Momma Snider wrote:I have to say, the premise didn't appeal to me. I didn't know the word Rob used, dystopian, but it's depressing.
That's essentially the point. Dystopian is the opposite of Utopian, so the setting is supposed to be a little depressing, off-kilter, and just this side of implausible. Then we see how the characters deal with that twisted world.
The wholly ironic thing about the words is that the book Utopia
by Sir Thomas More is the original use of the word Utopia, as far as I know. Yet, in the book he describes a perfectly dystopian society. It has sparked much debate as to whether he intended it to be a Utopia or Dystopia, many believe that he knew it was not Utopian. Thus, it is ironic that we now use the word Utopia to describe a perfect society when, in fact, the man who first coined the word (back in the early 1500s) may have actually wanted it to describe the opposite.
It makes me laugh a little about the choice of names for the super-high-speed internet broadband company available in many places in Utah who have called themselves: UTOPIA. They are supposed to be the best end-all-be-all system to get your internet connection, but after using government funds to beat down the competition, then more taxes, then millions upon millions of the sales tax revenue for multiple cities in Utah County... Utopia may still fail and end up leaving citizens with debt, or unpaid bonds. If that happens, Utopia will then mean exactly what Sir Thomas More likely intended it to mean, which is sad for Utah, but also interesting.
Also, if I do move to Utah soon, I might sign up with Utopia. There's a conundrum for you.
P.S. I agree that The Hunger Games does have a lot of good things to discuss. I don't completely detract my statement that it's mostly eye-candy reading, but after some comments here and upon further reflection, I concede that there is at least a certain amount of good discussions that are sparked by the reading of the books.