Skip to main content
Science Fiction & Fantasy

Return to Question

Corrected a grammatical error
Source Link
Elzee
Elzee
  • 1.5k
  • 2
  • 14
  • 20

They are not barbaric. They are not sadists. And yet, they seem to enjoy the Hunger Games year after year. Were they never moved, in seven long decades, by the misfortune of the Districts who had been made to pay a heavy price for an uprising which in itself was nothing but an outcry for equality and freedom?

We see in the "Catching Fire" segment, during Peeta's interview where he reveals Katniss' pregnancy, that some people in the audience express their shock over Katniss having to participate in the Games despite her pregnancy and shout slogans against the Games. While that makes some sense, I think, that is quite paradoxical. They let children like Rue get brutally killed in the Games but find it shocking that a pregnant Katniss had to be sent into the Arena?

I don't know if the author, Suzanne Collins, intentionally incorporated this contradiction in the novels or if it appearappears so only in the films, but considering the way the Capitol has been portrayed, one would wonder why the people never tried to put an end to the Hunger Games.

They are not barbaric. They are not sadists. And yet, they seem to enjoy the Hunger Games year after year. Were they never moved, in seven long decades, by the misfortune of the Districts who had been made to pay a heavy price for an uprising which in itself was nothing but an outcry for equality and freedom?

We see in the "Catching Fire" segment, during Peeta's interview where he reveals Katniss' pregnancy, that some people in the audience express their shock over Katniss having to participate in the Games despite her pregnancy and shout slogans against the Games. While that makes some sense, I think, that is quite paradoxical. They let children like Rue get brutally killed in the Games but find it shocking that a pregnant Katniss had to be sent into the Arena?

I don't know if the author, Suzanne Collins, intentionally incorporated this contradiction in the novels or if it appear so only in the films, but considering the way the Capitol has been portrayed, one would wonder why the people never tried to put an end to the Hunger Games.

They are not barbaric. They are not sadists. And yet, they seem to enjoy the Hunger Games year after year. Were they never moved, in seven long decades, by the misfortune of the Districts who had been made to pay a heavy price for an uprising which in itself was nothing but an outcry for equality and freedom?

We see in the "Catching Fire" segment, during Peeta's interview where he reveals Katniss' pregnancy, that some people in the audience express their shock over Katniss having to participate in the Games despite her pregnancy and shout slogans against the Games. While that makes some sense, I think, that is quite paradoxical. They let children like Rue get brutally killed in the Games but find it shocking that a pregnant Katniss had to be sent into the Arena?

I don't know if the author, Suzanne Collins, intentionally incorporated this contradiction in the novels or if it appears so only in the films, but considering the way the Capitol has been portrayed, one would wonder why the people never tried to put an end to the Hunger Games.

Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackSciFi/status/439077789170671616
Source Link
Elzee
Elzee
  • 1.5k
  • 2
  • 14
  • 20

Why did the Capitol's highly civilized people never vote down the Hunger Games?

They are not barbaric. They are not sadists. And yet, they seem to enjoy the Hunger Games year after year. Were they never moved, in seven long decades, by the misfortune of the Districts who had been made to pay a heavy price for an uprising which in itself was nothing but an outcry for equality and freedom?

We see in the "Catching Fire" segment, during Peeta's interview where he reveals Katniss' pregnancy, that some people in the audience express their shock over Katniss having to participate in the Games despite her pregnancy and shout slogans against the Games. While that makes some sense, I think, that is quite paradoxical. They let children like Rue get brutally killed in the Games but find it shocking that a pregnant Katniss had to be sent into the Arena?

I don't know if the author, Suzanne Collins, intentionally incorporated this contradiction in the novels or if it appear so only in the films, but considering the way the Capitol has been portrayed, one would wonder why the people never tried to put an end to the Hunger Games.