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.

A few conversation starters about The Hunger Games in the early U.S. context...

The Capitol = The Beltway
[No spoilers!]
One of the repeated discussions among the U.S. founders was how to create a system in which citizen-statesmen would live their private lives and then, when called upon, serve in positions of national or state leadership, and then go home again. This would "keep things real," allowing leaders to know what life was like among the people they represented, because they lived the same lives as those people. Needless to say, this is not how leadership is perceived today. Career politicians are ubiquitous, and much is said of the "Beltway Culture" that exists within Washington, D.C., separate and removed from "real life" in the rest of the United States. Do you think the division Collins portrays between the Capitol and the Districts speaks to the (perceived? real?) division between those who rule and those who are ruled today?

It's the System, Not the Leader
[Warning: This Paragraph Contains Spoilers for Mockingjay!]
One of the challenges for the founders as the U.S. Constitution was being drafted and debated was to decide how much power to put in the executive. Was the split with Great Britain because of the monarchy itself or because of King George and his leadership specifically? (Some wanted to make George Washington an American king, after all.) I think it's worth thinking about that Collins addresses the system-vs-leader issue directly by showing readers the potential of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" scenario (if I may quote The Who). She provides a very compelling villain in the form of President Snow, but the problem with Panem isn't simply that Snow is a bad guy. Thus the solution isn't simply to put a "good person" in a similar position of concentrated power. We see in Panem that concentrated power attracts those who are least fit to use it. As Katniss ultimately decides, replacing President Snow with President Coin is not going to lead to more liberty for the citizens of Panem. What do you think about how Coin and District 13 are portrayed (compared to Snow and the Capitol)? What is Collins suggesting about the nature of power?

Cincinnatus Goes Home
[Warning: This Paragraph Contains Spoilers for Mockingjay!]
One of the classical models of civic virtue most lauded by the U.S. founders was the Roman statesman Cincinnatus (519 BC–430 BC). When his people needed him (when rival tribes invaded their land), he rose to the ranks of Roman dictator. After he had successfully defended his people and their property, however, he willingly gave up his power and popularity for a quiet life on his farm. As the successful liberating general of the Revolution, George Washington could have set himself up as a dictator, but - consciously following the Cincinnatus model - he ultimately set the precedent of leaving executive office after two terms and returning to life as a private citizen. Is it important, do you think, that we see Katniss and Peeta in their modest circumstances at the end of Mockingjay, living private lives, rather than ruling over a new, improved Panem?

What are your thoughts?

Ashley said, "I've always been intrigued by President Snow's first name, Coriolanus, since it is another allusion to Rome as well as a Shakespeare play. I read Coriolanus my freshman year of college, but I've never completely understood why Suzanne Collins chose Coriolanus to be Snow's first name. Any thoughts?

Great question!

In the historical context, Coriolanus was a Roman emperor who came to power after successfully leading a campaign as general against the Volscians (which gained him the support of the Roman Senate). He was a tyrannical ruler who was ultimately known for resisting the democratic desires of the people and for misappropriation of public funds (the latter of which got him banished in disgrace).

In the context of Shakespeare's play, Coriolanus very much sets himself up as the enemy of the people and of the notion of popular rule. He even compares the idea of letting plebians have power over patricians to allowing "crows to peck the eagles." The play opens with popular rioting after grain is withheld from the people -- not unlike how the Districts riot in The Hunger Games -- and Coriolanus showing only contempt for the hungry commoners.

Snow's name might also be a clever trick by Collins. Shakespeare's play ends with the execution of Coriolanus, and Collins could have used this to make readers expect Snow's execution at the end of Mockingjay.

Incidentally, there's lots of clever aspects to the name Snow, from the fact he's a cold character, to the fact that "SNOW" was a codename of a now famous Welsh mole in World War II known for his skill in keeping his enemies under constant surveillance. I think it's worth pointing out, though, that today we use the term "snow" -- as in "He's trying to snow us" -- to mean someone is being intentionally manipulative, deceitful, and duplicitous. Very appropriate!

Beyond the Theseus and Spartacus comparisons, and Suzanne Collins's evocative choice of names, there are other interesting classical echoes in The Hunger Games.

In particular, I thought you might be interested in two pointed out by a former graduate student of mine, Kris Swank, at The Hog's Head:

* "How Glorious Fall the Valiant: 'Careers' as Spartan Warriors"
This gives a different insight into the "nationalism" demanded of/inculcated into some of the Tributes.

* "Gifts of the Gods"
This underscores how the Capitol chooses to quite literally "play god" with the fates of the Tributes.

What do you think? Are you convinced? Do these added layers make The Hunger Games a more compelling work? Do they sharpen the focus on the "big themes" about liberty and power that Collins presents?

Great question! I think the most relevant aspect of the trilogy is that it shows two different sides of the loss-of-liberty equation: those who have had their liberty taken from them through the force and oppression of the state (citizens of the Districts, at the mercy of constant surveillance and policing), and those who have surrendered their liberty to become childlike dependents of the parental state (citizens of the Capitol, easily entertained, manipulated, and led). I think it's significant that characters emerge on both sides to cooperate in the struggle for freedom.