#hunger games character analysis

[triassictriserratops]

Don't mind me. I'm just crying and imagining being Peeta Mellark.

Growing up being berated and abused. Being the extra mouth to feed. Not the firstborn. Not the best wrestler. Not the daughter. Not perfect. Growing up watching a hunter sing to birds. Watching him hold and love his daughters and his wife. Seeing him take time out of his mining schedule to take his daughter to her first day of school. Growing up watching a girl sing like her father. Growing up watching her her love and protect her sister fiercely. Watching her lose her song. Watching her become the hunter. Become the protector. Watching her step on a stage to protect the sister that meant everything to her. Going into a conversation with your mentor to explore what you can both do to get this girl back to her sister. Weighing the cost of your life and deciding that more will suffer if she doesn't return to her family versus your own family - which would maybe even be better off if you didn't. Deciding to put your heart on a cutting board for the whims of Capitol delight - all to use as propaganda to make this girl important to a fickle crowd. Digging your own grave and laying in the mud, waiting to die. Hoping it was all enough. Hoping she'll win, but knowing that - odds are - you'll die never knowing. Waking up to her gray eyes above you. Looking for you. Pulling you out of the earth. Saving YOU. Risking herself for YOU. Running into danger for YOU. Experiencing the same protection she so readily gives her sister. As if you MATTER. Against all odds, getting out. Surviving. Together. Being willing to die - for her or with her. But SURVIVING. Not together. Not the way you thought. It wasn't real.

[shyjusticewarrior]

Haymitch spent time in the District 12 woods with Burdock and Lenore Dove, so he'd know what nightlock looks like.

When Peeta was collecting the nightlock Haymitch must've been so scared he was gonna die the same way Lou Lou did.

[puriteenism]

As someone with a fear of pregnancy, I usually hate the "afraid of pregnancy but has a baby anyway for him!!!" trope. I think its misogynistic and reduces the pain and terror and high chance of death that pregnancy presents. Despite this, I love the Hunger Games and its ending, where Katniss ends up happy with her children and Peeta, whereas usually I'd roll my eyes. Heres why I think that is.

My fear of pregnancy is mostly centred around pain/uncomfortability, which is what most main characters think about when the pregnancy trope is involved. They dont want to go through the body and mind altering/often destroying process pregnancy is (and before someone jumps down my throat im not anti pregnancy i just think ppl should be informed its very dangerous). So when the author plops them with a baby at the end bc they just love their lover so much, it feels... ignorant. Like theyre ignoring all the pain that they feel as though love can override it and presenting the only way they can truly be happy is if they have a baby. Its gross and I hate it.

But Katniss' fears arent about that. Theyre about having children who are born into the games, not the inherent horror of childbirth. Its more about bringing children into a world she knows will eat them alive and spit them out broken or dead or both. So when they end the book and theyve taken down the Capitol and there are no more hunger games, that bruden is lifted. Existing, having her children isnt shown as an obligation for her to be happy or complete and it isnt shown as her pushing through the fears of pain bc she loved peeta so much, its more of a screw you to the capitol. She is allowed to have her children, her private and raise them in a world that she is no longer afraid to have them in. And yes, Peeta plays a part in it, because what more to counter your fear of children in an uncertain world than a man you can always be certain will love you and them?

Its not a strong woman being told "you need a family and a man to be complete after telling the narrative repeatedly how you dont want that" its a "we have broken down the barriers that were previously holding you back, and you can be free now to have your family and it will be so radically different than you were expecting and that will fulfil you." They arent just children, theyre a representative of her triumph over the capitol. She fought to have them.

I know this makes no sense, she just means a lot to me.

[winters-rose-daughterofcain]

Here’s the thing with Peeta. Because he's viewed exclusively through the pov of someone in love with him and because at first glance a lot of his flaws are more palatable or easy to brush off they often are. However, low self-esteem, self-worth, and self-image dose not a perfect person make. The devaluing of your own life and impact on others is a flaw, especially when it leads to underestimating how much people need you and abandoning them even if in little ways. Projecting your own low opinion of yourself onto others actions towards you and assigning them motives that indicate an insult is understandable, especially when you’ve grown up in an environment where you were under regular verbal abuse and the intent and motive was negative and demeaning, but it’s still a flaw. Bottling up/repressing anger and withdrawing when hurt until it comes out in long stretches of cool distance and bad communication or uncharacteristic outbursts is a flaw. Going along with demeaning and inappropriate social behaviours towards the girl you love because you can understand there is a joke you’re not in on and are trying to adapt socially and blend in the midst of an unfamiliar and scary situation is shitty, insensitive teen boy behaviour. Understandable, and apologised for, but a flaw. Using an ability with words and charm to deflect moments of vulnerability isn’t exactly a flaw but it’s not open or honest.

