The Manipulation Games: 5 Ways To Make Katniss Everdeen A Less Horrible Character

I’ve ragged on The Hunger Games ever since the first movie came out, but I’ve really come to enjoy the story. It's "fascinatingly flexible political subtext" has been praised by Tea Partiers, Libertarians, feminists, Christians, environmentalists, Occupiers, and, of course, teenage girls everywhere. They all seem to love these movies, and that’s gotta count for something. 

I love the setting, the celebrity satire, the Libertarian political implications, and the good old-fashioned villainy of President Snow. It's also nice to see more stories where a woman is the hero, even if some people like to pretend that Clarice Starling and Buffy Summers never existed. The minimalist storytelling and symbolism make it more of an allegory, which is why it works. It's why fans of the franchise make for such interesting bedfellows. 

So it should go without saying that this critique of Katniss is not without some respect. But one thing is painfully and disappointingly certain to me after watching three of these movies: This saga could have been SO much better, if Katniss was not totally horrible. 

Some ascribe heroic attributes to Katniss that I find either erroneous, or just plain non-existent. They try to say that she’s a “new kind of Female Hero,” and they try to redefine what it means to be a hero in the context of a female (because heroism is totally not a universal concept at all, and it needs special explanations when it involves a woman).

I reject the notion of the Female Hero, because heroism doesn't have a gender. Love, honesty, selflessness, sacrifice, mercy, salvation, forgiveness, caring, teaching, and protecting are all traits that make both men and women heroic, whenever they exhibit these qualities. We don’t need a new definition of hero for females, and we certainly don’t need to talk about that heroism in terms of archaic paradigms like “patriarchy,” when the reality is much more complex.

But fans of the books can relax, because I'm not attacking them here. I haven't read them yet, so I'm just sticking to the movies. It's possible that some may read this and agree that I've hit on many of the problems that make the movies weaker overall than the books. I'll let you be the judge. 

Sixty percent of adults who saw The Hunger Games did not read the book. Many of these people will probably never read the books, but are just as likely to read shorter, easily digestible blogs like this one that iconizes Katniss. This makes an analysis of Katniss based solely on the movies entirely relevant. 

Katniss is surely the least interesting or compelling character in the series, and it’s a shame that she’s at the center of it. But if we’re going to start throwing around the word ‘hero’, I suggest applying the brake for just a minute. Katniss is no hero, but here are a few ways she might have become one. 

1. A better Call to Adventure.

When a hero begins his or her journey, it is never by accident. Not really. It begins with desire. Like Sidhhartha Guatama meeting an old man by chance before becoming the Buddha. Like Alice chasing the white rabbit into the hole. It looks like a chance happening, but it reflects a deep desire for change.

But the desire Katniss has is not to secure a more prosperous life for the people of Panem, it's merely to survive. If her desire really was to change the world of Panem (if only subconsciously), why not raise the stakes and test her?

For example, suppose Prim had been chosen, but Katniss was not allowed to volunteer. Prim goes to the games anyway, and Katniss must save her. It's not just her saving her own ass, but now there's a sense of urgency. It would be even more telling if it was someone other than Prim. Now THAT’S a story.

Instead, what happens is Katniss spends three movies trying to decide if she wants to be part of the rebellion, or if she just wants to save herself. Volunteering for the games is brave and heroic, for sure, but it feels more like a plot device than a genuine call to adventure. It's just an easy way to get the story started. 

"Don't worry... I have my plot device with me!"

At the very least, it should have been clear from the start that Prim’s life would be ended or changed dramatically if Katniss didn’t play ball. This was never made clear in the movies. One line of dialogue early on would have helped. Or when Snow finally does threaten the life of her loved ones in the second movie, by that point it’s not a threat anymore. He just delivers Gail’s body to her doorstep covered in white roses. 

That’s a story, too.

There are SO many other ways the stakes could have been raised at the beginning, but Suzanne Collins treats her with kid gloves from the word go. Nobody realizes it because the first decision she makes — to volunteer — is enough to win most people over. 

