Hunger Games (Book 1)

analysis
#11

Hmmm… maybe?

I can’t think of many examples of this though. Yes, she has to rely on her team. But she’s kind of forced to from almost the beginning, isn’t she?

Effie: I don’t see her influence really
Cinna: he’s definitely in her corner, but how does this change her?
Haymatch: She comes around on him a bit – but again, this feels like she’s forced to accept his help early on, and she does whatever she can to get sponsors through him from the beginning.
Rue: I feel like Rue is more of a reminder of Prim – if anything, Rue highlights how she’s not changing – she still wants to protect the innocent.

Peeta maybe. You could certainly make a case that he challenges her cynicism. But that feels more like RS growth to me. Has her worldview changed?

Thinking back, my impression is actually the opposite – compared to her, Rue and Peeta were weak. Wouldn’t she have had a better shot if she left them on their own? Or chosen to ally with the careers instead?

#12

Effie starts the team building by telling Peeta and Katniss that once they are in the arena Haymitch is all they’ve got, which influences them to try and pull Haymitch’s head out of his ass. Effie is also the one that brings the “presentation” aspect of the games. She gives to the District 12 team despite not being treated very nice/respectfully by Katniss in particular. Effie talks them up to people she knows in the Capitol trying to win them sponsors; she even says she’ll get Haymitch to the sponsor tables at gun point.

Peeta’s kindness is a trigger for Katniss, she even says that it’s a danger to her. She tries repeatedly with all of the team to not connect. Whenever Peeta shows kindness she tries to convince herself that it’s an act to make her vulnerable. Katniss, even admits at one point that she’s only a survivor because someone (Peeta) helped her.

Cinna tells Katniss he chose her, chose District 12, implying she impressed him by volunteering. She also recognizes that he’s set her up to survive by making her the girl on fire. Cinna tells her to address her answers for the interview to him, to think of him as a friend. There’s Cinna getting the pin for her.

Haymitch pushes them to be together and amiable in public. Haymitch tries to help her strategize but she’s so resentful, she can’t help her hostility.

Katniss spends so much time trying to convince herself that she’s alone, that Peeta is always trying to play her, that he’s her “bitter adversary”

There’s Rue helping her when she’s tracker-jackered. Then their alliance.

Time after time her team helps her, even when she would have declined.until the scene with the berries, then she knows it wasn’t fake, that only by standing together --even if they die-- can they give a big eff u to the Capitol.

1 Like
#13

I’ll admit to motivated reasoning here because she feels Steadfast to me.

Isn’t this just Effie’s job? And I don’t see how it actually pushes Katniss to anything that she wouldn’t have to do anyway.

This part – yes. I could see that. His devotion to her certainly throws her off.

So does Rue’s decision to help her influence Katniss to change somehow? Wouldn’t Katniss have wanted to protect the innocent girl no matter what? To me this is evidence of her steadfastness – Rue is like Prim, who she wants to protect.

Is it true that that’s the first time that she knows that Peeta’s feelings aren’t fake? I have the feeling that she gets it before.

Obviously she goes through a lot and grows. But does she have a real paradigm change? At the beginning of the story, she’s defying the Capital (hunting in the woods) and sacrificing herself for the innocent. At the end of the story, she’s defying the Capital and sacrificing herself for the innocent.

#14

So here’s my current thinking on Change vs. Steadfast and the IC.

The whole structure of the games is an attempt humiliate the districts, set them against each other, and force the tributes to become killers.

So it’s the Capital (or its representatives) that’s pushing influence Katniss to change – to become a monster or be killed. Haymich is the example of what this change looks like – by winning, he has become an alcoholic, broken man.

By threatening to commit suicide with Peeta, Katniss finds a way to preserve her dignity and remain uncorrupted (Steadfast).

#15

Katniss’s promise to Prim is that she’ll do everything in her power to come home.