He’s stubborn and logical and can be quit ruthless when he needs to be. He’s perfectionistic and overly self critical and doesn’t seem to like being praised even as being seen as stupid, weak, and lesser are clearly a sore spot and will assign those ideas about himself onto others even with little to no evidence that’s what their thinking. He avoids violence yet can lash out in anger when finally pushed too far. He gets frustrated and stubborn and closes himself off. He’s lonely and isolated and scared and seventeen and every flaw is so completely understandable. But ignoring them diminishes just how wonderful everything else about him is! 

How kind and generous and thoughtful and intelligent he is, how precise and purposeful he is, how respectful and patient. He is hope and gentleness and the calm of the sunset on something better, he’s artistic and creative and nurturing. It wouldn’t matter as much if it didn’t come with negative sides. His kindness wouldn’t be as impactful if he didn’t have to choose it and work for it, kindness is a skill in a lot of ways it’s something that can be practised, kindness is something you choose and he chooses it over and over and over again, he chooses it over anger. His moments of vulnerability and openness wouldn’t mean anything if he was always like that, if it wasn’t earned and if he didn’t try and avoid it. The moments he thaws and comforts wouldn’t mean as much if it was constant, if he didn’t also withdraw and shutdown, if he’s not choosing this. Choosing the right thing over and over again.

Because yeah, Peeta’s baseline philosophy and nature is kindness, but you don’t get as good at it as he is, especially not in the environment and world he was raised in, without making the choice to reach for. And stripping him of his flaws not only makes him a far less interesting and realistic character but also takes away a lot of his agency and a lot of what makes his brilliant moments so good. He’s a scared traumatised seventeen year old trying his best, trying over and over again to choose the right thing, and sometimes he doesn’t, sometimes he missteps or his plans don’t work or an insecurity manifests in a way unfair to both him and those around him. But he tries so hard to do the right thing and goddam it he deserves a few flaws.

[effieotto]

since this lovely lady blocked me, i’ll have to work with a screenshot (i could have not mentioned her at all, but like i said before, when i want to direct something to an specific person and not a pattern behavior, i mention their names. And since i can’t mention their names, that’s the only way i have)

“Only cared about Katniss and Peeta when she thought they would help her get there” Did she?

Effie was described as taking care of them since the second they stepped into the trem. She made sure Katniss was comfortable and well settled, as well as informed by their schedule, which we know that wasn’t part of her job. As soon as they reached the Capitol, Effie again assumes a position that wasn’t required from her, and starts sweet-talking sponsors and using her connections to work around the situation Haymitch had created during the reaping, so Katniss and Peeta would get better chances of getting sponsorships —which, as we all know, was no guarantee that they would even have a chance to win the Games. A sponsor was just the way to make sure their time inside the Arena would be easier, and Effie was aiming to that. And she did it all before knowing how promising Katniss and Peeta were. Actually, for all she knew, Katniss was going to be a disaster. She was reckless and dangerous and Effie had seen how those actions were extremely risky for them all.

But fine, you wanna argue that she was only treating them nicely (cause you can’t argue that she wasn’t treating them nicely) because she saw in them the potential to move up for a better District? Okay, so let’s talk about Effie in Sunrise on the Reaping.

Since her first appearance, Haymitch describes her as a nice person. She is kind, she is compromised and she does her absolute best to make sure they’re all comfortable and well treated. You can’t say she was doing it out of anything but kindness —since she made sure that she was not taking credit for none of the things she helped in the Quell. She wanted to be in the shadow— they were not advantageous to her

“That women wanted to work in the middle of child murder” Did she? Can you guarantee that?