But I didn’t buy it. It’s a plot device.

2. Don’t let her off easy. Make her own her actions.

Whenever Katniss is said to fit the “Female Hero” archetype, it’s said that this is because the Female Hero doesn’t resort to violence to solve problems. She’s better than that, some argue, and it just goes to show how the competitive and violent system of patriarchy (i.e. The Games) is evil, but the more compassionate and humanitarian approach of women is better. 

This archetype honestly sounds intriguing, but it certainly doesn't describe Katniss at all.

Katniss is a murderer. When push came to shove, she chose to kill. Three times. In the first movie, she kills a girl with tracker jackers, she kills Rue’s murderer, and she shoots Cato at the end. And the problem is that each of these acts is portrayed in such a way that Katniss emerges morally unscathed, even when she probably shouldn't.

Killing the girl with the tracker jackers is indirect, so it doesn't feel like she really did it. There’s no knife. No blood. Plus, she wasn’t really trying to kill any of them anyway, right? Just escape? She can’t be blamed. And in the end, it was all Rue’s idea, anyway. Katniss did nothing wrong. 

And she could hardly be blamed for killing Rue’s killer, either. It happens so fast, it almost feels like an accident that it happened at all. It is more convenient that it happened this way than, say, if he had successfully killed Rue, then got away. What would Katniss do then? Avenge her? She never has to make that decision, because it happens in self-defense, and it's over quickly. It's what anyone would have done, see?

And even more slippery is the depiction of Cato's death. Cato is a great tragic hero that spends so much of the movie, and his life, devoted to killing. It’s in his blood. Then, in his final moments, he is stripped of this identity. Once he knows he’s going to die, he has this beautiful realization that he is nothing without killing. It’s really sad, but powerful. If Katniss was really a hero, she might have shown him mercy right away. But not only is she responsible for killing him, it is Peeta that actually pushes him into the dogs to get eaten alive. He does the dirty work, so that she can come in after the fact and THEN show him mercy by killing him (which she could have just done by shooting him in the head in the first place, and spare him the agony of getting ripped apart by dogs). 

This is very manipulative storytelling. 

No patriarchy's gonna make me a killer. I will show you the loving,
cooperative way of the feminine. But stand still, first.

Nothing solves Katniss’ problems quicker than all the other tributes killing each other. If it were not written in this way, we might have gotten to see a little bit of this cooperative behavior Katniss is so often credited with displaying.  She is written in such a way that one has to make great leaps in logic to assume that she is innocent. But she is not.  She doesn’t lead anyone or develop schemes for building resistance, she just sticks to the sidelines while everyone around her acts heroically, often sacrificing themselves completely. 

She does nothing, and she lives.

3. More independent thought.

For a character that is regarded as a feminist icon, she sure does seem to do what men tell her to an awful lot. 

She bickers with Haymitch at first, but she does as he says. She even begs him for help in the second movie, just after offering condolences to one of the districts. Haymitch tells her to keep her mouth shut, and she does. Cinna also puts her up to quite a lot of things before the games. Things like, you know, burning. Like, with real fire. The kind of thing you do to marshmallows. But she goes along with it. She asserts herself in no way. 

Flammability. One of Katniss' many talents. 

She consistently relies on Peeta and Gail for emotional comfort whenever it is convenient for her, and it gets so bad that they have to confront her about this directly. As a result, her love for Peeta, in my opinion, comes across more as a fleeting neediness than a genuine romance. So many fans have made excuses for Katniss here, trying to argue just how hard she has it. I would say that, at least for the first two movies, she didn't have it hard enough. And I think Joanna would agree with me. 

Her affection for Peeta kept her alive, and was both emotionally and literally convenient. You can't tell me she wasn't at least a little relieved to find this brilliant strategy successful. Hell, it's her idea to marry him in the second movie! She'll do anything to stay alive, it seems.

