Katniss Everdeen

NY Times discusses Katniss Everdeem

Let's kick off a discussion...I have to read this again before I comment.

That Dargis person is on crack.

As usual, the NY Times has some pretty self-important writers.

I definitely agree with them -- as we discussed in the Team Katniss blog post -- that Katniss is not an isolated hero, standing alone. And they're right that it does distinguish her from a lot of fictional heroes, in American literature and otherwise.

This comment really struck me when I first read it, but in the context of the broader article it's clear Dargis is talking in terms of traditional roles, not her personal views. And from the traditional roles, I agree. But it does raise questions like: Why is family provider necessarily a masculine trait? Is Gale feminine because he's a surrogate parent to his brothers?

Sad that the industry thinks this way, but true that they do.

I actually think it's clear that Katniss' motivation throughout the movie is her protective instinct -- volunteering for Prim, wanting to win to get home to continue to support her mother and Prim (and Gale and his brothers), helping Rue, teaming up with and saving Peeta. The Prim and Rue dynamic is arguably coming from a maternal sort of place emotionally -- but her dynamic with Peeta is anything but maternal. Friendship and District loyalty at first (it's inconceivable to her to try to win alone once she knows she has the chance to win with him too), maybe some burgeoning romantic feelings as the Games progress and his feelings are more open to her. Protective or nurturing, yes, but certainly not maternal.

I have to disagree with this. Katniss' motivations are thoroughly feminine from the very beginning. It is hard to think of male heroic characters who would make the kind of choices Katniss makes for the reasons she makes them.

Yes, exactly.

I agree, HG does illustrate the problems with gender absolutes. Cato and Marvel are thoroughly male characters. But what about Glimmer and Clove? Other than wearing a pretty dress for their interviews, they're basically vicious, aggressively violent masculine-trait characters. Not nurturing. And what about Peeta? He's protective toward Katniss throughout, and in moments even nurturing, caring, and compassionate. I could make the argument that Peeta's a more feminine character than Clove. And in some ways Katniss is right down the middle -- surrogate father to Prim, surrogate mother to Rue, nurturer toward Peeta, willing to ruthlessly drop the trackerjackers on the Careers.

This part I definitely agree with.

A Gale is the character who says he wants to have kids. I thought it was interesting that of all the things they cut with Gale they left that in.

I have thoughts - even notes - but I just picked up a copy of Macleans (Canada's weekly news magazine, similar to "Time"). It contains a lengthy article on THG (Katniss is on the cover) and I want to see if our media perspective is different before commenting (I suspect that it is).

TTYL

I read the article yesterday and when I went to re-read it, a video ad for The Hunger Games popped up over it.

Anyway, it kind of bothers me that they immediately announce Katniss as a radical character. Is being resilient and caring for your friends and family that radical? I think her situation and the whole dystopian future is more of what is far-reaching.

She's definitely a multi-dimensional character outside of even being a hero. Those labels don't just apply to her but we actually see her act as those things, often concurrently. Where I disagree is calling it a burden. Katniss accepts it as who she is. For example, she doesn't wish Prim didn't exist so she wouldn't have to worry about her or have another mouth to feed or so she could just die in the games. Being Prim's sister has brought her challenges and put her in situations she wouldn't have found herself in otherwise, but that's part of Katniss' strength - she just works to deal with those things.

I don't even want to address the "skin and bones" comment beyond to say that I really think it's subjective and, for me, a non-issue.

Sad that the industry thinks this way, but true that they do.

It's not just the industry - it's the environment that kids grow up in too and that can vary greatly. I know a family where two of the sons absolutely love Disney princesses. And when that first started happening one of the parents, more than the other, cringed if one of the boys brought it up.

This. Yes.

This part I definitely agree with.

Also, agreed. Although, she is kind of some random girl – some random girl who changes everything, even though that's not what she set out to do. And that's something I think is missing from this article. Katniss is so strong and dynamic and does, in a way, blaze her own trail, but she does it in a reactive manner. She doesn't set out to volunteer for the games to spit in the face of the Capitol. She doesn't even consider volunteering until she's reacting to Prim being chosen. She doesn't walk into the rating session with the intent to startle the gamemakers and get the highest rating; she does it because they are ignoring her and she's been told she needs to make an impression.