In both the scenarios where Effie got involved in the Games, either from being dragged as their “not quite stylist” by Drusilla or becoming Twelve’s Escort, we can’t say she had any saying on the matter. Drusilla had tagged her along with the team with not much of an invitation and Plutarch said (very clearly) that he’d pitched her —not specifying how active she was on this decision. So, based solely on the books and not in the things you took out of your mind, there is no way for us to know how much she wanted to be there

“was rude and looked down on district people unless they were advantageous to her”

I could bring here many scenes to prove that Effie never, in four books, treated her tributes as they were not deserved of comfort and affection, but i don’t think we have enough space for that. She might have her disturbing ideas (that were carved into her scowl since birth from a very powerful and constant propaganda that was designed to make her believe District people were worthless) and she was wrong in state that District people were savages. No one is arguing with that. But she voicing her believes and her treating them as they were worth less than her is two completely different things. And this isn’t true:

Here, i said i wouldn’t bring scenes after scenes to prove my point, but i will bring this one. Effie is helping her sister to “beautify” the tributes (which was pretty much everything that guaranteed them enough money to result in Haymitch not starving to death in the Games), but instead of demanding and forcing her way, she asked Maysilee’s opinion on the matter. Unlike Drusilla, who treated them as animals and didn’t give a shit to what they felt or had to say, Effie respected her enough as a person to grant Maysilee the right to share her opinion and influence her job as equally capable —you can’t say this shows how she “looked down at them”, cause she did not.

•

But if you want to use Suzanne Collins to support your argument, here is what she said about Effie:

“You can see her clinging to good manners for reassurance of humanity's decency. But in terms of the Hunger Games, Effie being assigned as their escort was a lucky break for District 12. She might be ridiculous, but she's not malicious.”

In conclusion, although you have all the right to dislike and not support the character (which is fine, not everyone can handle a morally gray character), let’s not distort the things we got from the books just to justify our hate, shall we? Effie Trinket has always being a character which main purpose was to highlight that, despite being very supportive of an oppressive system, and having a direct impact into child murder (willingly or not), she always did it with kindness and humanity. She was controversial and problematic, but she was not intentionally rude, or malicious. She was a kind person —maybe not in the convencional way you want, but she was. There is nothing you can do to say otherwise, without going against the narrative, the books or Suzanne Collins

[newlyfoundwren]

The girl cutting my hair while giving me the best, most in depth analysis of the hunger games “love triangle” while she’s cutting my hair: …And the reason that Katniss chose Peeta is so important is because she is actively choosing not to propitiate the cycle of war —okay and lean back for me

[luneartt]

— Catching fire script.

“"Well, it served them right.. It's their job to pay attention to you. And just because you come from District Twelve is no excuse to ignore you." Then her eyes dart around as if she's said something totally outrageous. "I'm sorry, but that's what I think," she says to no one in particular." — The Hunger Games book.

"Effie is kind of always the candy in the room. But Effie's own struggle, because inherently she knows what she's doing, is horrible—she's picking kids to go and murder each other and kill each other and die. So with her, it was always having her kind of teetering on shoes that really weren't balanced, or having her waist always pinched in a little too tight. It's almost like her own penance to herself, that she can't quite ever settle into her own life because she always has to be Effie Trinket. And so that's a reminder to her that she can never really be relaxed because no one is safe." — Trish Summerville, Catching Fire's costume designer.

"Unlike Drusilla, she [Effie] believes all the participants have a noble role to play. That begins to thin over the years . Every Games it becomes harder to justify the atrocity. You can see her clinging to good manners for reassurance of humanity's decency. But in terms of the Hunger Games, Effie being assigned as their escort was a lucky break for District 12. She might be ridiculous, but she's not malicious." — Suzanne Collins.

Effie has always been a morally gray character, and yet she has always been beloved by the fandom. This is the first time in over a decade that I've seen a specific group of people so determined to ignore the entire point of the character and the work out of personal pettiness and not only that, but going after and persecuting people who debate the character, accusing them of defending terrible things.

Effie is a very interesting contrast to Plutarch. While he was openly involved in the rebellion, he didn't have much humanity. Effie isn't involved in the rebellion, but she does have a lot of humanity. The difference? She doesn't have nearly as much power as Plutarch or, obviously, Snow. She didn't even have a say in the biggest impact of her comfortable life, which was becoming an escort. You can acknowledge those things and still acknowledge that she lived a life of privilege and comfort enough to be selfish and choose to protect herself from punishment - things that people in the district never could. That's what the author herself always did.

But what's been happening lately, with some people treating her as if she were Snow himself, as if she were the one moving the pieces instead of being one of the manipulated pieces in a regime that also captured and tortured her simply for treating people from the districts as human, is of immense political, social and emotional ignorance and pure misogyny. And wanting to undermine these debates is a gigantic disrespect to the books themselves.

