Heteronormativity and sexuality in Panem, or: The Curious Case of Finnick Odair
I think that the Hunger Games series does a good job when it comes to issues of gender. (Whether this is true or not is a post for another day.) And that makes it all the more disappointing that I think they seriously drop the ball when it comes to sexuality.
Erasure of queerness is nothing new in fiction. In countless series you could reasonably assume, going strictly by the text and authorial confirmation, that everyone in that story’s universe is 100% heterosexual—that there’s not even a word for being otherwise, because there isn’t an otherwise. This is unfortunately so prevalent that even the slightest textual hint of queerness as an accepted part of a story is cause for great excitement.
Which is why the mentions of Finnick’s admirers and lovers in Catching Fire jumped out at me. They are consistently described in gender-neutral terms: “The citizens of the Capitol have been drooling over him ever since.” “About a hundred people faint because they’re sure [the poem] means them.” The neutrality is so conspicuous (“women” could easily have replaced “people”) that I felt it had to be intentional.
“Hooray!” I thought. “A positive, interesting character who is canonically bisexual!” Bordering on the Anything That Moves/Depraved Bisexual tropes, but you take what you can get.
But then in Mockingjay we learn that Finnick wasn’t sleeping around for fun or even using his sexuality as a weapon, but was forced into prostitution. And aside from being an upsetting, disturbing facet of the exploitation to which the victors were subjected, it’s also incredibly problematic. Finnick’s gender-neutral trysts are the only textual suggestions of queerness in the entire trilogy. There is no other mention of a same-gender romance whatsoever.
There are certainly characters who can be interpreted as queer (after all, being in a relationship with the opposite gender =/= being heterosexual), and readers should feel free to do so. But that doesn’t change the face that officially, queerness surfaces only in conjunction with the Capitol. Moreover, it is associated with sex slavery (and pedophilia, given Finnick’s age when he won the Games). There is no happy same-gender relationship to balance it out.
This frustrates me, because how easy would it have been to at least throw in an offhand mention of, say, a District 13 soldier and his husband? Or for Gale to have a jealous response to Madge the way he does with Peeta, Darius, and Finnick? The Districts themselves are incredibly heteronormative, with vast importance given to marriage and having children. Given the short life expectancies and apparent lack of contraceptives, the focus on forming family units makes logical sense. But since these marriages we hear about are always between people of the opposite gender… well, the contrast between the wholesome family-oriented Districts vs. the oppressive debauching Capitol rubs me the wrong way.
So, what are your thoughts? Is this a case of erasure, Unfortunate Implications, both, or neither? How does it compare to experiences you've had with other series?
Erasure of queerness is nothing new in fiction. In countless series you could reasonably assume, going strictly by the text and authorial confirmation, that everyone in that story’s universe is 100% heterosexual—that there’s not even a word for being otherwise, because there isn’t an otherwise. This is unfortunately so prevalent that even the slightest textual hint of queerness as an accepted part of a story is cause for great excitement.
Which is why the mentions of Finnick’s admirers and lovers in Catching Fire jumped out at me. They are consistently described in gender-neutral terms: “The citizens of the Capitol have been drooling over him ever since.” “About a hundred people faint because they’re sure [the poem] means them.” The neutrality is so conspicuous (“women” could easily have replaced “people”) that I felt it had to be intentional.
“Hooray!” I thought. “A positive, interesting character who is canonically bisexual!” Bordering on the Anything That Moves/Depraved Bisexual tropes, but you take what you can get.
But then in Mockingjay we learn that Finnick wasn’t sleeping around for fun or even using his sexuality as a weapon, but was forced into prostitution. And aside from being an upsetting, disturbing facet of the exploitation to which the victors were subjected, it’s also incredibly problematic. Finnick’s gender-neutral trysts are the only textual suggestions of queerness in the entire trilogy. There is no other mention of a same-gender romance whatsoever.
There are certainly characters who can be interpreted as queer (after all, being in a relationship with the opposite gender =/= being heterosexual), and readers should feel free to do so. But that doesn’t change the face that officially, queerness surfaces only in conjunction with the Capitol. Moreover, it is associated with sex slavery (and pedophilia, given Finnick’s age when he won the Games). There is no happy same-gender relationship to balance it out.
This frustrates me, because how easy would it have been to at least throw in an offhand mention of, say, a District 13 soldier and his husband? Or for Gale to have a jealous response to Madge the way he does with Peeta, Darius, and Finnick? The Districts themselves are incredibly heteronormative, with vast importance given to marriage and having children. Given the short life expectancies and apparent lack of contraceptives, the focus on forming family units makes logical sense. But since these marriages we hear about are always between people of the opposite gender… well, the contrast between the wholesome family-oriented Districts vs. the oppressive debauching Capitol rubs me the wrong way.
So, what are your thoughts? Is this a case of erasure, Unfortunate Implications, both, or neither? How does it compare to experiences you've had with other series?