Heard of "The Hunger Games?" If you haven't yet, you will soon. The popular young adult trilogy is being made into a movie, coming out in March. (Confession: I am a Hunger Games maniac. I read the first book, then ordered the second two online, but couldn't even wait long enough for them to arrive. I was at The Strand purchasing the books about 20 minutes after I ordered them.)
Anyways! People are looking at "The Hunger Games" as the next "Twilight," and you know what comes with being one of those mega-popular series: a mega-explosion of little babies named after the books. For "Twilight," this looked like mini Bellas, Alices, Rosalies, Jaspers and Emmetts. For "The Hunger Games," according to baby name site Nameberry, it's already looking like little Katnisses, Primroses, Gales and Peetas.
This makes me wonder -- why, with the popularity of the Harry Potter series, were those names never looked at as inspiration? Are they just to British/just too weird? I mean, it would have to be a really good book to consider the name Hermione. Let's take a look at the Social Security naming data and see whether Harry and friends even made a dent in the rankings.
Nope, nothing. Hermione (surprise!) has never cracked the top 1,000 names in America, and Harry and Ronald have both been on steady descents since at least the 1940s.
Tell us: What do you think of movie- and book-based names? Would you ever consider naming your child after one? And why not the Harry Potter names?