[asweetsorroww]

One of the things that amazes me the most about the trilogy is how subtly Collins molds Katniss' mindset to a softer and more understanding place. And how does she do it?

Through Peeta.

Peeta is the embodiment of empathy, love, and kindness, which is one of the first things Katniss notices about him. He is the first person to deciphers the main goal of the games: to pit the districts against one another, as mere pawns to the Capitol.

Katniss imitates Peeta more than we think.

In the first book, when her ally Rue is killed, she finally understands that Peeta had figured it out before tepping foot in the arena. She begins to rethink her animal instincts that made her kill Marvel without a second thought, wondering what the games had made of her.

She understands, what she and had Gale refused to at the beginning of the book, when he says that killing a human is no different. But it is different, and this is a point of epiphany for her. She covers Rue with flowers to show that she is not a piece in their games.

Ultimately, this change leads to the final move with the berries that sparks the rebellion. It is Peeta's ideology of non-conformity and rebellion through non-violence that saves them both and leads their country to freedom.

Additionally, in Catching her demeanour towards the other victors is amusing to say the least. It is obvious that she has let go of her survivalist mentality, she gives the victors a chance (even the most extreme ones such as Cashmere, Glass and Enobaria ) to view them as they really are, setting aside the Capitol created image.

Peeta’s empathy and moral integrity underpin her actions and decisions as she leads the rebellion, she conveys that true leadership involves compassion and understanding, and not just strategy and strength.

Through Peeta, she learns to love more and to have more understanding for the people around her, whether it be her prep team or a career tribute. Peeta's existence is what primarily helps her survive and prevents her from adopting Gale's extreme realist approach to war.

Katniss is the apex of the love triangle, representing the middle ground between Peeta and Gale's liberal and realist approaches. However, she is unsure of her stance at the beginning of the first book.

“Not people,” I say. “How different can it be, really?” says Gale grimly. The awful thing is that if I can forget they’re people, it will be no different at all.

Throughout Mockingjay, Katniss often finds herself at odds with Gale’s strategies, especially when they involve potential civilian casualties. And even then Peeta is physically absent, his voice rings at the back of her head. Even in his semi hijacked state he manages to guide Katniss in his propos.

"Is this really what we want to do? Kill ourselves off completely? In the hopes that — what? Some decent species will inherit the smoking remains of the earth?”

Peeta brings out this sympathetic side, and so she symbolically becomes a neutral ground between Gale and Peeta's mindsets. She embodies the balance between a liberal and realist approach to war.

[brookesophelias]

peeta and the rebellion, with even more nuance (:

post continued from @posthungergamessyndrome; their post here

In The Games training , Peeta preferred to hang around the Camouflage, & it ultimately became his saving grace in Book I. Creativity, to most tributes, doesn't compare higher than physical prowess in significance. In Catching Fire, we see the D6 Morplings go to Camo first.

Peeta Mellark allows himself to be known as Loverboy to almost everyone in the 74th arena, which is him defining himself by emotion. Mostly because that’s what Careers, who D12 tributes hardly ever team up with, called him

Peeta decided to kill himself, even before the Nightlock idea, because he refuses to die at the hands of the Capitol. He seriously felt remorse after killing Foxface & had Katniss explain it to him. Killing others wasn't supposed to be something these tributes felt accountability & care about. "...wanted to hold them accountable, if only for a moment... For killing that little girl. (CF; 238)

Yes, Katniss says to eat the berries on 3, though it's Peeta Mellark who tells her to out-stretch her hands so "...everyone can see." (THG; pg. 338).

Peeta refuses to hold a knife when he could hold a paintbrush. (Katniss replies to Haymitch that 'if he wanted babying, then should've asked Peeta.' His fellow Games Victor called him soft & he just offers her bread [again]). Even in the actual war, he felt so hurt when he killed others.

He has a vivid memory for the horrors of The 74th Hunger Games, to the point where Katniss says she "hates" his paintings. He’s not even offended he just lets her hate on them because they are gruesome.

He always looks out of windows at other people [Katniss on the bakery lawn], places {districts while on tour] as well as the Capitol. He also takes people's baked goods home to evaluate. And doesn't stop.

He also sees the elder from D11 get shot in the head & doesn’t let himself be touched by Peacekeepers after he said he & Katniss would feed Rue & Thresh's families.

