Heroine Archetype: Katniss Everdeen
I read 50-80 books a year and post reviews for 10-20 of them. This is the only one that is not a review. I’m posting this in the hopes of getting more writers, movie moguls, TV producers, etc to understand how a real literary heroine works. Since everyone finally caught on to The Hunger Games, writers everywhere are writing kick-ass female heroines into their thrillers. But most of them just don’t get it. They don’t understand why Katniss Everdeen is such a rarity. This is not a fan post. This is a deconstruction of the 21st Century’s greatest character (and it’s coming from the creator of Pia Sabel, the pre-apocalyptic heroine and runner-up).
Since Odysseus came home to find Penelope surrounded by suitors, heroes in fiction have followed a fairly straight path: They slog their way home after partying with an enchantress for a few years*, walk in like they still own the place, kill everyone in sight, and scoop up the babe. Heroines in modern thrillers follow that same path (except for who scoops up whom).
After decades of equal rights progress, all I get is a heroine who acts like Chuck Norris in drag?
Really?
I know several upstanding, civilized men who I imagine, if their children’s lives were at stake, could go on a killing spree to save the innocents. Do we expect the same level of ultra-violence from women? No. The women I know would give anything and everything to save their children. However, they would tend to kill as a last resort and not as a first thought.
This is where Katniss Everdeen comes in. She thinks before making a decision. She shows concern for human life, even the bad guys. She gets angry without being mad. Yes, she literally killed everyone in the first book’s finale, as would any male protagonist, but she killed them the way a woman would—thoughtfully. Don’t laugh. The kill-or-be-killed situation after the death of her innocent friend; the ‘gotta kill ’em all’ attack of the undead; the execution decision in the end; etc. were welcome departures from standard male hey-let’s-kill-everyone-who-sticks-his-head-out-a-window decision making process. The difference is subtle when you parse it out but it is the catalyst for her success. She is a believable heroine because she thinks before she reacts.
Sure, we have some fine 20th century heroines today. It’s the underlying realism, or lack thereof, that keeps them at a distance. Kay Scarpetta? Temperance Brennan? How many lab rats do you know even own a gun let alone train with Army Rangers six days a week? Evelyn Salt … you remember the movie, Angelina Jolie, vicious double agent? No? Well, anyway, Angelina did her part well. Problem was: her character was Sean Connery with boobs. Why don’t movies starring great actresses like Angelina take off? Because of reactionary kills in overwhelming quantities. While mega-death is entertaining, instant-killing is the realm of heroes not heroines. We expect Jack Reacher, Jason Bourne, even crippled Lincoln Rhyme, to kill as a reaction to a sound or a shadow. When we see women do this same thing, we hesitate. Why?
Doesn’t fit the gender.
Katniss Everdeen fits the gender. She thinks. She worries. She gets angry. She makes decisions. She demands respect. She kills only when there is no alternative. That fits the gender.
That is a realistic heroine. And she has our respect.
TV & Film producers, writers, etc, please get it right. Ask yourself, “What Would Katniss Do?”
And, to see a challenge to Katniss’ powers, read my book, The Geneva Decision on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or Kobo. If you don’t like it, I’ll give you your money back.
Peace, Seeley James
———-
*My wife was not as forgiving as Penelope…
Category: On Writing, Publishing
Comment… “Hey! Who gave you permission to write about me? Ha! Ha!
I take it you don’t believe that behind every Phyllis Schlafly there’s a Kitness Everdeen? =)
Women are 9 times less likely than men to commit an act of violence, your theory is valid in that respect. But maybe women like to see/read violent women? Acting out a repressed desire to wield power, perhaps? I for one would not mind reading about a female Jack Reacher. Is that unseemly?
The average woman is 5’4″ and weighs 120 lbs, yet TV & movies show her knocking out men left and right. Even if she’s strong, the leverage alone is an insurmountable handicap. What makes Katniss believable is the quiver. She can win before hand-to-hand combat begins.
*Spolier alert*
Katniss is a realistic heroine that women can relate to in many ways. She has no crazy superpowers. She is talented with the bow and arrow, but she is human. Her humanity is shown early on in her story. She grew up hungry, lost her father, feels for her community, feels love for her best friend and then sacrifices her safety in order to protect her little sister. She is vulnerable and unsure. She’s not glamorous (until she gets a makeover). She doesn’t want to compete. She’s not a monster. She’s forced into the situation.
WWKD?
Hmmm it’s an awkward mouthful there. Sounds more like a radio station call sign.
Katniss does think; she has a plan. Sometimes it’s not a good plan, but usually it’s better than no plan at all. She makes promises that she intends to keep. Circumstances mean she can’t keep them, but she did her best.
But more importantly – she loses it. She drops her bundle in a big way. She curls up into a small ball and she cries and feels sorry for herself. And then, like women everywhere, she gets over it. She gets up; she takes that first step forward. She metaphorically gets dinner on the table or whatever she needs to do. She fakes it until she makes it.
And *that*, is women’s great secret. When we think we can’t go on, we do, because we know that somebody has to.
