While I understand Meg Roy’s point, I believe she only took a cursory look at the Hunger Games. I think she got trapped in a role many feminists do, where gleaning the text can provide for a thin backbone of an argument against a novel for how it portrays the woman as too vulnerable, but I think Roy missed her mark.
If Roy is going to mention how Katniss’ best asset is her romance with Peta, then she must mention how the same is true for the male character. Not to mention that everyone sees much more physical potential and threat within Katniss than they do Peta, in fact, Katniss is ranked by the game makers as a 9 and continually is sought out for alliances while Peta is cast into the shadows, outdone by Katniss’ strength and will to win. In fact, Peta works the angle for their joint benefit, but it is really his only angle. If the roles had been reversed, perhaps this would have been a problem, but Peta is truly the much more exploited, dependent character. Opposite of what Roy says, had Peta been the protagonist, the story would have been a love story alone, and much less one of struggle and bravery because Peta, as it is stated many times in the novel, had no other assets going itno the game and surely would have never won them if it weren’t for Katniss.
I think The Hunger Games is a very empowering text for young girls, and Roy shouldn’t detract from that based off her loose argument. Every character in the novel is exploited in whatever way they can, boy and girls alike, because their exploitation is the point of the entire series. Sure Katniss undergoes pressure to become more beautiful and feminine, and therefore likeable, but so does every single other character. To me, Roy’s argument is weak at best because it seems like she didn’t even read the novel, or understand it, and becomes one of the women who many deplore because of their avocation of feminism in an incorrect context.
If Roy is going to mention how Katniss’ best asset is her romance with Peta, then she must mention how the same is true for the male character. Not to mention that everyone sees much more physical potential and threat within Katniss than they do Peta, in fact, Katniss is ranked by the game makers as a 9 and continually is sought out for alliances while Peta is cast into the shadows, outdone by Katniss’ strength and will to win. In fact, Peta works the angle for their joint benefit, but it is really his only angle. If the roles had been reversed, perhaps this would have been a problem, but Peta is truly the much more exploited, dependent character. Opposite of what Roy says, had Peta been the protagonist, the story would have been a love story alone, and much less one of struggle and bravery because Peta, as it is stated many times in the novel, had no other assets going itno the game and surely would have never won them if it weren’t for Katniss.
I think The Hunger Games is a very empowering text for young girls, and Roy shouldn’t detract from that based off her loose argument. Every character in the novel is exploited in whatever way they can, boy and girls alike, because their exploitation is the point of the entire series. Sure Katniss undergoes pressure to become more beautiful and feminine, and therefore likeable, but so does every single other character. To me, Roy’s argument is weak at best because it seems like she didn’t even read the novel, or understand it, and becomes one of the women who many deplore because of their avocation of feminism in an incorrect context.