It's kind of already been said, but in response to Hap's question:
I don't think dystopian is defined by the world sucking or by the rebellion against said sucky world. Most dystopian novels start out telling us how fantastic their world is now that love, disease, death, free will, etc. has been eradicated, then we quickly find out how that is all a bunch of crap. This of course doesn't include HG, which starts out telling us how bad The Capitol is. And rebelling against the oppression doesn't necessarily define the dystopia either, though I think you're right in that I can't think of a single dystopia where the characters don't rebel against the problem in some way. That could have more to do with the fact that who would read a book if the characters didn't do something interesting like try to right the wrongs of the world. I guess, like others have said, dystopia is about a repressive society, even if they try to pretend their oppression is for your own good. If the oppressive society wasn't the main thread/antagonist of the story, then there wouldn't be a need to set your story in a dystopian setting. You wouldn't need that kind of setting to write a book about a boy telling his family he is gay, or kids surviving/dying from cancer, or falling in love with the bad boy. You can have those things in a dystopia, but if the dystopia doesn't affect them, than what's the point of writing that setting.
