going off of my sweetheart post, thereâs a difference between something being good and something being an allusion. A reference can be good, but just because itâs an allusion doesnât automatically make it good. sometimes it can end up undermining development or meaning.
sotr is supposed to be an allusion to Plutarchâs (the philosopherâs) Parallel Lives. Instead of grasping the concept that the parallel lives Plutarch detailed are not 1:1 reflections, nor are they even always all that similar, sotr removes all agency from both katniss and haymitch as protagonists by making them immediate reflections of one another, giving the plot, and their lives, no chance to breathe. The books open the same: search for smaller sibling, go to work (hunting, hauling grain) , go out to the woods to meet a loved one (gale, LD), talk about the reaping, end up reaped non-traditionally, go into the games with outlier scores, pick up a young ally that reminds them of their sibling back home, spend a few days in and out of it, wake up to effie, etc.
As a result, Haymitch is unable to become the protagonist of his own life. Rather than revealing his character through distinct choices, the narrative repeatedly steers him back onto Katniss's trajectory. He feels less like a protagonist shaping the story than he does a participant moving through a predetermined sequence of echoes.
The ghosts that âhaunt the narrativeâ trample it from a sprawling, dynamic arc into flattened parallel lines, reducing both narratives into much lamer variations of the same story.
Plutarch's paired biographies invite comparison between similar figures whose different circumstances and choices reveal their character. They aren't meant to collapse into one another.
Just because something alludes to something else doesnât mean itâs a quality, meaningful addition to the story. It doesnât mean itâs good.