The first time she does actually stand up to someone and assert herself is actually to a woman, believe it or not: President Coin. She wishes to use Katniss for a series of propaganda films at the beginning of Mockingjay: Part 1, and that is when Katniss suddenly discovers the power of negotiation. One of the strongest actions she takes in the series is of a competitive sort that one might traditionally regard as masculine. It is not her mediating a dispute in order to find a peaceful resolution, but a bold confrontation by one who knows her own value and uses it as leverage as one might do in a marketplace. 

My only disappointment is that she uses this leverage to save a boy, making her no more heroic than Bella Swan. That’s right, I said it.

4. More heroism. 

The really heroic decision that I kept waiting for her to make is the one that took her three movies to make: joining the rebellion. Instead, the primary tension is derived from Katniss’ struggle to not get killed. And unless you’re going to go full Rambo with this idea, this is a recipe for boredom. 

The problem is that she only makes two decisions that demonstrate her heroism in the first film. Only two acts that demonstrate that, to Katniss, there is another world out there. It’s not all about her. 

Only two: volunteering for the games, and memorializing Rue’s death. 

That’s it.

You might think there’s more, but there’s not. Heroism is not just about one’s ability to shoot an arrow or medicate a loved one’s injuries. These are skills, not acts of heroism. 

Katniss tells Gail that during her travels with Peeta through the districts that people are rebelling, but she sounds very casual. Like, “Hey, guess what I heard today?” She stays inside her own bubble, and is shocked when the suffering around her gets worse. She acts like it's not her problem, and it doesn't even seem to cross her mind to change it until it's too late. She sticks to survival.

"You mean these buildings used to have people
in them? Where did they all go?"

It would be heroic if she actually went around town and told everyone what she’d seen, knowing that she would get into big trouble for doing so. Or she could at least convince someone to do it for her. She could do something. Anything. She could demonstrate that she cares about society, and wishes to be a part of changing it.

The memorial of Rue’s death is not something I even considered heroic the first time I watched it. But after my Hunger Games-loving family chastised me at Thanksgiving for not noticing how defiant such an act would have been in Panem, I conceded. To do this, in spite of what the authorities would say or do, is heroic (even if it wasn't made all that clear in the movie, it can still be argued on the basis of the movie alone). 

She almost acts heroically in Catching Fire when she speaks to a district like an actual human being. But when someone is killed for producing the Mockingjay hand gesture, she immediately seeks to absolve herself of responsibility. It is clear that she had no idea what such an action would cause, and once she knows it, she goes back to being Snow’s mouthpiece. 

There are so few actions of true heroism on her part when you really examine it, it is remarkable. If you look at other offerings in the genre of young adult fiction, you find much more heroism.

Yes, Bella Swan from Twilight performs more acts of heroism than Katniss. She also performs more of these acts with each movie, while Katniss does not. Doesn’t mean Twilight is a better story, or that Bella is a more interesting character. But she is more heroic. 

I know, it surprised me, too.

Even Rue is more heroic than Katniss. She was already doing stuff during training, like hiding the knife, and she actually did reach out to Katniss to form a friendship, not the other way around. She helped Katniss escape the tree, and protected her while she healed. Rue’s actually kind of badass, but the reason Rue is heroic is because she’s thinking about others all the time. She has family back in her district, too, but it doesn’t stop her from actually doing something for those around her, even if it would get her in trouble. 

And in case you think I’m forgetting the moment she and Peeta nearly pull a Romeo and Juliet at the end of the first film, I’m not forgetting. 

This is probably the worst scene in the movie. 

When this happened, my first thought was, “So I guess it’s certain that Prim’s not in any real danger, and never has been.” Because one of two things is true: Prim is in danger, and any misstep that might be seen as defiance will result in her death (hence, this scene should result in Prim's death or at least inprisonment); or she’s not in any real danger (not yet, anyway), and Katniss is actually a coward that has been using Prim as an excuse to not join the rebellion. 

Everyone else in the movie seems to be way more willing to step up than Katniss. Even Prim basically tells her, "Dude... I'm fine. Stop being such a coward." 

Heroism In One Lesson. (Hint: Do this.)

