First of all, there are the obvious parallels between the rebellion against Panem and the Arab Spring of 2011, as well as the Occupy movement. When I brought this up, I was surprised to find out many students knew little-to-nothing about Tunisia or Tahrir Square, let alone the 99%. The fictional revolution and the real ones certainly have similarities, but probably more differences. While both the real world protestors and the revolutionaries of the Hunger Games utilized civil disobedience, the real people have been much more democratic in their methods. There is currently no equivalent to President Coin, no single group masterminding the Arab Spring or the Occupy movement. There's also no Katniss in the real world, not this time around. The socialist revolutionaries of the previous century certainly had their emblematic figureheads, and characters like Haymitch are hellbent on turning Katniss into a Che Guevara. Unlike Che, though, she is naive and usually motivated by her drive to save only her loved ones. Only in climactic moments of clarity does Katniss see outside her small sphere of concern to realize the bigger game in which she is an unlikely player (i.e. the berries and the forcefield).
Another important social criticism seething between the lines has to do with media manipulation. In Collins' future world, the revolution must be televised (RIP Mr. Heron). The government of Panem uses what we now call "reality television" to control the masses through the Hunger Games. The rebels utilize the same platform to begin their revolution, using the Quarter Quell, and the popular heroes gathered therein, as their springboard. Then, they continue to build support for their cause by broadcasting Katniss' contrived forays into the war. Through these experiences, she realizes the influence she has due to her heroic status in the hearts of the populace. This hero status is, of course, based on her performances in the Hunger Games, a media event. The question I find myself asking is, "could this book have been written before Survivor?" I don't think so. The Hunger Games is a uniquely contemporary invention, and ingeniously so.
So, there they are, two parallels to our own society. But what is Collins saying about them? I think that's a rather complicated question to answer, which is something I love about these books. Her fictional revolution, while seemingly well-intentioned, has a serious dark side. There's Coin, the Stalin-like, would-be president who gets murdered by the hero before she has the chance to assume total power. Then there's Haymitch and Plutarch Heavensbee, supposed good guys who carry out a program of coercion and manipulation to accomplish the takedown of Panem, and for whom the ends certainly justify the means. District 13 itself seems like a somewhat more friendly version of Panem, one that dehumanizes by means of schedules and uniforms, rather than by violence and intimidation.
So, is Collins telling us to be wary of politicians? Is this a cautionary tale for would-be revolutionaries, warning them to be careful of repeating history and putting another Napoleon or Caesar in power? (All the character names from The Tragedy of Julius Caesar were not lost on my sophomores.) Or is this a hero story of a more mythological type? Is Katniss another Theseus saving her people from the Minotaur? Is her journey a metaphor for our own?