Time after time she tries and distances herself from Peeta but her moment of change comes on page 343 of trade paperback where she says “Because if he dies, I’ll never go home, not really.” If she were steadfast, she’d have killed him and gone home.

Just going home to Prim and her mom and Gale is not enough. On a page or two before that when they are running for the Cornucopia she realizes she doesn’t have her team with her that Peeta’s fallen behind.

Her thought process right before they’re going to eat the berries isn’t about not being a monster, it’s calculated gambit to make the Gamekeepers capitulate by subverting the purpose of the games. No victor, means every death was pointless. It would make them martyrs, a powderkeg that Snow does NOT want to deal with.

1 Like
#16

My point is, assuming she wasn’t a ruthless killer at the beginning of the story (I don’t think she was), if she had killed Peeta it would have destroyed her. She would have become Haymich. THAT would have been a change (a tragic one).

Yes, but is this something that really changed for her, or was it always true? In spite of her promise to Prim she was never a career. She was never going to be someone who could kill without being changed.

One flaw with my theory is if Katniss is Steadfast, does the Capital change? Does the last minute “no no, there’s been another rule change” count as a (forced) shift in perspective on their part?

I’d like to hear what others think about this. I don’t really see the “becoming a team player” argument for change, but I could entertain an argument that Peeta influences her to become vulnerable; she can’t believe his sincerity at first, but eventually does. But I don’t know–that really feels like RS to me. The end stuff where she throws herself into his arms, etc. – that seems less like an MC paradigm shift than the growth of their relationship.

2 Likes
#17

Just saw this topic. Very interesting discussion!

I definitely see the RS with Katniss and Peeta’s relationship, and the Capital as the IC.

I think that the Capital’s Changed Resolve occurs when they declare both Katniss and Peeta the winners, instead of requiring there to be only one winner as they did from the beginning. Katniss’s Steadfast refusal to murder leads to both Peeta and her threatening to consume the poisonous berries, directly resulting in the Capital’s Change.

3 Likes
#18

I was thinking about this more. I think you can see the changed resolve more clearly if you think the Capital more broadly – including the gamemakers and Snow, but also all of the shallow residents who take such pleasure in the games. It’s these people who are cheering when Peeta and Katniss come out together – a change from what they had simply accepted before.

This is probably obvious to everyone, but something that I hadn’t quite grasped before is that structure of having just one winner is meant to mimic the “one winner” in the old war e.g. the capital. This – more than embarrassment – is the reason that having two tributes win is such a symbolic threat to them.

2 Likes
#19

Really cool stuff @Lakis and @RailwayAdventurer. The idea of Capital as IC is definitely making some sense.

Sorry I haven’t been able to participate much as I don’t remember the book or movie well enough to do it justice. (Only read and watched once.)

Important question, would you say the Capital is the Antaongist and IC (so a Villain story)? Or do you think the Capital could be the IC, with only Snow and some of his minions taking on the Antagonist role?

Earlier when you said Capital as IC, I was thinking it would have to be Villain. But I’m not sure that the shallow residents would count as Antagonist.

2 Likes
#20

That’s a good question. I agree that if you have a collective IC it doesn’t make sense that they would all be the antagonist. But I’m not even totally sure who the antagonist is. Is it possible that Katniss is actually the antagonist? I had this thought when I was thinking about the Goal. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

2 Likes
#21

So @jassnip – how committed are you to the idea that Katniss is changed? What do you think about the idea of the Capital being the IC? Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Does it make sense to pencil Steadfast in provisionally and move forward but keep the option to back up if it doesn’t seem to work?

For character dynamics, I think she is Stop/Do-er/Linear.

Drivers often mess me up. I was thinking Action – e.g. the Action of Prim being chosen forcing Katniss’s decision to volunteer. But I’m not sure. Is it possible that the Reaping is one big Decision driver (i.e. selecting is a decision, even if it’s random?) Other big decisions: the decision to change the rules, the decision to eat the berries (or is that an action?)

