Have only read the first two, so cannot comment on the ending. The first two seem to have(at least) an anti-big-govt bent. Those opposing the big-govt are the heros.
I took it as a struggle against oppression and a fight for freedom. I think the ending was a warning to not become that which you despised and fought against to begin with.
Only read the first one, and it seems to be a similar to the great classic Sci/Fi/Horror book “The Long Walk” by Stephen King. It seemed to me to be science fiction and I did not read much into it politically. To me it was a fun enjoyable novel.
I think the theme of the books is you can’t keep the human spirit down forever. Eventually the natural yearning for liberty will overcome any repression. I also think the world of the Hunger Games is a fictional representation of North Korea. People there are running the gauntlet not to entertain the elite but to escape, but everything else is eerily similar to that country.
I’ve read all three books. The political commentary is not as cut and dried as “Conservative vs. Liberal”. It’s more like an all powerful state abusing its citizens, a spark ignites revolution and what the state will do to keep power.
The message of the book is reminiscint of the message in 1984 - all powerful government is inherently corrupt and evil - but they don’t really get to that part of the story until the 2nd book and it’s not really emphasized until the 3rd.
There was a strong anti-tyrrany message to the books. However, I did NOT like the ending of the third book. Maybe the author was just tired of writing.
Which to me amounts to a political version of "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
I think that happens in every society, because the hearts of fallen mankind are evil. There is none truly righteous, not one.
Now, because of the grace of God, both specific and general, it isn't as bad as it could be (see: Hell), and in some bright spots (see: America, 1789 - 1913), some civilized peoples can be really righteous. But nothing lasts forever.
I think the author was right to include the element of "new boss, same as the old boss."
If it had a conservative message it would not be promoted by Scholastic would it?
even if the books had as conservative message, you know the Hollyweird version won’t.
I read it for entertainment purposes, not for some political reason. If I am going to read a book on politics, I would go into the current affairs section of Barnes and Nobles and chose a book from one of the conservative folks. The Hunger Games is just fun. Just go to the movie and enjoy it. I recommend waiting a few days after the opening because it is going to be jam packed for a while. It will easily be the number one film for a couple weeks.
To answer your questions, I would have to say that the books are essentially conservative, whether the author intended them to be or not. After-all, the Left loves big government that controls nearly every aspect of ones life. The Left hates independence and self-sufficiency. The Left enforces political correctness so that truth and reality are denied. I think I could go on and on identifying the various aspects of Liberalism that were on display in the novels, but I will stop with these. In contrast, Conservatism values independence and self-sufficiency, small government and a repudiation of political correctness and controlled thought and speech. Katniss survived (before the games) by illegally hunting (a big Liberal taboo) to provide for her family. She showed great independence and an unwillingness to think as the government expected her to.
As for “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”, I didn't get that message at the very end. I seems to me that her actions (without giving too much away to those who haven't read the books) prevented that specific outcome. (That is not so say that it wouldn't or couldn't happen in the future.
Each ofthe "hderoic" charectorsw is independent and values their family, the anti heros depend on the government or a members fothe government.
In additoon the district that was 'destroyed" is pretty much self sufficient.
What did you think was the ultimate political message of the books?
None. At least nothing overt/deliberate. Dystopias and mortal combat arenas are common & popular literary/movie themes (1984, The Running Man, Surviving the Game, Equilibrium). Hunger Games, I'm finding, amounts to a Rorschach Test: people are finding in it whatever cause/concern/outrage they want to find.
Of course, the setting demands a political concern. The depicted society is a brutal central government demanding much of the barely-surviving districts, with the Games an overt reminder to the governed that the central power can, and will, destroy any who oppose it. The author was inspired by TV coverage of Bush sending troops into Iraq - garnering accusations of Leftist intent in the story - while conservatives will see the depiction of a hard-suffering flyover country having fruits of their labors confiscated by a faraway central elite who lives it up with lavish extravagances - garnering accusations that our current administration is well on the way there.
Because I've heard some conservatives claiming that it's a politically conservative message, but I'm not convinced.
It is. Actually it's a Libertarian message, because whatever the motivations of the central power, the goal of the protagonist is freedom, self-sufficiency, independence, and caring for one's own.
I'll see how the next two books play out.