Harry is the hero of his story because of something he unknowingly did as a baby, simply by surviving. There’s a sense of destiny and prophecy being fulfilled as he fights Voldemort. Katniss, in contrast, becomes the hero through her own bravery, elicited by the literal luck of the draw. It’s a role she buys into in stages, and has thrust upon her in some ways—and it’s frequently unclear the extent to which she’s a figurehead being used by people with real power, and the extent to which she’s truly inspiring and leading. All of this makes Harry more lovable than Katniss, but less relatable. Real life heroes aren’t born as such; they become that way. Whatever growth Harry goes through (and it’s a lot), he still is, first and foremost, the Boy Who Lived, through no intention of his own. Katniss, instead, is the Girl on Fire, a role she deliberately chooses to fulfill. I think this difference is a reflection of her upward mobility, her rise from oppression to freedom.
from “The 99%: The (Class) Difference Between “The Boy Who Lived” and “The Girl on Fire,” (Part Two)” by Gretchen Sisson at Bitch Magazine
6 Notes