Here's the thing though, the book never really acknowledges what exactly happened with the Capitol. The last thing noted about it is that Coin proposed one final Hunger Games, discussed it with her colleagues and the victors, and the victors voted for it. There's no mention that it was rejected after they voted for it or that Paylor went with another solution, so one can come to the conclusion that Paylor did go with final Hunger Games idea. Subjective but this is YMMV for a reason because the book didn't really specify.
I'm fairly certain Plutarch will go with the idea because when Coin brought up her Hunger Games proposal, Haymitch asked if it was Plutarch's idea. If Plutarch can go for one more Hunger Games, I'm sure he will because throughout Mockingjay, it's clear he still likes violence, weapons, and death even if he's on the rebel side. Nothing really stops him or Coin's other colleagues from reiterating Coin's idea to the new President, who still needs to deal with the "Districts are angry at the Capitol enough for a genocide" problem.
Paylor is vague because she isn't really featured much in the book, so there's not a lot one can say about her character. The fact that her District was bombed can also mean that she would want revenge for it. With the Districts' anger at the Capitol, there's a good chance the Districts voted for Paylor because she was someone who agreed with their ideas. You're right that genocide is not likely because it's not something they can afford, but it's still a possibility because again, there is no confirmation what Paylor exactly did. It doesn't need to go as far as genocide either; it can just be a horrible enough punishment that it satisfies the Districts.
As for the Katniss example, I'll move those to Protagonist-Centered Morality and possibly Unintentionally Unsympathetic.
Edited by turtlewizard
Transcender of Gender
Moving these from the Fan Dumb trope due to Edit Warring:
- There's yet another protest over the hypothetical casting of the mixed-race Jesse Williams
◊ as Finnick in the Catching Fire movie. Fans on various message boards were upset, not because they think Williams is a bad actor, but because Finnick should be a tall Nordic person or a Robert Pattinson type. Since Finnick is only described as tan with green eyes, and "bronze" hair (which can be taken to me red or brown, depending on who you ask), his race is pretty ambiguous. Some have even been saying that the word "tan" can only be used on white people.
- On the other side of the coin, many fans were absolutely certain Katniss was brown-skinned. While in the books she describes herself as "olive", and she is in the film, the casting call for the film contained some Unfortunate Implications, calling specifically for a "Caucasian" actress. This angered many of these aforementioned fans and caused them to cry racism. However, there is evidence that says they were just following the book:
- Both a UK and several international covers clearly show a white woman. The books are ambiguous, but the covers aren't. There has been some debate on how accurate the covers have been, though.
- From a biological standpoint, if her mother was white and her sister resembles her greatly, Katniss' father would have most likely been white as well and Katniss takes after her father. Though blonde hair and blue eyes are admittedly not traits exclusive to "purely" white people, population of District 12 was isolated since at least before the Dark Days which pretty much rules out any mixed race. This evidence was and continues to be ignored by those who insist that Katniss is not white.
- Both a UK
- There's yet another protest over the hypothetical casting of the mixed-race Jesse Williams
Discuss here about the example, not on the YMMV page. Once an agreement has been reached they can be put back.
they/them || "Forgive me, regent of queer amphibians" - Lt.BGob
There's a poll going on on this site (forget the name) asking if the child-on-child violence depicted in The Hunger Games "basically endorses bullying". About 70% or so agreed it was. Should this be put under Hate Dumb or Critical Research Failure, or just Did Not Do The Research?
I'm wondering if Johanna's Naked First Impression has become memetic to the point where it could count as a Memetic Outfit. Or, rather, Memetic-not-outfit?
Adding the following two to the Discussion page due to Edit War:
OP's justification after I removed: Johanna and Enobaria were definitely down with the one-time Capitol Hunger Games, and Coin mentions that her colleagues were conflicted over it, meaning some of them did agree with it. Plutarch in particular would definitely be open to the idea; he was a former Gamemaker after all. Thus, killing Coin doesn't change anything, someone else is going to reiterate the idea because the Capitol Hunger Games is no longer just Coin's idea. There is also no mention that Paylor rejected Coin's Hunger Games proposal that was voted by the Hunger Games victors, so it can also suggest that Paylor went along with it. Even if you go with the idea that the Capitol Hunger Games didn't happen, remember that the Capitol Hunger Games was supposed to satisfy the Districts' blood lust so that they didn't annihilate the entire Capitol population. There's a good chance Paylor may have been forced to give a worse punishment if she rejected the one-time Hunger Games option. Either way, it isn't a happy ending for the Capitol, and the epilogue doesn't actually address the fate of the Capitol population.
My issue with this post and the justification is that it essentially boils down to "Nobody said it didn't happen, so that means it probably did." Johanna and Enobaria are two people, and Coin's colleagues could be absolutely anyone, but we don't know exactly who they are, so why would they randomly gain the power to implement more Games?
And why would Plutarch also want more Games? "He was a former Gamemaker" is a pretty flimsy justification for definitively saying that he would want more Hunger Games after helping to fight a war to stop the originals.
"There is also no mention that Paylor rejected Coin's Hunger Games proposal that was voted by the Hunger Games victors, so it can also suggest that Paylor went along with it." - again, just because we didn't see Paylor rejecting the Hunger Games for Capitol children, doesn't mean that she's going to go through with it. Think about the way Collins presented Paylor, and the fact that she was from a District that was bombed.
"Even if you go with the idea that the Capitol Hunger Games didn't happen, remember that the Capitol Hunger Games was supposed to satisfy the Districts' blood lust so that they didn't annihilate the entire Capitol population." - Yes, and right after Coin said this, she acknowledged that they couldn't afford this. It's more feasible that Paylor told everyone that "hey, no, genocide is a bad idea citizens, let's focus on rebuilding", instead of throwing up her hands and saying "yeah, okay, let's slaughter a whole class full of people because we're mad that they oppressed us before".
Katniss does have moral qualms, but the series is about how It Gets Easier, so it would be silly for her to still be retreading the same arguments. And she is in a fight to survive. She promised her sister she would win, so it would logically follow that she needs to "plan out their deaths".
The Careers are condemned because they are better-fed, live better lives, and then train to murder children who are less fortunate than them for glory. When she "criticised" the tributes for killing each other, it was conveying her shock that they had turned on each other so quickly. Katniss made a vow to keep Peeta alive, which in her mind is less selfish than simply killing everyone to win. And training like Careers just meant getting good at fighting.
In terms of Squad 451, they can hardly call her out on her mission when they all later admit that they knew she was lying and then went ahead with it anyway.
All of these are examples of Protagonist-Centred Morality, but not really Designated Hero. Thoughts?
Edited by arctichigh Hide / Show Replies