The Hunger Games Map
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ...
Add to favorites 
Processing your request, Please wait....
Leave a comment ?
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ...Add to favorites 
December 13, 2011 at 10:21 pm
Is this supposed to be cool or something? Wikipedia says it’s a series for young adults published by Scholastic Books. I’ve never heard of it at all. Is it because I’m an adult, or does it just suck. Not judgin, I’m just sayin cause I don’t know.
December 13, 2011 at 10:45 pm
I don’t know.
December 13, 2011 at 11:01 pm
These zones are entirely labeled wrong in the second map.
1, 2, and 3 will most likely be mineral mining.
4 will be oil, which won’t necessarily preclude fishing, but hinder it.
5 is sure as shit agriculture. There is no question what so ever in that.
6, also agriculture with a small helping of coal.
7 is the one that pisses me off the most. There is a lot of lumber in the western portion of the district, but the eastern has almost literally no lumber resources. The east portion is going to be oil, all oil, nothing but oil.
8 is agriculture. This does not dismiss textiles, but that gets covered a bit later.
9 has literally zero energy resources to speak of. There is no way for them to be electricity producers with the exception of farming wind, which should take place in district 7. This district will also be nearly entirely agriculture with the exception of northern Minnesota, which is a huge steel producer.
10… 10 is correct.
11 is agriculture, but not the same agriculture as the rest. This is where textiles come from.
12 is mostly correct.
13 doesn’t have much uranium to speak of (that all comes from central Canada), but they do have a lot of graphite. I give this one a half correct.
Whoever made this map has absolutely no idea about the distribution of resources in America.
December 14, 2011 at 3:17 am
If this is a book for young adults, then it’s teaching them bad geography at a minimum. the mean elevation of the state of Kansas is 2,000 ft. In the state of Oregon, part of the coast range and all the Cascade range are taller than than. Ditto for California’s Sierra Nevada mountain range and Washington state’s Olympic mountains. Additionally, everything east of the Cascades in Oregon and Washington is 2,500+ ft., yet all of Oregon, Washington, and California are underwater and all of Kansas is dry. WTF?
December 14, 2011 at 4:58 am
thank you.
December 14, 2011 at 8:33 am
I don’t know these books but are Canada and Mexico seriously screwed?