In 1932, Aldous Huxley published "Brave New World."

Eighty years later, we still struggle with the fact that we face a "Brave New World" every day. Young adults are fascinated by tales of dystopian futures; they are searching for new heroes - and particularly, heroines, because girls and women are no longer content with their traditional roles.

Nothing is sure except change. Why, then, are people surprised by Katniss Everdeen's popularity?

The Maclean's article: Dystopia now offers a very detailed and correct summary of The Hunger Games. Author Brian Bethune has much to say about the plethora of dystopian future novels so popular with today's teens, but along the way he also offers commentary on Katniss Everdeen and why teens relate to her story.

Most interesting to me, after reading the NYT article, is the number and range of dystopian novels Bethune provides for comparison--a larger, perhaps more relevant selection than that of the NYT writers - at least in terms of female heroines and protagonists. In addition to classic novels and dystopian fiction with male heroes, some of his references are:

• EXODUS by Julie Bertagna (Pub: 2002; 2012, Scotland). Heroine: 15-yr-old Mara finding her people a new home as the world drowns from global warming.
  
  
• THE WAY WE FALL by Megan Crewe (Pub: 2012, Canada). Heroine: 16-yr-old Kaelyn fighting a killer virus while considering the character of the adult she is becoming and the truth about the adults in her life.
  
  
• UGLIES by Scott Westerfield (Pub: 2005, U.S.). Heroine: 15-yr-old Tally, awaiting mandatory surgery to transform her from an Uglie into a Prettie.
  
  
• EVE by Anna Carey (Pub: 2011, U.S.). Heroine: 18-yr-old Eve about to graduate from her orphanage when she learns that the state intends her to be a mindless breeding machine.
  
  
• DIVERGENT by Veronica Roth (Pub: 2010, U.S.). Heroine: Beatrice, 16-yr-old who must choose, via aptitude test, which of five societal castes she will join.
  
  

Obviously, there is no lack of current female protagonists on the bookshelves. They sound interesting, and I would like to read quite a few of them. I wonder why we haven't heard more about them? The obvious answers, which may be completely presumptuous but also seem to be topics of many a conversation started by THG:

1. "Young Adult" novels are greeted with disdain by a significant number of adults - many among the press.
2. Their common denominator: strong female heroines, which appear to present comprehension and categorization difficulties--again, mostly for the media.

I am currently reading DIVERGENT. Certain comparisons can be made--in politics, use of language, and plot devices--to The Hunger Games. For example, there is a gathering place called "The Hub" ("The Hob" anyone?). Large portions of the American infrastructure has collapsed into ruin. It is far-too-slowly being rebuilt by an extremist government. The social castes bear growing resentment and unrest.

Beatrice, the heroine, is a very spirited and brave girl with a talent for compartmentalizing her emotions in order to cope with shifting realities - dangerous ones. All of Roth's characters are likeable, interesting, or mysterious; the story is fast-paced and has the definite vibe of a cautionary tale. Yet I am not compelled to finish DIVERGENT quickly, as I was with THG. Two hundred pages into a 437-page novel, I have no problem setting Beatrice aside for a few days. I'll get back to her. Never did I feel that way about THG's heroine.

Regardless of my opinion, DIVERGENT was named the "Goodreads" favorite book of 2011 among young adults - and it won that same honor from adult readers, by a landslide.

Why am I less pursuaded by Beatrice? Her goals are set to satisfy her self (through her "aptitudes").

Katniss is operating outside herself: for the good of her sister and Peeta, her district, her friends. She is a heroine in the more classic selfless mold. Yes, she has masculine and feminine roles and characteristics. I would argue that some of her qualities are genderless, but that may have something to do with the fact that I am not constrained by American archetypes like "American Adam."

