Never in Your Favour: Precarity, Trust, and Consumption in Suzanne Collins’s <i>The Hunger Games</i> Trilogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suzanne Collins’s The Hunger Games trilogy depicts a world of precarity. Through her construct of the authoritarian Capitol, Collins outlines a particular brand of totalitarian rule that operates not predominantly through fear, as might typically be expected within dystopian fiction, but through denying its citizens the opportunity to form trust bonds. Key to this strategy is the Capitol’s manipulation of foodways: both actual foodstuffs, and the cultural and political systems surrounding their acquisition and consumption. Reading the trilogy and its foodways through the lens of trust theory, this article argues for a new interpretation of Collins’s dystopia. Exploring the shifting control of food in The Hunger Games enables us to witness the micro-negotiations and transitions of trust that take place within the trilogy, which are closely linked to its emphasis on embodiment, community, and self-knowledge. The close connection between such negotiations and the figure of the child or adolescent, and the cultural work he or she is invoked to perform, suggests the significant value of trust as a critical tool through which we might nuance the operations of dystopian and utopian modes within the young adult novel.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".