Optionlock.

Outcome: I want to hold off on this as I’m not totally sure what the Goal is.

Judgement: Bad

Any thoughts?

2 Likes
#22

I’m not committed to anything at all.

And I do think the idea of the Capitol being changed is interesting.

Agree with Stop/Doer/Linear.

I think one of the ways to delineate the action vs. decision driver is to think in terms of agency, but also look at the other drivers. It’s not the decision to shoot the apple that make the gamemakers decide give her an eleven, it’s the act of shooting the apple. It’s the act of putting the berries to their mouths that make the gamemakers change their mind and let them both live. So I agree, it’s action driving decisions,

Agree, the judgement is probably bad. Collins spends the entire last chapter crippling anything that might have made the ending good, which is why there is no reunion with her mom and Prim, and Gale, no going to the new house…none of that.

3 Likes
#23

Great, so should we move on to the throughlines? This is where it gets interesting.

My first thought was that the OS here would be Physics/Obtaining — winning the Hunger Games. But I don’t think that’s correct.

From the perspective of Katniss and the other tributes—who have been chosen at random—winning the games is much more about survival than victory, which even if achieved is hollow (as we see from Hamich). From the perspective of the Capital, the goal is to put on a spectacle that humiliates the districts, reminds them of their defeat and subjugation, and keeps them in their place.

If you took away “winning the games”, would there still be conflict? The answer it undoubtedly yes—the Districts would still be subject to the tyrannical rule of the Capital.

For these reasons, I think the OS is in Universe. A fixed, ongoing, external situation—the tyrannical rule of the Capital—is what’s at root of the conflict in this story.

What do you all think?

1 Like
#24

I agree, OS is situation…

I recently watched this video with Mary Robinette Kowal in which she discusses the MICE quotient, apparently the brain child of Orson Scott Card.

But this turns out to be nothing more than the top tier of the Dramatica table.

Milieu = Situation
Inquiry = Manipulation
Character = Fixed Attitude
Event = Activity

Milieu, she says, starts when you enter a place, and ends when you leave, which I thought was an interesting way of looking at an aspect of situation.

Which puts Katniss in Activity which feels good to me.
It puts the Capitol in Manipulation
And the RS in Fixed Attitude.

I think Katniss’s issue is self-interest. With her Unique ability being morality.

1 Like
#25

I have that book. (Characters and Viewpoint by Orson Scott Card). I’ll have to watch the video though for her take. It’s interesting how it seems to map to Dramatatica’ top level. I thought of it more as a setting/storytelling thing.

Anyway, we’re agreed on the Domains for now!

I can see an argument for Katniss in Self-Interest for sure and the Unique Ability of Morality (self-sacrifice) seems perfect.

However…I’m not sure how well that works for the OS (?). MC Self-Interest gives us either Delay or Preconception as OS Issues. I don’t see Delay at all…Preconception maybe – people have all of these preconceptions about each other.

That gives us an OS Problem of either Help or Hinder. I’m not sure I see either of those as the thing that creates problems for all the characters. I’d be interested to hear what you think though.

My thinking was that the OS Concern is actually Past. The entire point of the Games is to symbolically recreate the Capital’s past victory over the districts and remind them of their subservience and the risks of rebellion.

The Issues under Past also look good, especially … Fate. (“May the odds be ever in your favor!”). The Capital wants to drum in the idea that it controls the fate of every citizen of the districts. The counterpoint of this is Katniss and Peeta showing that they actually can take control of their Destinies.

1 Like
#26

From the 10,000 foot view of several years since I read the book or watched the movie (so take with grain of salt), I would suggest bottom-right Concerns are worth a look.

