Last night, I was roaming the droves of Reddit on the Hunger Games subreddit and came across a post. I can link the post here because I think it's important to see the multitudes of takeaways a person can derive from a single piece of media. Basically, the post was discussing how people make concessions for Gale's actions by saying he had a bad childhood and if that's the case, the same thing could be extended to President Snow or Coin because they both experienced and witnessed terrible things. I disagree with this for many reasons but one huge one, is the war theory Suzanne Collins wrote her books based around. The comment I made says it best and it's copied below:

Uhhhh this is surely an interesting analysis. But no.

Oppressed people must take action and Suzanne used her characters as allegorical representatives of the types of government and civilians. She does this in a lot of her novels, and even did so in Gregor the Overlander.

Snow: Conservative fascist dictator

Plutarch: Central leaning Republican

Coin: libertarian (Posing as a liberal)

Gale: Leftist (extremist)

Peeta: Diplomatic Liberal

Katniss: Propogandized oppressed

There are other characters that represent others but I'm not going to get into that now.

The districts will always be the oppressed, regardless of the extreme measures they took to fight back. Gale grew up watching a systemic cleansing of children for entertainment as a reminder of something he had never participated in. His actions derive from survival and the need to deconstruct the entity that continually threatens that survival and makes it clear that time is limited. After the threat was eliminated, Gale ceased to use force. Gale is just a terrible person to Katniss, which is the largest reason to dislike him.

Snow experienced and witnessed terrible things (like you said, cannibalism and more) as collateral of war (that was, again, necessary because the districts were being oppressed). None of his actions were done out of protest or survival. We see that in TBOSAS. We do see his disdain and hunger and need for status. His contribution to the games and eventual rise to power in society was about exactly that, power. Very little of it had anything to do with exacting revenge on people he thought deserved it.

District 13 (and Coin) sat by for over 75 years and allowed others to fight their fight. Coin's motivations were done entirely out of self preservation of power. She was an opportunist. She refused to act until she knew she could come out on top, power wise. She didn't actually care about the districts if any of them would threaten a single shred of her authority. She wanted what the capitol had and recommending the new hunger games was her play at power while also manipulating the narrative of having the Victor's favor.

Peeta is the diplomatic liberal. The kind that shows up to assemblies in pink suits to make a point but ultimately, doesn't do anything of substance to last. You might be thinking, "but... He's so good with words and dropped the baby bomb and his crush and warned 13 about the missiles!" Yes, he was using diplomatic dissent to avoid any real trouble. He was attempting to subdue and rile. Obviously the love plot didn't convince anyone in the districts, he was making calculated moves in the way a merchant class child who was abused understood to make. He didn't even warn them clearly enough in the book, Haymitch had to decipher the warning as one.

Plutarch is the central leaning Republican (although in today's climate he'd be more akin to the diplomatic liberal or just a centralist, things have changed). He agrees, "these things are bad, we need to do something about it, but also... I'm very comfortable in my established life and do not want to disrupt that." His ability to empathize derives from his access to knowledge (books) and deep understanding of propaganda. He kind of fights fire with mist and hopes he wins.

Katniss represents the average, propagandized oppressed with a dissent. She never intended to be a rebel. We see in catching fire that she gets on the uptick of the idea of rebellion but her lack of knowledge and fear hold her back from actual action (and Haymitch but that's another conversation). Overall, her activism is kind of performative, like Peeta's, she's just put in a position where she's forced to be a bigger activist despite not fully understanding why everything she's doing is necessary. She says in the first book she doesn't care what propaganda the Capitol spouts, it doesn't help her put food on the table. She wanted her immediate unit to survive, she didn't even bring in the idea of overall liberation.

Products of their environment? Yes, but their motivations and decisions based on that environment are wholly individual. Coin and, Snow (and Plutarch but that's a different discussion) had the reigning information and opportunity to not contribute to the oppression of the people the way they did. In the pivotal moments of their lives, they chose power each time.

Gale chose liberation.

Naturally, this did not blow over well with everyone and I got downvoted to hell, as I often do in that sub.

The OP responded to my comment on the post, which I'll write below:

OP: Where I disagree, and this sort of goes into my own politics, is I don't think you can do horrific things and then call it liberation. If you beat your oppressors by killing the only innocent amongst them, then how are you that much better than your oppressors? Wholesale, would I rather the Capitol Children get blown up if it means millions of more children are saved? Yes. Would I vote for the person who came up for that plan? Or the person who did it? No. Because even though they were doing it for the better cause, they've shown to have the same extreme immorality. To be honest, even in admitting that I would rather the capitol children be blown up than the capital stay in power in that own universe, I would think myself an immoral person, I certainly wouldn't run for office. Sometimes you need bad people on your side to do the things that need to be done. But once those things are done, don't raise that bad person to any sort of office. The next president should be someone who voted against the capitol hunger games. And wasn't in on the capitol bombing. The worst of the rebellion shouldn't lead it in peacetimes

The thing about War theory is. . . Your personal opinion does not make any of these less true

So naturally, I responded.

My response:

That's you personally, not how actual liberation works. Suzanne wrote these books to discuss war theory and nothing about war is derived from morality.

