A few months ago, I watched the entire Hunger Games franchise for the first time. My eyes watered with emotion when, in the first movie, Katniss volunteers herself as tribute to save her little sister from certain death.

What higher virtue is there other than to protect and defend those who are incapable of defending themselves?

This moment defines the stories as a modern classic for good reason. However, as I continued to watch I became conflicted and ultimately resentful of some of the writer’s choices regarding Katniss, specifically her relationship with Peeta and her choice to save him after he tries to murder her in Mockingjay.

Western storytelling, since the Greeks, has had a battle between “realism” or “naturalism” - and instead “prioritizing cathartic drama” (more on this later). This started with the transition of dramatists between the traditions of Aeschylus and Euripides. You can see the perspective of at least one Ancient Greek about this in the play Frogs by Aristophanes, who was a comedic playwright. He concedes, through the god Dionysus, that he finds Euripides’ writing rather clever, but that it has no weight and no practical advice for people when compared to the “old master” Aeschylus.

Nietzsche comes to a similar conclusion about the superiority of Aeschylus over Euripides, however he lists a different reason: the high drama enables such an extreme emotional catharsis that the viewer feels more human. Something like that, forgive me, I haven’t read The Birth of Tragedy, just a summary. I believe this may be the perspective that has informed artists for about the last 150 years or so when it comes to the idea of rehabilitating the arts. I don’t think writers take Aristophanes’ perspective seriously enough.

So, it may be that both Aristophanes and Nietzsche are correct and that there is a greater story to be told when serious advice is wrapped up in high emotional drama. However, in the context of this story franchise, I believe Suzanne Collins hit the nail on the head in terms of emotional drama while failing the audience in terms of imparting useful advice.

A love triangle is a solid and effective way to build emotional drama. Katniss must choose between two men: Gale and Peeta. Maybe something was lost in translation from book to film, but I was not sufficiently convinced that Katniss’ choice in Peeta was either well-advised or even emotionally sound.

Gale is the guy who sticks around and takes care of Katniss’ mother and sister. Peeta attempts to sacrifice Katniss’ life to save his own skin twice. The interactions between Gale and Katniss are full of a considerate affection that implies a mature relationship; Katniss and Peeta are wound up in a trauma-bonded tryst.

Where is the evidence that Peeta is trustworthy as a person: where does he rectify his disloyal actions? Even if his actions in the third movie are informed by torture, how would a reasonable person be convinced that someone capable of that degree of weakness is a suitable life partner when they were the victim and target of the torture-motivated aggression? And where do those events, wherein we as viewers are convinced that this is a sensible romantic conclusion, occur?

It’s an emotionally compelling story, though: Not only does she save him from himself, but their high-drama relationship is transformed into a happily ever after. But I think it subtly advises the viewer to eschew a reasonable and mature romance for one which has the highest volume and extremity of feelings.

To that point, in classical literature, when a heroine eschews her father’s and family’s advice about whom to marry, she does not abandon common sense and reason when it comes to evaluating a man’s character, his virtue, his honor and how he regards her: it is only villainesses, temptresses, and women who are destined to ruin who choose men based on pure “feeling.”

In Mockingjay there is that pivotal scene wherein they are reunited: Peeta, because of his brainwashing, attempts to murder Katniss, and Katniss turns around and saves his life.

While we may want to tell ourselves a story that the ultimate hero will rescue us no matter our ill-deeds and no matter at what cost their life, in a practical composition this writes a character who values the lives of others over their own life. Is that heroic? And so, while we may fantasize about this making the ultimate hero, in the desire to become heroes ourselves, do we devalue our own lives?

Further, is it heroic to give up your life for others because of some belief that the life of any other - and even the one who tried to kill you - is more important than your own? I can see contexts where this makes sense: parents saving their children, lovers sacrificing themselves. I can agree with iterating the western virtue of mercy and writing a Katniss who does not seek vengeance on Peeta, but I also criticize the version of Katniss that was written as a character who does not reason through her decisions nor prioritize her own well-being and life through her choices.

Maybe the contemporary epic hero sacrifices their life to save the person who tried to murder them, but I cannot make sense of this value/virtue and the decision making that created it. I suppose it’s a reflection of Jesus Christ - but I disagree with the practical consequences of pretending that is the way mere mortals are supposed to act.

Maybe the lesson is that Peeta is incapable of defending himself, just as Katniss' sister was. But it’s then only through the deus ex machina of convenient writing that saves Katniss from her poor choices.