Hunger Games Flaw

I'm not going to go into any great detail about this because The Hunger Games is a good book that is skillfully enough written that to nitpick details is futile. The book is not aimed at an adult audience, and for that reason has some scenes which do not hold up to scrutiny. And that is fine. The book was written around a certain premise, and everything in the world that the story is set in is supporting that premise.
In short, gladiatorial combat featuring teenagers.

Now to anyone who has spent any length of time in a library, this is not a new concept. The idea of kids fighting each other to death is pretty routine, as is the idea of a reality show where contestants kill each other off has been explored fully and doesn't really need another analysis or review. The concept is simple and the idea interesting enough to provide an evenings entertainment from an armchair. But for some reason, the publisher and reviewers of The Hunger Games seem to have never encountered this premise before and so have reacted as though the Bible is in error and there is actually something new under the sun.

To tell the truth, the book is harmless enough that this error can be forgiven and the story can stand or fall on its own. After reading the first book, and bracing myself for the premiere of the movie later this week, I can confidently say that the book is workman like, adept and done with skill. The author has a story, tells it quickly and moves on. The story grabs the reader quickly and moves along past obvious reality based pitfalls, to provide a satisfying conclusion. What the book doesn't ask is a reader who questions some of it's underpinnings.

But I have to say them in any case. This are the logical arguments which must be suspended to enjoy this book:

1) the society uses the Hunger Games as a way of controlling a population. It keeps them in line and submissive. Actually, these games would have an opposite effect and would certainly incite rebellion. The population is actually more effectively controlled by the limiting of electricity to the districts. That alone would ensure their submission to the central authority.

2) The main female character (Katness) is out of her element when put in the Hunger Games. It would actually be more likely that EVERY child in the region would have daydreamed about what he or she would do if they ever were chosen in the game. Each of them would also have daydreamed about winning the games.

3) Each region would have trained and put forward their own champion every year, without fail. Look at modern sports teams for examples of this. No region would think of not having a skilled person to volunteer if the rewards were available for having a winner.

4) No region would be stunned and cowed by witnessing the death of on of their members. Society doesn't work like that, as is evidenced pretty much anywhere.

5) A gigantic arena would be created every year for the event. Too expensive. Any society would quickly embrace the ideas of recycling locations. The Olympics are in different cities every year, but in the world of the Hunger Games, only the Capitol has the money or ability to host an event of this scale.

6) land mines detonate if the participants step off the platform too quickly. Vastly more likely is a majority of participant would forget about the land mines, or would jump for safety/weapons because the rush of adrenaline would override their senses. In effect, they would forget about the land mines in the heat of battle.

7) The participants would try to win. If the children are actually as stunned and horrified to find themselves in the situation the author has created for them, it is far more likely they would choose suicide before the games begin. Most likely by stepping on the landmines at the beginning.

8) There is a point to the Hunger Games. The more accurate truth is that while it would be possible to create The Hunger Games and align a society around the event, the benefits of doing so would be miniscule and the costs and effort involved tremendous. It would be far more efficient to keep the population under control and deferential to a centralized authority by enacting a societal structure which rewards passivity. For example: capitalism.