Dalmo’s Comments (group member since Dec 16, 2013)

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

My favorite scene in the movie is the firs appearance of the Mockingjay pin. I know Suzanne Collins was very involved with the movie adaptation, so I'm curious about why there was such a big change concerning the origin of this pivotal symbol.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the Hob as a type for economic freedom (as Dr. Sturgis pointed out), and whether Collins wanted to play up that aspect of the story in the film adaptation.

I have a B.S. in biochemistry and work at a software company. This is my first Learn Liberty Academy course, and I see it as a fun way to explore topics I'm interested in and keeping my political/social sciences knowledge sharp.

Those two are good examples of valid readings of the text. Collins creates a huge, intricate universe, and that allows for her to draw on multiple classical voices in different angles. That versatility, that ability to walk in and out of other texts and myths, is one of the qualities that make the trilogy powerful.

I'm especially drawn to the names of the characters; they're a quick and pithy way of borrowing from other literature, but as characters develop through the story the reader starts to see a more thought out critique.

For example, it's interesting that the TV host of the Hunger Games is named Caesar Flickerman. It is he (not President Snow, not any official piece of the political machine) who inherits the name of the great and powerful Roman emperor. This speaks to the influence and importance of mass media, propaganda, and entertainment -- TV is king, perhaps more so than any single person in government.

The freedom vs. security is an obvious surface issue, but I think what's more important is the nature of revolution.

My statist friends who have watched the movies and read the books completely agree that the Panem dystopia is oppressive scarily similar to some of our contemporary realities. They are, just as much as my libertarian friends are, against the Capitol and in favor of tribute-led coupe.

The nature of and motives behind this revolution is where the two political ideologies tend to disagree (and it's partly why we vote the way we do). Do the districts revolt to gain autonomy and freedom? Or do they rebel because of unequal share of money and privileges? Is this a complete rejection of a forceful government, or a necessary restructuring of an unfair system of resource distribution?