With respect, the traditional gender roles have already changed but more slowly in some areas--and with some people--than others. To return to arguments that rely on "traditional roles" is backward journalism. In addition, I feel reasonably safe in saying that the boardrooms in Hollywood are not inhabited by a particularly free-thinking community, much as they might like to believe differently. The movie PTB shy away from controversy as often as they take chances, IMHO. In the case of THG, it was Canadian and Canadian-founded companies that made the movie happen and there are significant cultural differences in Canadian versus American norms (the issue of same-sex marriage, for one, which points to contrasting gender views). As the Maclean's article points out, U.S. financier Carl Icahn "dumped his one-third stake in Lionsgate" in August 2011 (while THG was in post-production). He sold 44 million shares for $7 each. Last week, post-launch, THG's production company "closed at $14.55 a share, up 90 per cent for the year." OUCH!

That begs the question: why did Icahn bail when THG was starting to pick up momentum? The two events may not be related and I may be completely off-base, but I wonder whether traditional American "norms" and values stood in his way.

Maclean's writer Bethune has clearly done more homework than his NYT counterparts, although to be fair, his article is more ambitious and not focused on the female heroine issue. Just the same, his examination of dystopian fiction for teens phenomenon begins with a photo of Katniss Everdeen. The caption reads:

Exactly, and the article lists plenty of examples to stand beside THG's heroine.

Of Katniss herself, Bethune writes ( emphasis mine):

I like the word "compartmentalized" in reference to Katniss. Without her ability to dissociate from powerful emotions (like romance, a huge issue to most girls her age), THG's heroine would not be able to fulfill her self-imposed mission to protect Prim. If she let loose the grief and despair that are barely suppressed, she would not be able to do what is necessary to win the Games. In fact, I am reminded of the phrase, "strong, silent type" as the quintessential stuff of heroes. Regardless of gender, Katniss fits that description.

It is not difficult to extrapolate that a person (or character) who is or appears to be emotionally closed-off may not appear entirely "likeable." In this respect, I can agree with Bethune's description of Katniss. It sometimes takes a special person to see what lies beneath the veneer of a human being with their barriers up.

By contrast, Peeta is written and portrayed as the more compassionate, emotional person, whose tears as the pair are taken from District 12 are not hidden. That does not make him less male, but more human. On the other hand, it does not make Peeta an archetypal hero, either, but is he less heroic? The boy with the bread offers a different brand of self-sacrifice: the willingness to do anything he is able, and to die, to enable Katniss to live. He does not pretend that he is "in her league" as a fighter or potential victor, yet I find Peeta to be a pillar of strength for Katniss to lean on--the one vulnerability in her armor, revealed only after she is worn down by bloodbaths, killing, destruction, fear, starvation, dehydration, injury, Rue, and bread from strangers. That is more than enough to break through a hero's defenses, and gender matters not.

It seems to me that the NYT commentary is most concerned that Katniss does not fit into known archetypes. Are they really so fixated on what they are used to that they show so much reluctance to revisit and revise those archetypes? They sound as if they are at once mesmerized and stupefied by Katniss. What is she? Who is she? How can we label her character? Katniss unsettles their sensibilities - something that might be worthwhile doing more often. "Norms", at their lowest common denominator, are "what we are accustomed to seeing." They are also subject to change.

Katniss is worthy of heroic status; she's female, with characteristics that make her human.

Live with it.



to the power of 10 (at least)

This post has been edited by oldjedinurse on Apr 5 2012, 08:02 PM

Hey, ladies, both of you, write-ups for the blog, now!



Well-said and my head is down right now doing writing of my own but seriously . Please?

This goes back to the number of times Katniss says "I'm/You're fine" or "I'm/You're okay." Spot on.

I agree, awesome posts Hotshot and Scrubs!

Part of what's going on here, too, is that the NYT authors are movie critics. They're assessing Katniss against a baseline comparison of other movie characters -- and really American pop culture movie characters. All those YA novels with female leads aren't even on their radar screen...

More tomorrow!

First of all, thanks - and great post Solo_and_Fel!