Peeta refuses—so vehemently—to drink the beverage to purge his meals. He tells Katniss that maybe they shouldn't squash the Rebellion.

He is the second person to volunteer in years in D12, & at all & he, too earns the highest rating in the Quarter Quell. Before the Mockingjay ever existed, the mockingbird & Jabberjay had to meet. If Katniss is the Mockingjay, Peeta embodies both qualities of both birds individually. Peeta is wholly himself, at his best. When the Panem screams conformity, Peeta doubles on individualism.

[ruanataina]

Gale Hawthorne

Okay, now The Hunger Games hype is back, I got to state a pretty unpopular opinion. I don't get all the Gale slander!

"Oh, so that means you think Katniss should have ended up with him instead of Peeta?" No! That has nothing to do with it! He was a terrible option for Katniss, but that doesn't mean he was a terrible person in general. The Hunger Games is about so much more than teenage romance, and some people still don't seem to get that.

Yes, Gale was whinny, immature, stubborn, and impulsive. But that's basically it! People try to demonize to an extreme just because Peeta was a way better option as a romantic partner, and Gale was insensitive towards him just because he was jealous, which is indeed really shitty. But that doesn't make him a terrible person or equals him to Snow and Coin. All of these are just attitudes of an immature and whiny 18 year old boy. But when you look at the bigger picture, he really cares about his community and wants to help people. He risked his life to save the people in 12 when the district was being bombed by the capital. And when that's brought out, people say, "He left Peeta's Family to die there on purpose." But they forget that Peeta's family lived on the other side of the district, and most of the people he was able to save lived on the seams. His priority was to save his family, Katniss's family, and then the maximum number of people he could. He wasn't even thinking Peeta at all at that moment.

I also saw some really weird takes saying he was a Ped0 because he had just turned 18, and Katniss was still 16 at the beginning of the story. Like, wtf? There are like many reasons why their relationship was problematic, but that's not one of them. There was even one person saying he would've tried to get with Prim when she got older in case she survived.

Speaking of Prim, he was not more responsible for her death than Beetee was, but I don't see people blaming Beetee for it. They developed the bombs together, but neither of them threw them at that moment. He still is to blame for blindly trusting Coin when Katniss warned him not to and only realizing it too late, though.

So basically, he is no saint, but he is still not the demon fans paint him out to be!

[justafewberries]

i really like the argument proposed at the end of sotr to justify the games:

“But they really are for a greater good. The Hunger Games.”

Collins never delves into this argument. I wish she had, as it provides the foundation for why people believe the Games are important to continue.

we know the harm the Games cause on the districts. They steal 24 children from their homes, they keep people confined to one area for their whole lives, they mandate production of each district, they prey on poverty, etc. etc.

So how is it even possible that the Games could maximize good for the greatest amount of people?

Snow's belief of Human Nature. In Ballad, Snow becomes convinced that Dr. Gaul is correct. At their core, humans are violent creatures who only seek to serve themselves. He believes, like Thomas Hobbes, that humans needed a government to keep them from killing each other.

Hobbes said this about what the world would look like without an entity to keep men from pulling each other apart:

[There would be] no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

Hobbes and Snow both believe that without a government, the people of Panem would tear each other apart. The government protects people from themselves. The Games, by extension, keep the districts in line. They do not allow the districts to make demands. They keep them bound to the terms of the Treaty of Treason.

The Games are, then, under this belief, for the Greater Good. They work as a clause of the contract to ensure that Panem does not devolve into killing one another.

The justification under Hobbes's point that people must give up freedoms to benefit from a system now reads like this:

Giving up two children to the Games each year as a trade for protection is less of a cost to pay than having everyone kill each other barbarically.

Hobbes further claims that both parties in the contract must benefit from it. They must be better off in the contract than outside of it. Both the Capitol and the districts do benefit from a strong central government:

Low unemployment rates

Government assistance programs (tesserae)

Assigned housing

Schools

Protection from the outside world (Navy, Electric Fence)

While we know the downfalls of each of these things, they are technically benefits in the metaphorical contract between the districts and the government. It is when these things begin to dwindle, that people of District 12 begin to revolt. You can read my essay on why the burning the Hob was burning Hobbes here.

Under the belief that all humans are inherently selfish, the Games as a tool to keep people in line can, technically, be justified under the greater good. The Games protect Panem from devolving. According to this belief, they benefit everyone.