The fact that Prim's endangerment is so uncertain is a huge structural flaw in the movie. Fans of the book assure me that it’s more clear in the book that Prim is in danger, and I’ll have to take their word for it. But even if Prim was in danger, then why does this action not result in her death, like, immediately? And why is she let off so easy?

And that brings me to the final point…

5. More opportunity for heroism.

Even if Katniss was not written to be an opportunistic coward, the story still doesn’t give her much chance to grow. The spinelessness and unwillingness to take risks and defy President Snow are only part of the problem with Katniss Everdeen. 

So many chances do come up where a more skilled writer might have put an obstacle in her way and force her to act heroically, but Suzanne Collins deprives us. The scene with the berries is one of those scenes. Kid gloves for the win.

If Seneca Crane had told her, prior to the revoking of the two-winner rule, that she would be forced to choose between Prim and Peeta, that would not only clarify the danger, but force Katniss to make the kind of choice only heroes face. 

So many heroes have, in fact. Spiderman responds by saving both the people in the ferry and Mary Jane. Batman is tricked in The Dark Knight, and ends up losing Rachel in his choice. There are so many ways such a scenario might end, and they all tell us something about the hero. And in the best cases, they change him/her forever.

But Katniss is no different after the berry scene than she was before it. And she never has to make this choice.

In fact, the first two movies are an experiment in torturing the audience with missed opportunities for heroism. Does she use her moments in the spotlight to send a message to all the people in Panem, veiled or not? Does she actively engage with other tributes who perhaps think like her, if only to distinguish the good from the bad? And once in the games, is there any coalition-building, or planning of any kind (aside from mere survival)? What kind of hero just doesn’t get involved with the fate of others at all?

If I act more like Katniss, she's bound to notice me!

In Catching Fire she tries to find allies because Haymitch tells her to, but she's really bad at it. She doesn't really play a role in any of the scheming in the Quarter Quell, but her one heroic deed of the movie comes at the very end, when she shoots the coil. It's the only moment in the film where Katniss seems to want to be a part of destroying what the Capitol stands for. In every other scene before this, she is not active, but merely reactive. She makes nothing happen. She can't even do CPR, for Peeta's sake.

The main problem - the main reason why Katniss takes very little heroic action -  stems from the fact that, based on her actions, she is a coward. But it is a problem that a more experienced writer might have gotten out of the way with the first movie, by making Katniss choose between Peeta and Prim. No matter what she chooses or how it ends, the test is necessary. 

She's never really tested in a dramatic sense. It is the reason why her arc has still not gotten very far three movies later. The author could have proven, at least by the end of the first film, that Katniss has what it takes to act heroically - loved ones' death be-damned. 

She uses Prim as an excuse not to do anything, and she gets away with it because that's how she's written. That is why she's not a hero. 

Like a statesman tells Mel Gibson's character in The Patriot, "Wars are not fought by childless men alone." Because heroism often means sacrifice. It's like Jack Bauer pressing on, even though his daughter's life continues to be in danger because of what he does - not to mention losing his wife. Or the multiple threats to Buffy's mom; or Ben Sisko's son, Jake; or any of the countless companions the Doctor has had over the years. 

Heroes deal with it to no end, so why does Katniss get to act reptilian with impunity all the time?

Tris: Becomes badass... takes action... two family members die... continues badassary.

Just because someone you love might be hurt by taking action, that's no excuse. That's why being a hero is a job nobody wants. 

So stop making excuses for Katniss. 

Last thoughts…

In the next year, hopefully I will have read the books in time for the final film. It’s very likely that my opinion of the Katniss of the books will be slightly different, but we'll see. If the movies are to blame for the lack of character development, then I doubt one more film will fix this. 

But even if Katniss does magically step up and be a genuine hero, it will have been too little too late. It may even be undeserved. Even considering her negotiating with Coin, I'm not convinced that she has what it takes to be a hero. Survive? Surely. Be a role model for others to follow? Not so much.

What do you think about this critique? Did I capture the problems with Katniss well, or am I way off? Tell me about it in the comments.