One of my more interesting weekends as a McConnell Scholar was spent not long ago with our guest speaker, Amy Sturgis. Sturgis is an incredible intellectual with a wide range of expertise (I recently happily stumbled upon an article of hers in Reason magazine) and I have enjoyed the time I have gotten to spend in her seminars and lectures as far back as Freshman year.
That weekend held a multitude of events -- we really ran the gauntlet of topics, from dystopian literature to the Indian removal to economic philosophy. What was interesting though, was the disparity between to of the events in particular.
One of the best seminars I have taken part in during my entire tenure as a McConnell Scholar was our discussion on Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom." This was a very thought-provoking, intriguing, and (most importantly) challenging conversation, and I grew incredibly by being a part of it. It was substantive, full of specifics, and each of of the scholars challenged the others and made us question, think, and reexamine.
However, I cannot say the same about our seminar on "The Hunger Games." If you have read the book, you most likely know that it is an excellent read, and, if you are familiar with dystopian literature, you might have picked up on some of the themes reminiscent of "1984" and the like. However, "The Hunger Games" is not "1984," and that might be something that we did not realize.
I am not saying there are no quality metaphors and allusions throughout the novel. However, I am saying that the majority of our time in the seminar was spent stretching metaphors, connecting dots that were not meant to be connected, and drawing conclusions that were never meant to be drawn. The three or four strong messages in the book were exhausted early on, and the rest of our time saw us repeating each other, drifting away on tangents, and scrambling to find our next comment.
This, I think, was a great lesson for everyone. While one could definitely learn lessons from "The Hunger Games," perhaps it was not the best work to spend a two-hour seminar discussing. I would argue that our time is much better spent discussing works such as Hayek's and participating in that sort of substantive conversation.
There is a time and place for works such as "The Hunger Games," and when looking at the goals and direction of the McConnell Center, this is not it.
Every event should be as wonderful as Sturgis' Hayek event, and we should be wary of events centered around popular culture.
Max Morley
That weekend held a multitude of events -- we really ran the gauntlet of topics, from dystopian literature to the Indian removal to economic philosophy. What was interesting though, was the disparity between to of the events in particular.
One of the best seminars I have taken part in during my entire tenure as a McConnell Scholar was our discussion on Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom." This was a very thought-provoking, intriguing, and (most importantly) challenging conversation, and I grew incredibly by being a part of it. It was substantive, full of specifics, and each of of the scholars challenged the others and made us question, think, and reexamine.
However, I cannot say the same about our seminar on "The Hunger Games." If you have read the book, you most likely know that it is an excellent read, and, if you are familiar with dystopian literature, you might have picked up on some of the themes reminiscent of "1984" and the like. However, "The Hunger Games" is not "1984," and that might be something that we did not realize.
I am not saying there are no quality metaphors and allusions throughout the novel. However, I am saying that the majority of our time in the seminar was spent stretching metaphors, connecting dots that were not meant to be connected, and drawing conclusions that were never meant to be drawn. The three or four strong messages in the book were exhausted early on, and the rest of our time saw us repeating each other, drifting away on tangents, and scrambling to find our next comment.
This, I think, was a great lesson for everyone. While one could definitely learn lessons from "The Hunger Games," perhaps it was not the best work to spend a two-hour seminar discussing. I would argue that our time is much better spent discussing works such as Hayek's and participating in that sort of substantive conversation.
There is a time and place for works such as "The Hunger Games," and when looking at the goals and direction of the McConnell Center, this is not it.
Every event should be as wonderful as Sturgis' Hayek event, and we should be wary of events centered around popular culture.
Max Morley