Further, 23 deaths a year over the span of 75 years comes out to about 1,750 (inc. the 2QQ, but not accounting for who all escaped the 75th). Those deaths, 23/year, are fewer than the number of casualties from the bombing of d12 alone. If one were to argue utilitarianism's greatest good, saving 7,200 d12 lives by not rebelling would have kept those people alive. The rebels take thousands of lives, too, in d2, in the Capitol, etc. The Hunger Games killed fewer people than the war did.

(Of course, this is with the limit of the games going 75 years and not accounting for the fact the Games were the reason the war happened in the first place.)

All of this hinges on one foundational aspect, though: The belief that without a strong government to control them, humans will devolve into chaos.

The Games are founded on fear. The justification digs its roots in that fear, and it waters itself with the hatred for the districts for the pain the capitol people suffered during the war.

It's why the propagandist aspect of this argument is so believable to someone who has been in the Capitol their entire lives. It reinforces their foundational, fearful beliefs that the Capitol protects them from the outside world, not that it keeps them from it.

It's d12's electric fence around the Capitol without the power to keep it on. It grounds itself in fear, and only fear.

[shyjusticewarrior]

Katniss's reaction to Peeta's heart stopping was the moment in the arena that proved to doubters that she loved him.

But the first moment in the arena she behaved with love towards him was when they announced the two victors twist and she instinctively called out his name despite it potentially endangering her.

[lovebeatriceplz]

“I only felt sorry for him because of how Tom Blyth-“ expect it’s not Tom it’s actually just his character. No you’re not crazy, he did actually rise to power by being attractive. When I say attractive I don’t mean just in a physical way (how he looks his features etc) I mean he has an intelligent mind, talents of some sort, charm, he’s charming enough to come off as well bred and not necessarily snobby. He played on Lucy Gray’s emotions, whether he realized it or not, and I have a hunch that him sharing his struggles with money gave him an edge to win over her heart, he made it seem as if they could relate, as if he understood the concept of what living in her world was like, even though he knows (see he knows, he picked apart her weaknesses and tried to manipulate her, which seems to be like his main strategy for everything) that it couldn’t be further from the truth. I really wished we got more of Snow in his twenties to mid thirties era, which was more than likely his peak in the political domain, I have so many questions, like did he stick to picking people apart and manipulation as I said? When did he start resorting to poison? Maybe we’ll see more of that in sunrise on the reaping. I hate him, but his writing is so good you can’t help but want to know more. In this essay we will-

[winters-rose-daughterofcain]

Something about romance and love for people and art and humanity being it's own form of rebellion, something about both music and art being taken less seriously, something about the narrative role of a love interest, about seeing a character through someone else's eyes. Something about the protagonist being told a philosophy by the one they love, (People are okay, it's what the world dose to them{...}It's up to us to stay on the right side of that line/ Just because the sun rose yesterday, dose it mean it has to tomorrow{...} Stop that sun from rising/I want to still be me, more than a piece in their games, I want to show them they don't own me) and the different ways they reflect on and enact on them. Something about a captive capital audience during an interview and a rebel message written in orange and a boy symbolising hope and spring, something about soft, like the sunset, something about luck and coming home. Something about a girl who looked after her family forever changing history before being erased from it forever, all for knowing how to put on a show, for preforming and charming her way out of certain death, for using music and creativity to craft the song of the future rebellion, for leaving like her name sake forever a mystery to a boy she couldn't trust. Something about a girl who showed empathy for a grieving mother and sung forbidden songs and displayed her rebellion thought art being killed by poison to punish the boy she loved. Something about a boy being tortured to punish the girl he loved, a boy who painted a dead girl to hold her killers responsible and sweet talked the capital and calmed a woman he didn't know into a peaceful death and had to relearn who he was, a boy who bakes and creates and builds, who's favourite colour is the sunset on the reaping.

[effieotto]

Effie was canonically the most human (games related) person in the entire Capitol, and i don’t think we give her enough credit for that.

