Now, for a somewhat unpopular opinion about The Hunger Games —and I know it’s unpopular, and people are free to disagree, since I certainly don't have a monopoly on the truth.
It’s a bit of an unpopular take and just a personal frustration of mine, but I don't think the prequel-era books (specifically the Snow one, i am not interested in reading the Haymitch one) were very well thought out. I mean, they’re great — I won’t lie, they’re good — but the fact that Suzanne wanted everything to be interconnected or have some deeper meaning makes things feel kind of... tedious (to me). I would have loved to see Suzanne focus on any other aspect of Panem in the books besides the Hunger Games themselves.
It was just a personal frustration of mine, but when she announced the Snow book, as a law student, I was expecting something more political. I wanted to see the politics of Panem and its legal system—how he became president, his campaign, how he dealt with rivals, the election laws, whether there was a senate, or how he managed to stay in power for so long. Was he democratically elected? Did he stage a coup and become a dictator? I had so many questions, so when I picked up The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, I was just like... 😐😐😐. Is that it? It’s good, but like I said, it wasn't what I was expecting, you know?
And don't get me wrong—I know it’s a dystopia—but a political landscape where we see no opposition, whether implicit or explicit, feels a bit too far-fetched to me. Speaking as someone from a country that went through two military dictatorships (or three, if you count the 1889 coup as a military one) and imprisoned a former president who tried to stage a coup, I sometimes find the books feel very "American." I also think Snow gets too much credit for things; he surely had a team feeding him ideas about the Games.