  • OS Concern of The Present = Surviving. This is really strong, and works as a potential Goal.
    Plus you’ve got the present situation & circumstances being a huge source of conflict for Katniss’s District (11?) and all the districts.
  • MC Concern of Learning – training, being taught, learning how to win. (and all of those are conflict-driving processes in this story)
  • IC Concern of Conceiving – isn’t the Capitol really concerned about, and faces a lot of conflict from, its people getting the “wrong” ideas in their heads, or getting different ideas about the games? Also influencing Katniss to conceive things differently, to conceive herself differently.
  • RS Concern of Conscious – not 100% sure but gists definitely seem to apply. Brooding, being attentive to the relationship, disregarding the relationship… (thinking of Katniss & Peeta here)
3 Likes
#27

Interesting @mlucas.

I can see all those there. I like OS Present as a Goal and MC Learning.

I’m having trouble with the OS Present Issues though. This may be because I’m less familiar with them.

Concern of the Present = Work/Attraction/Repulsion/Attempt. Attraction and Repulsion I can find examples of but I don’t know how central they are. Attempt – maybe Katniss promising Prim that she will Attempt to win?

Whereas the Past:

  • Fate: “May the odds be ever in your favor”

  • Prediction: Who will win the hunger games? Can you convince the sponsors that you have a shot?

  • Interdiction: Katniss volunteers to take Prim’s place; everyone is vying to get help from sponsors during the games (which comes in the from of little parachutes that change the course of events); the rules get changed (twice);

  • Destiny: “Following an Inescapable Path” “Resisting Something’s Fortune” (by threatening to the eat the poison berries) . The whole star-crossed lovers idea that keeps getting repeated over and over again.

2 Likes
#28

Haha that’s funny, I was going to make another post describing how well the Variations under Present fit, but thought I should wait for further conversation. :slight_smile:

  • Attraction - the Games themselves, everyone’s attraction to them; also isn’t there a whole bunch of stuff about making the contestants attractive to the audience? I seem to recall it being important that they attract fans or the favour of judges (gamemakers?) or something, too. EDIT: right, this is what you mentioned about sponsors and parachuted items.
  • Repulsion: all the killing and murder of the Games. In fact, the Games are attractive because they are so repulsive.
  • Attempt: from the contestants point of view the Games are one big Attempt – applying themselves to something that’s definitely not known to be within their ability, esp. for Katniss, Peeta and Rue.
  • Work: aren’t there some contestants known as “careers” who have worked / trained for the Games their whole lives? For them the Games are like a job, and you can see the conflict between Work and Attempt when you compare them vs. Katniss/Peeta/Rue. Also Haymitch has to kind of go to work which sucks for him. And on another level, the Capital is exploiting the contestants by putting them to work in something so heinous.

I can see the Fate/Prediction/Interdiction/Destiny things you mentioned too, but for me they seem more at the surface/story-telling level, not as deep or conflict-causing (except for the Interdiction with Prim, that one is pretty strong). IF I’m right, this might be a case where the extra distance helps. (But I’d like to hear some other opinions too because maybe the distance is clouding things!)

3 Likes
#29

I shouldn’t be chirping in yet as I’ve only reread the first chapter. But I can’t think of many other interdictions and I’m not sure how this would create conflict for everyone. It seems pretty personal to Katniss. And it causes her conflict insofar as she now has to play in the Hunger Games, I guess, but also is addressing conflict. She can shut up and be thankful she wasnt chosen unless she needs to volunteer to keep her family safe. She can’t do both, so she picks the latter.

2 Likes
#30

Oh wow! Those are all great examples! (I concede your point about the benefit of having distance!)

I definitely see all of that once they get to the Capital. Can you think of any examples (if you can remember) from when they were still back in District 12?

I’m thinking of a) getting the sponsors to intervene (though @mlucas makes a great point about Attraction) and b) forcing the gamemakers to intervene by changing the rules in the middle of the game – especially at the end when they’re about to eat the poison fruit and the announcer has to shout “wait wait! there’s been another rule change!” That said, those could be PSR variations or something.

I have to think about this more. It would great if others had thoughts on this.

2 Likes