When the Quell was announced, the Capitol filled with tears. People cried, fainted and shouted so that everyone could see how they felt about the unfairness of it all, while still gathering to bet and cheer for the Games just like they did in any other year. Meanwhile, Effie refused to react at all -in the books, when the prep team had no problem in showing how sad they were for having to watch Katniss and Peeta going back to the Arena, with no real sympathy whatsoever for her as a human being, Effie maintained composed into her professional persona throughout the whole week of preparation, hiding her feelings behind her Escort mask of false cheerfulness and pragmatic detachment. Although she showed up for breakfast with red eyes and a puff face from crying herself to sleep, she always left the room when she felt truly emotional, not enabling anyone the privilege to witness her tears. Unlike the others, her sadness was real. Her feelings were genuine, and she would not allow other people to trivialize her pain by turning it into a dramatic display

In the movies, when Katniss was getting ready for her interview in the backstage, she asked Haymitch if anyone was buying Cashmere’s act, and he pointed to all the other Escorts and Prep teams sobbing in front of the Tv. Effie was also there, but she wasn’t crying. She clapped instead and said “she is really good” -because she knew it was all an act and she wasn’t willing to join the fake tears game

So yeah, Effie might had been a dramatic character from the beginning, wining and complaining about frivolous things while kids were literally being slaughtered, but the feelings she wasn’t fabricating for her Escort persona were powerfully real. She cared, and loved, and grieved with such strength and honesty that she only did it in the privacy of her own heart. She was not a rebel, her actions were not guided by a greater purpose. She wasn’t trying to play with the odds or foment a rebellion…all she ever wanted was for her Victors to get the greatest life they could get. Her actions were motivated by love -pure and genuine care for her children…

and this is the most human thing she could do

[crvngefrvll]

(MEDIA/CHARACTER CRITICISM, NOT HATE, PLEASE APPROACH OP GENTLY, THANKS ☹️🙏)

(I repeat approach OP gently, OP is here to bring sorta objective perspectives on how she sees these characters)

I have a few criticisms when it comes to straight/hetero couples in media, ESPECIALLY THE Female main character/FMC.

Women DO NOT NEED to be "more tough/less emotional/less soft" or be "more soft/emotional" TO HAVE A MAN.

If she's tough and badass and stays that way when she finds a man? HELL YEAH.

If she's soft, emotional, and gentle and stays that way when she finds a man? HELL YEAH.

Katniss Everdeen and Everlark, I'll say. I feel like her "eventual softness/melting for a man" is sometimes EXPECTED to her character a little too much, especially towards Peeta. We all need to acknowledge that she DOES NOT need to "soften up/be less tough/more emotional" TO HAVE A MAN.

Edit: oof Imma have to clarify that SHE IS indeed soft/emotional and I'm trying to say that overall she doesn't need to change her ways of loving and deemed as "too something" but yeah....you get me, and there's always a difference between being soft and emotional to a family and being that way to people in general, and I may not describe how her character can stem from things like trauma and survival mechanism, but the thing that I'm trying to point out is that she never had to fix or dissolve that for Peeta.

And also the emotional side I'm ALSO trying to talk about is her openness to romance, I have to admit that even with Gale she still isn't that much....You know.

Katniss can STILL keep her bravery, strength, and badass-ness while being with Peeta, and the fact that Peeta loved her DESPITE her NOT being "the soft/emotional" type is GREAT.

I do apologize if any of you expect me to be barely close to being articulate and coherent enough about her, Peeta, or The Hunger Games in general, let alone anything else, her and their story alone has a lot of nuance that I may not be able to put into words.

****

The opposite case can be said with Ginny Weasley and Hinny- BECAUSE LET'S BE FOR REAL- I LOVE THEM AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP.

But...let's say something here- the more how people talk about Ginny/Hinny is great by saying that "Ginny matured" to get Harry to describe the strengths of her character and relationship just confuses me even more- does this mean she have to REPRESS her vulnerability to feel seen, loved, or to even just "get a man" ?? Girl I feel so sorry for 2nd year Ginny...

And also we talk about how Harry and Ginny are compatible together because Harry doesn't like emotional girls...but when I read the books I was sad at the thought that Ginny's "toughness" was seen as "more desirable/mature" when she had the potential to be both mature and be vulnerable/emotional.

Sure maybe it was just her nature to grow up strong and everything, but it feels...idk...it's like reflecting that emotional/vulnerable/"soft" girls are seen as "whiny/childish" cause real talk- I have been bullied for THAT EXACT reasons 😭🙏

While this is not a hate page NOR a comparison in Everlark and Hinny's dynamics, it's important for us to acknowledge that women DON'T NEED (to be expected) to change themselves (soften/toughen up) to have a man/partner.

Thank you, 🫡