Absolutely true, limiting their points of view far more than that of a newsmag article.

Two things:

1. I got off-topic - sidetracked by the Maclean's article, which had a broader scope.
2. I felt that the NYT movie critics could have done a more thorough job for their write-up. They didn't look farther than their noses. It might do them some good to try and see things through something other than a telescopic lens.

Another


EDIT: Also, how did THG find its way to becoming a movie when so many other well-liked young adult books don't? Is this for the same reason(s) that we rarely hear about the novels? Were we made aware of THG because it had a movie deal? It's probably that old chicken-and-egg thing.

This post has been edited by oldjedinurse on Apr 5 2012, 10:18 PM

Well I think YA is a label meant to put certain books in a corner.

That AHole who wrote the NYTimes article about being embarrased when men read YA summed it up. YA is supposed to not be "literature" as defined but a self-designated club but I'd argue that Collins is a way better writer than some literary self-important poodoo I've read. The only thing that matters is whether people will keep reading. It's just like science fiction getting stuffed in a corner as less than worthy.

I'm waiting for some author to say they refuse to be identified as a genre. My theater was packed with adults, not teens, FWIW.

I read an article a few weeks ago in which a YA author talked about exactly that issue. (People told him that an adult man writing YA books wasn't really writing! ) I'll try to find that again.

My theatre was largely populated by adults, too.

Katniss isn't a "radical" character. Sacrificing your life for another person isn't a new idea. The difference is more in the how it was done than what was done. Radical describes Capitol much more effectively.

It's not a big deal for a girl to put on a Superman costume or run around as a Ghostbuster, but the second a boy pulls on a dress or a pair of plastic heels, it becomes a a paranoid mess. There's no difference between the actions. Watch a group of children playing in a room filled with toys fitting any gender stereotype. Girls will go for the "boy toys" and vice versa.

One of the major differences between Katniss and other female lead YA books is that Katniss actually endured a true struggle. She was injured. She didn't have continuous moments of convenient luck. It didn't feel as if she had some special physical ability that set her apart. Her edge was knowing how to survive and not surrendering herself. Her moments of despair weren't over-the-top or so brief they were pointless. Katniss felt like a real person. Her reasons for being the way she was made sense.

Thanks, friends. And quite the impressive post from, oldj!

Heh.. If I can find some time to better organize those thoughts this week...

And Fels, I agree - getting injured, making mistakes, coming to the wrong conclusions... It all makes her all the more relatable.

I initially read that as 'radical - extremist' but I think the writers of the article used the word to create attention but really meant radical just as in a radical shift from what we've seen before.

Still... I think being resilient and caring for your friends and family... who she essentially is, isn't that greatly different from characters who have come before...

(Clearly I'm meeting my ellipses quota.)

More ellipses I say!

I think it comes back to the frame of reference for the movie critics who see Katniss as a radical departure from the norm, though.

Badass action heroines? Sure: Sarah Connor, Ripley, Lara Croft, the Kate Beckinsale character in the Underworld movies... But how many of them are motivated by caring for friends and family?

On the flip side, there are lots of strong caregiver female characters in the movies too -- but I can't think of any who are also the central protagonist in an action movie at the same time.

(And let's not get into all of the female characters who aren't strong, or aren't heroic, or aren't either one. The biggest box office success of which is Bella -- hence all the comparisons of Twilight to Hunger Games.)

Hermione may be one of the closest to Katniss in terms of willingness to sacrifice for her friends and motivation to fight for and protect her friends, while also being an action badass -- but she's the Leia to Harry's Luke. She's not the center of the story.

So from the perspective of someone who watches and critiques movies for a living -- and who probably really isn't aware of what's going on in stories on television or in books -- Katniss probably really does leap out as something they've pretty much never seen before.

And certainly not in a movie that made eleventy bajillion dollars.

I agree, Lex. Movie and literary critics all have a relatively narrow POV, or perhaps limited is a more appropriate word. I've been seeing a lot of that lately, reading articles from a variety of sources.