Why Catniss is the worst heroine ever
It's pretty basic, actually – the first part of the book sets her up as being a talented and skilled tracker and bow hunter. It also sets her up as being someone well acquainted with the nature of The Hunger Games – it is, after all, something that happens annually, and has done so her entire life. She KNOWS going in what's at stake. You kill, or you are killed.
Fast forward to the middle part of the book. I recollect that there were three clear opportunities when Catniss has got the absolute drop on fellow (non-Peter) competitors, and she DOES NOT TAKE THE SHOT.
* The girl poking around the stockpile (OK, so the girl gets blowed up real good, and that's how the author shows Catniss not to poke around the stockpile. Whatevs.
* A boy in the forest – she has a clear shot at his back. She lets him go. He winds up being instrumental in her capture a chapter or so later. If she'd dropped him like she ought to have, this would not have been an issue.
* The boy who winds up killing Rue – It's good that he winds up doing the deed, because we'd lose a lot of empathy for Catniss if she'd had do off Rue herself to win, but still…she delayed, and Bad Things Happened.
Ultimately, she's set up to be this strong, wily, talented and skilled hunter in the beginning of the book, and she winds up being none of those things later in the book.
I was EXTREMELY disappointed by this. I'm extremely disappointed at what has happened to our heroines over the last 20 years.
We've traded Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor for Bella Swan and Catniss Everdeen.
What a shitty deal that is.
Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor were never characters in books targeted at young adults. Apples and Oranges, my man, apples and oranges.
First, Bella is apples and oranges from this character, are you serious? Secondly the characters you mentioned developled into cold hearted stone cold killers later. The characters were also much older adults, not teenagers and they were fighting inhuman opponents, not other people.
+Summer Holmquist I see your point – however, in the end it winds up being all Deus Ex Machina (NO, THEY DON'T HAVE TO KILL EACH OTHER) and that's not the first time. Katniss not wanting to kill does not relieve her of the necessity to do so. Like her being all pacifist or whatever is going to stop this juggernaut of a situation she's been thrown into?
The story would, to my mind, have been infinitely better had she drawn the shot like the hunter she is, and muttered something for the camera and the audience each time like "This one's for my sister Prim, you bastards". "This is shot is for my mother. I will come home." etc.
Katniss lost sight of the scope and meaning of The Hunger Games time after time. It was awful.
Well said, +Summer Holmquist, I agree.
I never got to any "revolution" because the first book in the trilogy was so stilted and full of WTF.
+Devin McLeod – Fair enough. But the "YA Fic" label should not be a free pass for cheap writing tricks.
The characters were all interesting and the story overall was compelling – I cruised right through it – but you lose my suspension of disbelief when characters do things that are so completely contrary to their own survival, and then are "magically" retrieved from Worst Case Scenarios repeatedly through the most incredible feats of luck, simply because they have to drive the sequel.
Katniss (in the first book) is not strong, she is certainly not smart, and the only thing that keeps her from meeting her very timely (and from a Darwin Awards standpoint, well deserved) end is the author's desire to write more story about this character.
Katniss basically never suffers the effects of Logical Consequence.
If she were Jack Torrance, The Shining would have ended with the Blizzard blowing through, the sun popping out, and an ambulance snowcat showing up just in time to treat the hypothermia and epic case of the crazies.
Feel strongly about this much?
Yes, actually. What tipped you off? =)
My biggest objection in the books was the whineyness of Katniss. She never grew a pair. She allowed herself to be used a pawn in pretty much everyones game.
+Jonathon Barton , you should follow +Google Plus Book Club, we're reading Brave New World and 1984 for this month's selections. We did Hunger Games last month and maybe we can do another discussion.
I read the first book and didn't feel the need to read the rest of them. I found the open ending (her going home and the implications that she is going to start a revolution) strong enough an ending not to read on. The story was nice, compelling me to read on (I literally read from 4 in the afternoon till 4 at night to finish it) but in the end, I didn't feel it had much of an effect on me. Honestly, book 1 of Pretty Little Liars has more suspense and has me wanting more money so I can buy the other books. Pretty little liars is a girl book, for girls, in the YA (older teen) range, unlike HG which is targeted at girls and boys.
I look back at my own past and often realise why I don't like some sort of books. I liked Twillight because it had a romance story and there is where it ends, I read all the books in the series because they weren't too bad. It might have helped that I read the Dutch translated versions of the books though…
Pippi Longstocking was one of my childhood favorites and some Dutch books with girls that do their own thing to go with it. They were fun, they liked pranks, they stood up to people who were wrong and were themselves.
In my teens my favorites were Cate Tiernans Sweep series, which has multiple decently strong girls. And Marion Bradley's series which revolve around Avalon and the past of Avalon, lots of strong woman there, though not targeted at teens.
I love my woman strong, but they have to be believable. Kattniss was (for me) not believable, she started out seemingly as this strong girl, but she never shows it after that.
Okay… I think I made my point (and more) and will now stop ranting…