Nazi Germany: the Jews were not released without indomitable force.

Palestine: they are still fighting for their liberation in Gaza, and force has been necessary

Ukraine: Again, against Russia, Ukraine has had to resort to extreme uses of force

Stonewall: essential turning point and use of force for gay and trans rights liberation

Everyone wants peace but few understand the cost at which peace is gained. Often times if someone does not understand the necessity of force used to obtain liberation, they've been privileged enough to not be in the position to use it. Gale didn't become the next president, we don't know what came of the politics in Panem after Coin and Snow died. All we know is that he has a fancy job in District 2 that puts him on TV from time time. Gale did not do any of this with the intention of being voted for and Coin wasn't going to give people the opportunity to vote for her. She was going to use her already established position and manipulate the masses with her carefully crafted "team" to place herself there.

This is a take in the political climate and what people have had to do to obtain liberation historically. So unfortunately, your personal views and ideals are not taken into account.

I will also post a couple of other honorable mentions because I think my expanded points made for both of the characters are just as important.

Commenter: Your point about Peeta is wrong, though. He's not all words and no action. He started the first spark by putting Katniss' life above his and later fueled it by donating to the District 11 families, volunteering to protect Katniss, and using the baby bomb to rile up the Capitol citizens.

You were just trying to put them each into a box, which doesn't represent who they are and what they did.

My response: At no point did I say Peeta is all words and no action. He utilizes his words to incite action but we know given his reactions that the intention behind his words and the impact they have are not always the same. Let's use your District 11 donation for example, that was done out of guilt and a protective need upon seeing the families and he even says later on that he really screwed up. Meaning he likely would not have done that if he knew the political climate he was dealing with. He had no intention of igniting a spark that would lead to violence because he often displayed his belief in words equaling peace.

Putting Katniss' life above his was a recognition that her family needs her more than his needs him, among other things. We'll never truly know how intentional that act of rebellion actually was but we can glean from the text that rebelling against the Capitol was very low on his list when making that decision in the first book. In CF it's more intentional.

Even his biggest act of intentional rebellion was done in top secret; painting Rue on the floor of the training center. He still very much falls into the diplomatic liberal box that Suzanne was pretty clear in putting him in. Peeta is the equivalent of TikTok creators making think pieces on world politics and getting people to donate to a GoFundMe. I'm not downplaying his impact or action, because it does it's job and does it very well, but it's not stopping the missiles from raining down.

So yes, that box does represent who Peeta is and what he does. People will always contain multitudes, including fictional characters, but based on much of his intent behind his actions, or incitement of others actions, he fits pretty firmly in that box.

Another Commenter: Commenter quoted me He agrees, "these things are bad, we need to do something about it, but also... I'm very comfortable in my established life and do not want to disrupt that." His ability to empathize derives from his access to knowledge (books) and deep understanding of propaganda. He kind of fights fire with mist and hopes he wins.

Plutarch twice participates in a plot to blow up the Hunger Games arena and conspires with Thirteen to create a violent rebellion that would drown the Capitol. In what sense is he comfortable with his established life or fighting fire with mist?

My Response: Plutarch represents the billionaires in our economy who are so removed from even the privileged in our society. Being active in activism while also receiving none of the repercussions for doing so does not make someone less comfortable with their established life. His showmanship, complaints of the lack of coffee/cush accommodations in 13, propos, and ability to still take the head game maker position are all physical representations of that as well. He's never truly had to be comfortable with being uncomfortable. He's been in a position of power to do more than what he was and has utilized other people to do the work and take the risks he's unwilling to do. He lost nothing in the rebellion and transition. Not that direct loss is a equitable indicator of participation in rebellion but rarely does a family maintain its socials standing after not only one, but two rebellions. Like Coin, he is an opportunist, but unlike her, his social standing mattered more than his power over people.

He only risked when the reward was in his favor and the repercussions were placed on the shoulders of others.

My point, and the ultimate point that Suzanne makes, is that all of these people are essential to a successful rebellion. But there's a balance that has to be made when deconstructing in order to not repeat the cycle from the otherside when hatred and power struggle is at an all time high.

Honorable mention for my ego: Commentor quoted me That's you personally, not how actual liberation works. [...] Everyone wants peace but few understand the cost at which peace is gained. Often times if someone does not understand the necessity of force used to obtain liberation, they've been privileged enough to not be in the position to use it. [...] This is a take in the political climate and what people have had to do to obtain liberation historically.

Can we get a major emphasis on these lines please? You so eloquently and succinctly explained everything I feel and think about Gale's character and the story at large. Too many people read THG and take an extreme black or white viewpoint on the war which is impossible in real life. It would be great if peaceful revolutions could free the oppressed but it is rare that such a tactic wins a war. Time and time again throughout human history, peace has often been gained through violence or maintained by the threat of it.

And can I just say, I love the way you write. Your comments really capture the facets and nuances of each character and their political alignments. Thanks for sharing, your comments are a great read! :)

OVERALL

I can do more discussions on the War theory Suzanne presents in her novels, because there is SOOOO much more and this is genuinely just the tip of the iceberg. Almost every single character is a stand in for a facet of war theory.