberty?

Why did her father emphasize history and war, do you think? Is "knowing your history" a theme in the books?

What are your thoughts?

[I've included no spoilers for Mockingjay in the following post!]

Suzanne Collins chose District 12 as the birthplace of her heroine and a main wellspring of the rebellion against the Capitol. District 12 represents current-day Appalachia in the United States. While I'm not native Appalachian, my husband grew up in rural Appalachia, and we currently live in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains in Appalachia. In fact, much of the first Hunger Games movie was filmed just minutes away, practically in our backyard. (If you're interested, you can find my personal photos of the Henry River Mill Village, which was used as the set of District 12, by clicking here. There are pictures from both before and after filming. Kindly ignore the goofy ones!)

The "look" of District 12 in the films was based on Appalachia and appears quite authentic, since the filming took place here with genuine locations (as opposed to created sets). Another inspiration for the District 12 "look" was the Great Depression. It doesn't take much imagination to see echoes of this iconic photo from the Great Depression in the District 12 citizens.



(On a related note, I recommend LearnLiberty's video Top Three Myths about the Great Depression and New Deal to those who are interested in this period.)

Why is Appalachia the appropriate home for the Girl on Fire/Mockingjay?

Interestingly enough, D. Robert Worley, senior fellow at the Johns Hopkins Center for Advanced Governmental Studies, argues in his essay "Freedom or Liberty? A Democracy or a Republic?" that there are perhaps three strains of libertarianism in the United States, each with its own regional origins.

(Worley's argument draws explicitly on Colin Woodard's recent book, American Nations, to identify the cultural regions at play. There's also the clear influence of Daniel Elazar's theory of three political cultures: the moralistic, individualistic, and traditionalist.)

The upshot is this: Worley identifies Appalachia as the U.S. home of individualistic libertarianism. I doubt this comes as a surprise to many who know the region/culture.

What do you think? Is this another example of Collins giving added texture and meaning to her work? What do you think about how the films have portrayed District 12? Is the historical Appalachian tradition of individualism one of the factors responsible ultimately for revolution against the Capitol?

What are your thoughts?

If you watch the DVD extras for the first Hunger Games film, you will hear how the set designers consciously drew on the architecture historically favored by totalitarian states – Soviet and Nazi architecture, in particular – to convey the message that the government is huge, permanent, powerful, and unyielding, while the individual citizen is dwarfed and insignificant in its shadow.

The Hall of Justice Building as seen in the reaping scene of Catching Fire is a perfect example of this kind of 1930s-inspired civic structure.



The following post in "The Art of Film" – which I highly recommend reading – offers some compelling pictorial evidence of many parallels between the films' sets and the actual buildings (or proposed buildings) that typified the Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin eras – and, for that matter, how those latter totalitarian styles relate back to classical Roman architecture. Check it out: "The Architecture of the Capitol from 'The Hunger Games': Echoes of Rome, Echoes of Totalitarianism."

So, what do you think? Is alluding to 20th-century totalitarianism a useful way to make us think about what has happened in Panem? Are the artists behind the Hunger Games films embedding Suzanne Collins's message in the very buildings they create? If so, how does this set design convey or confirm larger meanings and warnings inherent in Collins's novels?

What are your thoughts?

Oswaldo wrote: "i would like the link messaged to me ..."

Are you referring to the film Jonnelle recommended? It's above in Message #3 of this thread. I hope this helps!

Are you sure that it's not present in any of the stories?

One could argue, for example, that Peeta Mellark embodies the Golden Rule time and again, from his sharing of the bread with Katniss in the past, to his care for the dying Morphling in the Quarter Quell, to several of his actions (no spoilers!) in Mockingjay?

In fact, Peeta's adherence to this code is one of the reasons Sarah Darer Littman in "The Politics of Mockingjay" argues that Peeta is a braver character than, say, Gale.

And what of the Katniss-Rue relationship?

Just a thought!

Jonnelle wrote: "Mainstay Productions did an excellent short film on a little Katniss and her father..."

Thank you so much for sharing this link! Wonderful!

Louise wrote: "4) the wise and protective maid from To Kill a Mockingbird (another great book about class struggle with a mockingbird as a central symbol), another character who managed to earn respect, authority and even a degree of power despite being part of the repressed class. "

Great point, Louise! Thanks especially for bringing up To Kill A Mockingbird. Very relevant indeed!

[Note: This post contains NO spoilers for Mockingjay!]

One of the challenges Katniss must wrestle with in The Hunger Games is knowing what is authentic in a world where the Capitol is always watching. Even in District 12, she is constantly aware not only of what she says but also of the very expression on her face. In the Arena, she plays out the romance with Peeta to engage the audience and win sponsors. At times she's left wondering who she really is, or who she's becoming, because she has altered her behavior constantly due to the surveillance under which she lives and breathes.

Are we living for the cameras? There's a host of new research about how the expectation that we are (or could be) constantly monitored, photographed, and filmed affects how we behave.

