I have been drawn back into The Hunger Games Trilogy again and have been wondering why.  Overall, dystopia is not my favorite genre.  During the time that these movies were coming out, I noticed that there were a lot of this style of novel on the youth bestseller lists, and I started wondering why, since that is not where I spent my time reading as a youth or young adult.  I decided to read several of them in an attempt to better understand.   Common themes in dystopias are about control, loss of individuality, censorship, rigid class systems that bring a lot of inequality and injustice, and lots of destruction.

This trilogy, like so many others, is about a government ‘gone wrong’.  Interesting.   Many of these youth bestseller dystopias have been published after 9/11.  That makes sense as that was a very shocking moment in American history.  It changed many things for many people.

One thing that all these books have in common is that it is focused on top-down government.  In The Giver, Ender’s Game, and Lord of the Flies, the story is focused on the characters involved or oppressed more than painting a picture of how the government has the power to enforce its wishes on the people.  All for the good of the community is a common theme.   

What are the authors of history and fiction trying to tell us?

In The Hunger Games, there is a lot of focus on the characters in book 1.  You see the government in the background, but it is in the shadows.  In books 2 & 3, the government is not in the shadows but comes to center stage through the eyes of the characters. It is slowly revealed to us as the characters are struggling to understand it themselves.   I have been pondering this quote from Chapter 6 of Mockingjay recently,
 
“Everyone,” Plutarch tells him. “We’re going to form a republic where the people of each district and the Capitol can elect their own representatives to be their voice in a centralized government. Don’t look so suspicious; it’s worked before.”
 “In books,” Haymitch mutters.
“In history books,” says Plutarch. “And if our ancestors could do it, then we can, too.”
Frankly, our ancestors don’t seem much to brag about. I mean, look at the state they left us in, with the wars and the broken planet. Clearly, they didn’t care about what would happen to the people who came after them. But this republic idea sounds like an improvement over our current government.
“And if we lose?” I ask.
“If we lose?” Plutarch looks out at the clouds, and an ironic smile twists his lips. “Then I would expect next year’s Hunger Games to be quite unforgettable.    (Collins, Suzanne. The Hunger Games Trilogy (p. 720). Scholastic Inc.. Kindle Edition.  
 
Ouch.  We were a republic with republican ideas, and what are we leaving our children?  Now I can argue that we have not gotten this bad, as we don’t have gladiator competitions like in The Hunger Games.   Interesting that Suzanne Collins uses a lot of Roman History ideas in her stories to connect us to the past. What parts in her story indicate we are on the same path?  Do we focus on appearance and anti-aging techniques?  Is the media limited and controlled?   Are we divided into districts that keep us isolated and alone?  Do we feel that our future is not bright? 

How far do we have to go before we don’t care that society is robbing our youth of a future, figuratively or literally?  Or that we are being robbed of our future? 

If the answer is yes, what do we do about it?  What can we do about it? 

Do we have any evidence of where top-down government has succeeded long-term?  Does everything become better for everyone?  People are happy, family is thriving?  Do we have any evidence of where bottom- up government succeeded long term?  Failed long term?

Why?  Why do they fail, and why do they succeed?

How do we take all these ideas and make sense of them? What does this story lead you to believe is right and good? What principles does the evidence lead us to? 

​I don’t know if I would have picked up on this idea as much when I read this book, had I not been reading Trust Works first.

In the early days, Jim Kettleman shares some of the ideas he was taught to live by. One of those statements is:
  “Don’t trust anybody, not even me. To trust is a weakness. It ain’t necessarily that folks are bad, but they are weak or afraid. Be strong. Be your own man. Go your own way, but whatever you do, don’t go crossways of other folks’ beliefs" (L’Amour, Louis. Flint: A Novel (p. 17). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition).

I have been thinking about his definitions of Trust and wondering what my beliefs are.

What is the definition of trust? Why does he think that trust is a weakness?

Are there parts of this quote that are wrong? What are those parts? Are there correct parts? What are those parts?

American Heritage’s online definition of Trust:
1. Firm belief in the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing; confidence or reliance.
“trying to gain our clients’ trust; taking it on trust that our friend is telling the truth.”
2. The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one.
“violated a public trust.”
3. One in which confidence is placed.

I think part of the truth is that people CAN be weak and afraid. And when we have fears, we don’t always act with what we know is right. Jim can pick out examples in his life where his belief not to trust protected him. But is that the best way to live?

I think we can find examples in our own lives where trusting someone harmed us. But can we also find examples in our lives that trusting someone helped us? What lessons do we learn from that?

I also think that we need to be strong and that we need to be our own person in the sense that we do what we think is best and, after listening to or considering all the options, make our own decisions about what to do and live.
But I also believe it is a weakness not to be able to trust anyone, to counsel or get support from people. I can’t imagine how lonely that life would be. I am an external processor. I have to work outside my thinking to resolve issues and decide what to do. Should I trust and listen to every voice? No.

Trust is a simple word but a very complex idea. Reading Ken Blanchard’s Trust Works was very helpful because it shared actions that could be measured and connected to Trust. I find that I have reflected on these ideas several times since learning about his ABCD Trust Model. Jim had a lot of areas he could check off in this model, but there were several areas he was really weak in, especially in the Connected box.

As I have been reflecting on some of the things that I have learned from reading Flint. This is one of the areas. I have thought a lot more about what trust looks like and how we show trust to people.

A quote that I want to take issue with: "Books are friends that will never fail you. You are going into a hard world" (L’Amour, Louis. Flint: A Novel (p. 17). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition).

I don’t believe this is 100% true. I believe it very much matters which books you read. If the book is based on false premises, the book will fail you. It will lead you astray, especially if the author or the work has the intention to try to sway the reader’s allegiance towards bad or wrong ideas.

I like this point from The Healing Power of Stories by Daniel Taylor:
   “We should evaluate these core stories by the highest criteria and act accordingly if they are found wanting. We can heal our stories and choose new ones, for instance, by becoming true, acting characters rather than mere personalities. Characters are defined by their choices, and their choices are a reflection of their values and understanding of the world. Your most meaningful stories should be chosen, not lived by default.” (p. 125).

To me, one of the things that makes this book a good story is that you can see that Jim is wrestling with some of his teachings and seeing that they might not be 100% accurate. We get to see that Jim will change some of his beliefs. And if Jim can change, so can we. We can change and refine our beliefs as we go along in life.