Actually, it's because the audience wants it to be so.

Not really, they have no problem with the violence - the real issue is the reasons for it, and being forced to do so at the behest of those in power. The book is not about reality TV, it's about war and slavery, and the nature of power and oppression. The Hunger Games are the War on Terror, and ObamaCare, and the PATRIOT Act, and the Federal Reserve, and segregation, and affirmative action and every evil perpetuated by totalitarian governments or oppressive institutions to maintain their power. The Games are not about entertainment for the masses (who don't really seem to like them), they are about keeping the masses downtrodden and the more privileged content & complacent under the rule of the elite.


Like reading an Animorphs book. It's kind of devoid of substance, so reading it is like eating a glass of water - not particularly challenging and goes down without any effort.

The real draw of the story and the series, IMO, is the allegory of oppression. The book said what needed to be said early on, and by the time you get to the actual games, it's just padding to spell out explicitly the ramifications for its immature target audience who might not grasp all the implications from an expository description of the Hunger Games, and sentimentality. If this were directed at adults, it would suffice as a short story.


Yes, no one tries to write tough or smart characters anymore. It's nice that they did this.

Not really. They are both blank characters on whom the reader can project himself and in this case, understand the point the author is trying make by sympathizing with the degredation the character undergoes. She is the anti-Bella in that she is there to make a point about how bad and random her world is, whereas Bella is there to show how awesome her love interests are and to let the reader enjoy her adventures vicariously.

I don't think that sort of thing is necessary in this case (even though I'm usually a fan of world-building), because the point seems to be the result and the effects of Panem's form of rule. Does it really matter what species of oppressor is in charge? Too much detail and we risk a political screed, like Ayn Rand seems to be, or other works that have degenerated into specific grudges.

That would be interesting.

Maybe after I read them. I am kind of hesitant about it, because as far as I'm concerned, the first book made it's point. I'm not particularly invested in the characters, and not sure that continuing the story would not be just pointless fan service and a silly "scrappy rebels inexplicably take down the oppressor" tale or worse, "a Mary-Sue inspires the masses by not really doing all that much"(like Terry Goodkind, for example) On the other hand, if the author maintains the higher ideals implied in the first book, there are a lot of good places the series can go too. For instance, the "real games are just beginning" notion alluded to above - In addition to the mechanics of oppression, the Games could very well serve as a means of singling out would be troublemakers and rebel leaders or rallying points. All we really know about the life of a winner/survivor is that they are housed in special locations and circumstances and forced to participate in other ways (as Haymitch was effectively compelled to be a pimp in order to help Katniss & the guy, and to play the game in a completely different arena, which nonetheless makes him complicit in the atrocity in a fashion).