system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The Hunger Games shouldn't be praised for its depth or world-building.

As far as The Hunger Games trilogy goes, it explores different themes through the eyes of Katniss Everdeen, who eventually becomes a revolutionary icon against the Capitol's government. Not only does the Capitol live far above the living standards of the districts it directly controls, but it also proves to them they can do nothing against them by celebrating a gladiatorial contest where different districts pit their children against each other.

Here are my concerns about:

**The world-building of The Hunger Games**:


* It is ridiculous on all levels to divide a country in regions whose only function is to uniquely produce one good or set of goods. If we are to understand Panem is mostly the former United States, there is great resource disparity across the territory it controls. Not diversifying production with such opportunities is complete lunacy, especially considering Panem seems to have the technology to exploit them beyond belief, both through technically and humanly. Panem is simply inefficient beyond belief.


* While it is explained the outer districts can do nothing against the Capitol and are in fact unhappy about its policies, this doesn't justify complaciency at all. The level of civilian unrest caused by this would mean mass migrations (even in the form of escape attempts), small to moderately sized rebel guerrilla groups… and this would all happen long before a 16 year old can become an icon for such activities. Not only that, but the Capitol essentially *begs* for massive  dissidence and unstability through Quarter Quells and such. By repressing such tension through brute force, the Capitol is in a vicious cycle of escalation that will mean its demise altogether. This is precisely why upon the first signs of revolution, even *District 1* went rogue. It makes no sense that an advanced, all-powerful government would be as naïve as to limit its prevalence and influence in such an unnecessary fashion.


* The fact there is only one police institution, that being the Peacekeepers, is absolute lunacy for modern statecraft. As a state becomes more complex, it must diversify its institutional arsenal to tackle the challenges it will face. Not only this, but they're also charged with internal affairs, intelligence and even with being the army itself. Creating such a massive body means creating a bloated institution that will require much more administrative efficiency and resources than those that would be consumed by further diversifying government agencies, committees and instutitions alike. It is simply ineffective to concentrate it all in one sole building.


**And from here my concerns with THG's depth**:

* The Hunger Games is utterly vapid should it be asked to talk about politics. True authoritarianism is built upon societies that are carefully sculpted by totalitarian rule to the point its methods are masked for the sake of having the state prevail. On the other hand, Panem does the complete opposite: it *gloats* with its brutal display of military police and deliberately reminds everybody how much a horrible governing state it is. As such, Panem is simply no valid source from which to draw political conclusions, as it is completely detached and unaware of how authoritarianism is truly applied. It draws closer, in fact, to a more disingenuous, childish perception of it, where big bad government does big bad stuff. THG has no delicacy, no elegance in creating a compelling dictatorship, and as such it doesn't deserve the slightest bit of analysis in that respect.

* "Panem and circenses", "bread and circus games". Collins thought the coverage of war events is disturbingly similar to the coverage of reality in that it becomes perverted by an odd shade of sensationalism. Panem would be a more or less decent satire (which would somewhat justify our previous point), but its attempts at taking itself seriously make it hard to believe the whole display of the story is ironic. It  could've at least argued totalitarianism can rely on steady entertainment to keep the masses under control, but even the story itself would betray this point in showing popular unrest as it does.

* Its portrayal of war is, too, naïve. Its image of PTSD is incomplete and shallow, as it doesn't present the utter mental devastation war has through, for instance, shellshock. THG doesn't aim to start a discourse on the traumatic effects of war, but rather seeks to just attribute another defining trait to the characters that participate in it. PTSD in THG is implemented as a device for the characters, not as a pillar to uphold a general philosophy. Likewise, its portrayal of war is, too, shallow. It doesn't develop any deep facets of armed conflict; instead, it simply seems like it doesn't mean to say much more than "war is bad because people die when they're killed". I legitimately haven't felt THG ever even attempted to start a discourse on the essence of war.


The naïveté, shallowness and painfully negligent world design make this novel exactly what it is: a YA novel. I've seen people go as far as to compare it with 1984 (even proclaiming it to be its successor), which is, needless to say, critically offensive. If we judge it as a YA novel, especially a sci-fi one, the issues I've mentioned can be tolerated easily. However, if we *attempt* to praise THG for depth and world-building, we find these glaring defects do not permit such a picture. **This post is, in fact, a reaction against that sector within the THG community that seeks to extrapolate THG to a greater level of meaning far too heavy for such a work.**

Many fan theories actually manage to make sense of the story and consistently build up a more respectable philosophy for it. While I do recognize some of these do make sense and even manage to paint THG in a different vibe, I doubt any of these were in fact a clear part of the story's ideation itself. We should appreciate THG having at least *some* attempt at mature themes, though anyone seeking such themes should move on to greater works of literatura as soon as possible, and avoid regarding this trilogy as anything on that level.
gpt
Concerning your points on believability-

North Korea exists. A country split into “districts” where travel is extremely limited or outright banned, inefficient resource harvesting occurs due to mismanagement despite there being better technology in the capital, and of course the capital living in relative wealth while the rural population lives in abject poverty. All led by a one-man figurehead of state.