jioan:
I only read the first book so far and therefore can only discuss it, but the gamemakers appear to be the tools of the government used to form propaganda into entertainment. The message they're supposed to send is one that makes the towns feel powerless and insignificant. It's supposed to assist in forcing them into submission by showing they have absolute power over their children and all other aspects of their lives.
Yes, that's their role exactly.
jioan:
Having games like this makes sense from one perspective although it does seem that it would incite rebellion and fuel any resistance. The government should be trying to make the districts feel part of the nation and proud of it as opposed to teaching them to despise their masters but I digress.
I'm sure it did in the early years, but remember that this has now been going on for the better part of a century, and the fiefs are essentially kept in such poverty and divided that any rebellion would be very simple to put down. The reasoning behind the Games isn't really explained all that well until the second book though, so if you only read the first, your frustration with the motive and implementation makes sense.
jioan:
The gamemakers make the illogical decision of allowing compassionate axts such as Katniss taking care of Peeta. This is against the message they are trying to send and splitting them up should have become a priority. They want those willing to kill at all costs to get far in the game. Once they figured out that Peeta and Katniss weren't those people they should have had one or both killed.
<quote>
They allow the acts of compassion because even the target audience (the people of the Capitol who don't have to sacrifice their children to the Games) need compassion/romance to make interesting television. Also, that dynamic has the added draw of being a unique situation for a yearly murderfest show.
As for trying to kill them once they figure out that Peeta and Katniss aren't willing to kill at all costs, they do try that, but again, if the game makers get directly involved then that wouldn't make good television, especially since it isn't clear to the game makers until the very end that the pair have TRUE compassion for each other (think about it, the readers only know how Katniss is feeling because she's the narrator, but even the one person who is supposed to know the competitors best - their sponsor - treats the romance as a tool, not real emotion). The attempts to kill the two are therefore limited in scope, but they go from drought (to force them into the waiting weapons of the other remaining players) to an outright attempt at massacre (the mutant dogs... which were actually almost successful in killing the two).
Katniss's final play, the poison berries, was completely outside of the sort of thing that the game makers would have thought of, partially because that's not part of THEIR lives, and partially because NOBODY is supposed to have that kind of knowledge. Remember, Katniss and Gale going outside the fence in 12 to hunt was illegal.
<quote jioan>
They don't do this for some reason and when given the choice between having no winner (never happened before but still imposes the idea that resistance is futile) or having two they choose having two! Having two winners directly contradicts the propaganda. Then they make the strangest choice of all by embracing the two winners as champions and turning the gladiator match into a love conquers all story which again directly contradicts the purpose of the games. The government glorifies two people who broke the biggest rule in the game of having to kill all of the opponents. They make them rich and convert them to celebrities for overcoming the immoral values that the gamemakers are a part of and supposed to be supporting.
Again, I thought this decision made sense for the world the book was depicting. Killing the two remaining contestants would have set an unacceptable precedent for the Games and most likely WOULD have caused riots and rebellion. Remember again, that, for the Capitol audience, Katniss and Peeta are sympathetic characters. To kill both of them would have unsettled the Capitol because, if one of the rules of establishment was broken (by the Capitol allowing all of the Games contenders to die), then the stage would be set for ALL of the rules of the Games to be broken, including the one that said Capitol children were safe from the Reaping.
It would also have caused problems in the districts because, as you pointed out, Peeta and Katniss had become heroes of a sort for the districts. To kill them would have almost certainly united the districts, which was exactly the situation that the Capitol was attempting to avoid by allowing them both to live.
The "glorification" of the victors was more of a tradition, and again, to flaunt that would have been to allow an opening for unrest, so once the decision to allow them both to live was made, there was no other choice. However if you'd read the next book you'd have learned that, not only did President Snow attempt to use them as a propaganda tool, but he also threatened Katniss in person back in her district (by threatening the safety of her mother and sister) to keep her in line, although he never trusted her to do as he asked, and so kept her under close watch. Also, he managed (theoretically) to manipulate the next Games so that the competitors were former victors, sending Peeta and Katniss back into the arena where the game masters did their level best (although the head game master turned out to be an undercover rebel) to DESTROY the two completely...