For me, that’s what makes her a realistic heroine.
Great article, Seeley. I agree with you, and Michelle and AM as well.
Katniss is a heroine, not because of her gender or fight skills, but because of her realness. In fact, she reminds me of Kate Middleton (Duchess of Cambridge). Poised and gracious, but driven – to do things her way, to do what is right, to be a good role model.
hen speaking specifically to the female heroine, I would submit that women have to be divided into two categories. Mothers and non mothers. In the case of Katnis, I believe she had become a mother to hear little sister, and therefore she had the mindset of a mother.
Before I was a mother, I never had a thought in my head about killing anyone. Even in self defense, the thought of killing didn’t enter my mind. Fighting back to survive, yes. Killing, no. The moment I became a mother, the knowledge that I would kill anyone who threatened my child was immediate. My maternal instincts were on over-drive. I told people honestly that I had a mother grizzly bear mentality when it came to protecting my children. I gave fair warning up front.
Having raised four sons, there were a few times when my children were in harm’s way and it became obvious that I would become that mother grizzly bear in a heartbeat. Not forgiving, not rational, not thoughtful, not worried about going to prison, not someone you wanted to be face to face with. I was also open and honest with my kids. Don’t create any situation where someone might try to hurt you, because your mother is capable of killing that person. Never doubt it. I am grateful that I never had to kill anyone to protect my children, but I know that I would have, had it ever come down to it.
I also knew the moment my first child was born, that I would lay down my life for my child without hesitating. I can’t say there are many people in the world that I would give my life for without a second thought, but I know I would for my children. I suspect that to be true for a great majority of mothers. It was certainly true of Katnis. She didn’t expect to win the Hunger Games. She expected to die. She was willing to lay down her life to protect her sister, because she had become the mother.
In the case of Evelyn Salt, she had a husband to protect, and once he was dead, she wanted vengeance. Would most women go on vengeful killing sprees, probably not, but a woman in her unique position certainly might. I didn’t struggle with finding her believable. The problem with that movie was believing that she would be taken for such a brief time into the custody of the Russians and then continue to be a brainwashed killer all those years later.
Additionally, script writers often fail to achieve the important bond between audience and heroine—before they send her on a bloody rampage. You have to care about the character to be willing to follow her down the path of violence. In Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Jolie is able to connect with the audience emotionally. We have no problem following her through all her violence. She can kill just like Mr. Smith, and we don’t shy away at all. Because we like her. And she never loses a night’s sleep over anyone she has assassinated. We don’t mind her lack of emotion about her job.
When I read books with heroines, and those women are in a position of protecting people they love, I do not find it difficult to believe that they will kill just as ruthlessly as any man. While most women forced to protect loved ones will not kill thoughtlessly, when they do kill, they can be more dangerous than a man. Women are not bound by the male concept of fair play. There is no code of honor. A knife in the back is as good as anywhere else. That can make a woman heroine, and the way she kills, far more interesting.
Ultimately, I think society shies away from brutal women killers because women are supposed to be wives and mothers, and men are supposed to protect the family. We see these gender roles in clear divisions. While women’s lib may have expanded our minds to entertain the female warrior, we generally prefer to see our female characters as nurturing care givers and our male characters as macho protectors. It’s hard wired into our brains as the natural division of the sexes. If you are going to deviate from that, you have to make sure you don’t just flip the gender roles.
I tackled the same question in my own novel and am glad you have raised the subject!
Contest is over, THANK YOU for participating. And now for the results.
HONORABLE MENTION: Jodi Conway who said, “behind every Phyllis Schlafly there’s a Kitness Everdeen? =)”. Clever, no? Unfortunately, my 89 year-old mother is a 3rd generation, lifelong feminist who, offended for reasons unclear to me, vetoed that entry within seconds (first time she ever made a comment about my blog). Sorry, Mom is my Supreme Court.
RUNNER UP: AM Gray who so eloquently said (and I’m not sure if this was a specific reference because I read the books on the first day of publication and I’m too old to recall the exact scene if there was one), “She curls up into a small ball and she cries and feels sorry for herself. And then, like women everywhere, she gets over it. She gets up; she takes that first step forward.” Right, never saw Bruce Willis curl up and cry before moving on. Nor Salt. Not even Temperance Brennan (although I’ve only read three “Bones” books).
WINNER: Kimberley Anglesey! Not for her lack of brevity, nor for being last in under the wire, she won based on the most thought-provoking entry. She pointed out about women, “when they do kill, they can be more dangerous than a man. Women are not bound by the male concept of fair play. There is no code of honor. A knife in the back is as good as anywhere else. That can make a woman heroine, and the way she kills, far more interesting.”
Ms. Anglesey’s concept goes beyond mine and even beyond the Katniss character. Her statement reminded me of Deborah Schurman-Kauflin’s study of female serial killers (a doctoral thesis published ~ ten years ago) in which violent methods of dispatch were rare. Poison, killing the victim while asleep, backstabbing, and other non-confrontational methods were the norm.
I appreciate everyone’s participation. Feel free to contact me any time at seeley@seeleyjames.com.