According to the Guardian, there's 1 CCTV camera for every 32 people in the UK, and according to WalesOnline, police figures show that closed-circuit cameras are filming people on average 70 times a day (with about 1.85 million cameras on the UK’s streets). And of course traditional CCTV cameras aren't the only cameras around: there are various forms of facial recognition technology, flying 'drone' CCTV planes and multiple ways to track individuals across distances.

And of course the person next to you might be filming or photographing you on his/her phone.

Is this changing who we are? How we behave? How we know what's authentic?

And is this a sign of control/oppression -- or is it something we choose? After all, we today have unprecedented online presences. Citizens choose to post selfies and upload films of themselves to YouTube and conduct personal conversations via means that are known not to be private. We buy smartphones with GPS features that announce our location to the world. So we must not really want privacy, huh?

What are your thoughts? Are we the watched, the watchers, or both? And what does this mean for individual liberty?

[SPOILERS! This entire thread will contain spoilers for Mockingjay.]

It seems to me that Gale and Peeta offer far more than two potential/competing love interests for our heroine. They represent, in fact, two opposing reactions to oppression.

Consider a scene in Mockingjay that sets up the ethical dilemma clearly: Katniss goes to the Special Defense area and finds Gale and Beetee adapting Gale's traps to use against humans. Katniss is horrified that they're planning to booby-trap food and water supplies and even construct two-stage devices that kill more people by counting on the compassion of first responders.

Katniss voices her protest.

"That seems to be crossing some kind of line," I say. "So anything goes?" They both stare at me - Beetee with doubt, Gale with hostility. "I guess there isn't a rule book for what might be unacceptable to do to another human being."

"Sure there is. Beetee and I have been following the same rule book President Snow used when he hijacked Peeta," says Gale.

Interestingly enough, though, Peeta himself, despite all he's been through (two different Hunger Games as well as physical and psychological torture), does seem to think there's a line that can't be crossed.

Is this relevant today? This question has been discussed in this very same context by journalist Sarah Darer Littman, who writes, "Gale's 'they do it, so why shouldn't we?' response reminded me of mail I got after a column I wrote following revelations by the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib prison. Several writers questioned why I was so concerned about those imprisoned at Abu Ghraib after what 'they' did to us on 9/11. Never mind that in all likelihood the inhabitants of Abu Ghraib had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, or that, according to an International Committee of the Red Cross report... military officers estimated that between 70 to 90 percent of persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake."

Is this a fair comparison, do you think?

In Mockingjay, Katniss says to a mineworker, "...it just goes around and around, and who wins? Not us. Not the districts. Always the Capitol."

What do you think? Are Katniss and Peeta right? Is there a line related to human rights that we should not cross? Where is it? Does Gale's "they do it, so why shouldn't we" approach create a slippery slope? Does Katniss's choice between Peeta and Gale reflect more than mere romantic inclination?

What are your thoughts?

What do you think of the late Mr. Everdeen, the father of Katniss, as the great unsung hero of The Hunger Games and its message of liberty?

After all, he...

* taught Katniss to be self-sufficient, knowing what plants to eat, how to swim, how to survive in the forest, etc. (She knows if she finds herself, the katniss plant, she'll never starve, for example.)

* taught Katniss to hunt, not only giving her another way to feed her family, but also providing her the means of entering the black market and trading for other things she and her family need.

* taught Katniss the subversive "The Hanging Tree" song, which plays such a key role in Katniss's unfolding understanding of the world around her and her choices in it.[1]

Your thoughts?


[1] For a fascinating look at "The Hanging Tree," I recommend "Mockingjay Discussion 15: The Hanging Tree" by John Granger at Hogwarts Professor. I'll quote a passage here [Very minor spoilers for Mockingjay!]:

In essence, ‘The Hanging Tree’ calls on the living who love freedom to join the martyred freedom fighter in putting this cause above concerns for their individual lives. It is an invitation to revolution, i.e., to risk death in the hope of a greater life. Mr. Everdeen isn’t singing it because it’s a simple catchy tune; he’s expressing his revolutionary beliefs as openly as he dares and asking others to join him. Mrs. Everdeen, it turns out, was right to be terrified by her husband’s boldness. It’s probably safe to assume that he and Gale’s dad died in a mine explosion that was set by the Capitol to kill men known to be plotting against the regime.

I’m confident this is what Ms. Collins’ version of 'Hanging Tree' means because it is such a match for Katniss, the Mockingjay. She becomes the lightning rod for resistance to the Capitol when she sacrifices herself to save Prim at the Reaping and by her actions in the arena, most notably, her love for Rue and Peeta and her defiant willingness to die for her friend rather than conform to the Hunger Games’ rules. ‘The Hanging Tree’ is the Mockingjay’s song well before Katniss sings it to Pollux, a man who was tortured by the Capitol and would sing the song to the rebels if he could."

Great connections, Curtis and Hyun! Thank you so much for this added context - great insights here.

Joseph wrote: "The fight between governments may have been waged with propaganda, but it wasn't OVER propaganda. The war was for the hearts and minds of the people, either through fear and intimidation, or through indignation and outrage."

Well said! You put this far better than I did, Joseph! This indeed strikes the heart of what I was attempting to convey. "Via" would have been a better choice than "over" - it was the means and method used to fight for the hearts and minds of the citizens.