#hijacking

What it boils down to, for me I think, is that the capitol has to create things to manipulate Peeta but D13 used what was already there for Gale. Gale already had a mean arrogant streak and wasn't good at taking criticism or rejection. He already had a cold callousness about killing and death. He was already a bit radicalized, and Coin did twist that into something worse. No, Gale didn't kill Prim, Coin did. BUT Gale did invent the weapon + tactic used by his ally and superior to kill her. Katniss told him it was wrong, this trap he'd made, and he condescended to her about it, how this is just how war works. Acted like she was just naive about it. His own ignorance of the reality of life and death and his complete disregard for human life on the other side of the war is what got Prim killed.

Peeta, on the other hand, is nothing like his highjacked self. They didn't take pieces of his personality, personal flaws, etc. and twist them into their perfect soldier. The capitol had to use false memories, had to inflate his insecurities, had to use chemicals and torture and mutated venom. They didn't make Peeta aggressive through hatred or vengeance, they made him aggressive through bodily fear. The venom and his body's extreme adrenaline, the fight or flight response to that. He didn't attack Katniss bc he thought he was better than her or bc she deserved it, he attacked her because the very sight of her caused his body to go into overdrive of adrenaline to protect himself from her. This is a Peeta that *hates* Katniss, and he wants to kill her, but her specifically. He only reacts negatively towards other people (other than normal trauma-induced stuff) when she is involved somehow, like him flipping out on Delly while Katniss watched behind the glass.

These characters are not equivalent. And from a meta perspective, they're not supposed to be. Katniss ends up picking Peeta. Yes, the character obviously would have picked him, but also Katniss as a narrative figure picks him. She picks what he represents. Integrity in war. That boy on the rooftop that said he was willing to kill in self defense and to do what he needed to do but wanted to stay himself. Wanted to stay a human being even in that violence. Wanted to come out the other side of it still intact. Wanted the flowers to grow again after the harsh winter; a dandelion in the spring. Not the cycle of destruction, of forever punishing those that have wronged you, that both Gale and a capitol-kids hunger game would represent.

Which brings my thoughts also to the male loneliness epidemic. (We won't even get started on the fact that when women have problems it's something they need to just get over and take a joke, but when men have problems it's an epidemic) That is Gale. Yes, he has absolutely valid reasons behind his emotions. But he then takes those emotions and becomes radicalized, become something lesser. And that is so indicative of our current political climate in a lot of ways. Men have been hurt by the patriarchy also, they have been raised and socialized and desensitized and to not forming genuine emotional connections with the men around them or the women there in a relationships with. And I do separate those specifically, because men are also taught to not see women as people, so to a lot of men you are either a. someone they are related to b. someone they are romantically interested in or c. someone they are sexually interested in. And that is all a woman can be to them, not a friend.

So every which way they turn men are not taught the skills it takes to not be lonely. Community and having a support system and a network of people doesn't just happen by accident. That is something that you build, and cultivate, and prune, and intentionally add to. Men are lonely because they want someone else to do the work for them. But the onus is on them and the system that made them that way.

And that man is the same as Gale. Someone who is rightfully hurt and wounded by the society they live in but then takes those real feelings and experiences and lets it justify all of the awfulness that follows.

Gale and Peeta are not equivalent. In dumbed down terms, Gale became bad because of what was already in him and then was fine to stay that way. Peeta became bad because of something someone else put in him, and then he did the work to not stay that way.