This Is Not The Post You Are Looking For...

Every time I see a name brand advertising another name brand (Heinz vinegar and PAAS egg dye) I can't help but get all paranoid: they're in cahoots! Probably even part of the same company!
Warning: Super long critique post. Read at your own risk.
Good morning, again! 2 am seems to be a magical hour for me lately. Creative/critical juices flowing, etc. I knew I wanted to blog, but then didn't know what to write about, until I visited ksl.com and took a gander at this article. It was purely on a whim that I read it, as I've actually been looking for news about new legislation that recently passed making Utah educators' pay performance based - but that's another story which I will tell when I can find anything more recent than last year about it. Conspiracies! Conspiracies everywhere!
Ahem. Right.
The title of the article asks if Hunger Games is worse than Twilight, comparing the protagonists' passivity and in the case of Katniss, her need to play a part to achieve her goals.
First, I didn't see anywhere in the article validation for the title. I mean, throughout the article you can tell he doesn't approve of the Twilight vs. Hunger Games mania, but doesn't craft an argument that would sway anyone to either side, really. Even if one were to agree wholeheartedly with the author, he doesn't manage to prove or disprove "better for teenaged girls" quality in the books. He doesn't actually even pretend to validate arguing for the sake of arguing with a wrap-up line like this: "All in all close look at Katniss' story and actions shows that The Hunger Games probably provides a slightly better example than Twilight, but by how much is unclear." Talk about a passive conclusion. My high school English teacher would've shot that one dead (a-cursed red pen!) even without the obvious lacking word and grammar.
Speaking of passive, he then goes on to address the fact that from the beginning, Peeta and Haymitch are in league trying to protect her. This is all done without her knowledge. A big part of the love story involves the fact that she is completely unaware of Peeta's feelings for her. But more importantly, is that what that is? Is having people who care about you working towards your good without your knowledge an example of your passive nature? 
Then there's the treatment she receives after becoming a tribute that is attacked. Everything is put on by the Capitol which sees the Hunger Games as just that: games. The way I best thought of it is it's like being on Survivor, or the Bachelor/ette, or even American Idol - only deadly. Especially since there's a portion where the audience is directly involved (the "gifts" and judges' placements - so probably more American Idol than the others, but you get my point). You WANT to win their hearts to receive their aid, and since there's really only so far you can get on your own (America, text 5552 to vote to keep this contestant!), you have to win them over by acting a part. "If you're not lying, you're dying" to rearrange the phrase. Exploiting back stories is also a trademark of reality TV, and that's exactly what these games are. And remember, in her case it's her life at stake, not a shot at a million dollar recording contract.
Then of course, yes, she is used as a pawn. Her behavior basically highlights her to the Resistance as the perfect face for their subtle campaign. Again, did she even know there was a resistance? Was she aware that doing what she felt was right in extreme situations would elevate her to such a status?
As for the social media attack ("It's possible to change the world, to make things better, but only if you have a cute, fashion-centric and cleverly constructed media campaign.") Um, hello? This is true NOW! (*cough*KONY 2012*cough*) Why wouldn't it be even more so in a morally corrupt, post-apocalyptic society?
And finally, the most nit-picky part(s) of my critique are his lack of pre-post editing and straying from his area of expertise. There were several occasions of re-reading a sentence thinking my sleep deprived brain was playing tricks on me only to see that, no, there weren't enough words in that sentence for it to make sense. I may do that once in a while despite my proofing, but this is for "the news" and maybe should be given a little more attention.
Then, he's the writer and manager for the science section. So, why should I care what he thinks about teen lit? Especially when it's got nothing to do with the science?
Anyway, to wrap up, I obviously think there's really no comparison between "Bella passivity" and "Katniss passivity", but that doesn't mean that I think either protagonist deserves role model status. I'm much more a fan of "Team Real People" like Florence Nightingale, Marie Curie, Esther, Rosa Parks, Molly Pitcher, etc. for a few women, Ghandi, the Buddha, Christ, John Muir, Andrew Carnegie, etc. for a few men.
Forgive the randomness of the list. It's early. 
And of course, they're all real people so they're not real perfect (with one obvious exception), which actually makes them better role models in my mind.
So when people ask my kids who they want to be like when they grow up, I hope I've taught them that people who've actually overcome obstacles, changed themselves and others around them, taught others a better way, or effectively changed their world - these are the people to look up to, and I hope these are the people my children talk about.
Heaven forbid they ever say they want to be like me! 
Unless, of course, I turn out awesome.