I disagree with almost everything said here, and I'd like to add my two cents to this conversation. I'm going to separate my arguments in the order that they appear in this post. I'll probably paraphrase a lot of this since I'm on mobile.
1. Anon thinks that Haymitch's character was assassinated bc Haymitch was taking orders from the rebellion instead of using his own intellect with the forcefield. They think it's more meaningful that Haymitch was punished when he was just trying to survive instead of being punished for deliberate attacking the arena/games/Capitol.
I disagree entirely with the "character assassination" assessment - I think what we learn in SoTR gives Haymitch more depth and explains the motivations for everything he does in the Trilogy: it characterizes him as a man who's lost everything because of an ill-planned rebellion. He's not a drunk bc he has to watch 2 kids die every year. He's a drunk bc he actually tried to dismantle the system and, when he failed, it cost him his family and the love of his life. He drinks to forget what he's lost, and he stays away from everyone to make sure Snow doesn't punish anyone else who he could care about. Haymitch's backstory has another purpose: it shows us exactly how much Katniss had to lose by publicly embodying the face and symbol of the rebellion. Even when Katniss escaped the arena in CF, Snow bombed 12. What do you think he would've done if she hadn't?
I also think you're giving Haymitch's intellect with the forcefield a bit too much credit. Sure, he figured out how the force field works, but the only reason it worked in killing the other tribute is bc he was injured and fell at the exact right moment. Even if you argue that he led them over there on purpose, luck factored in heavily to how he won, and this is undoubtedly the angle the Capitol would've leaned into.
2. Anon doesn't like how the original message we got from Katniss and Peeta watching his games in CF are now void bc of what we see in SoTR - that the Capitol heavily edited the footage to control the narrative.
In CF, Katniss says that Haymitch's trick with the forcefield "made [the Capitol] look stupid" bc it "wasn't meant to be apart of the arena" and "they never planned on it being used as a weapon" (CF 282). It's not until Mockingjay that we learn that this stunt got Haymitch's family and girl killed.
Looking back on it, this seems like a disproportionately severe response, especially since it could be spun that Haymitch didn't intend to use the forcefield like that. Katniss and Peeta deliberately defy the rules to rob the Capitol of a Victor with the berries and neither of their families are punished for it. And we know from SoTR that they can easily kill the family members/loved ones of Victors and say that they died of "natural causes", so why didn't they do this with Katniss and Peeta's family? Because what they did was not as rebellious as what Haymitch did. Bc the berries could be turned into a tale of romance and teen love. Haymitch used a BOMB to try and take out the arena in SoTR.
The trick with the forcefield seems nothing by comparison. What is a little lost pride by the Capitol with keeping that end clip in the footage in the face of showing the most blatant and violent act of rebellion they had likely seen since the Dark Days?
In terms of what the original "message" of Haymitch' games in CF, the message of "mess with the Capitol's image, and you'll get punished for it" is not only still in SoTR, but it is compounded once we see the true extent of what happened in the games. The only thing that is different is we see how absolutely the Capitol controls the media and the narrative surrounding the games, which means that any evidence of rebellion will be hidden from sight and squashed out of history books - UNLESS the rebellion succeeds.
We knew that the Capitol distorted the truth of what happened in the Districts in the Trilogy, but it's not until SoTR that we see how they we able to change the perception of the PAST because of it. A very poignant lesson to learn in the modern political climate of cherry picking what's in our history books.
3. OP states that the characterization of young Haymitch in CF seems to align with the older version of him we see in the Trilogy. He's dismissive, arrogant, aloof, and he's pretty much by himself during the games. OP then says "one of the key differences that was stripped from haymitch in sotr is that he cares about people, in his own silent way but he does care".
I was following you in the front half of this but then you lost me completely with that last part. Are you saying that Haymitch doesn't care for people in SoTR? He has a Ma and brother that he loves, a girlfriend he adores, his sweetheart Louella that he is protective of, and Maysilee, who becomes his sister during the games. Haymitch is by FAR the character with the most loved ones in the entire Hunger Games universe. That's why losing everyone as a punishment hit him so hard!! It's why he desperately tried to push people away so he wouldn't endure the pain of losing someone else he cared about! But he still has love in his heart, which is why he reluctantly gets attached to Katniss and Peeta in the Trilogy. That man is a lover! It's such a fundamental part of his personality that he's devastated that the edited games make him look like a jackass who abandoned everyone when he really was isolating himself to protect the others bc he knew Snow had pit a target on his back.
4. OP mentions that him being the noble hero at the end and trying to help someone else be the victor felt undeserved.
Haymitch thought he was a dead man here. He wanted to go home, but knew that probably wasn't going to happen bc of how much he'd pissed off Snow. He wanted to make sure that if anyone else was going to win, it was someone who he allied with, just as a small way taking back some control.
5. OP says that it's hard to believe that Haymitch would not have been killed by the Capitol if he had actually blown up the arena. It made sense to kill his family and girlfriend for the forcefield trick, but why wouldn't they kill Haymitch for the bomb?
Couple reasons. Haymitch had gotten Snow's attention early on (with Louella's corpse in the parade), which means Snow was paying very close attention to what Haymitch was doing. Therefore, when Haymitch descended into the sublevel of the arena to blow up the water tank, Snow clearly didn't have the cameras recording his actions. The circumstances almost certainly have been different if the audience HAD saw what happened, but we know from the film of the games afterward that they didn't see it (or didn't see enough of it to register what he was doing and the memory was surpassed by the official recording later). Because of this, Snow was able to focus on punishment, not damage control with the Capitol's image.
Also, Snow DID want Haymitch to kill himself. He sent him poisoned milk directly into the arena, clearly a response for what Haymitch did with the water tank and forcefield. It's only pure luck that prevented Haymitch from drinking it. And we all know the consequences of what happened to Haymitch bc he didn't drink it - Snow killed his Ma, Sid, and Lenore Dove in front of him.
6. OP says the message about propaganda was only "shoved down our throats at the end", making it feel like clumsy writing - "telling" instead of "showing".
The message about propaganda gets more direct at the end, sure, but there is a constant throughline of "painting your own poster" which shows how the characters want to take control back from the Capitol's propaganda and show everyone who they really are, even when their image is used by the Capitol. Once we get to see the recording of Haymitch's games, we understand that even when we are aware of propaganda, we cannot control how ppl will view it, how it will be presented, or how it will effect us.
(Also we are told so much about Lenore Dove - and not shown - specifically because she's a rebel and she's trying to keep Haymitch in the dark about it to protect him, hence the orange paint on her fingernails and Maysilee's commenr about how L.D. was ahead of the game. This is the same mindset that used with Katniss during CF - knowing too much can be dangerous)
7. OP says Collins used propaganda as an excuse as to why Haymitch's personality is so different in SoTR when compared to the Trilogy. How could he have become smarter in the Trilogy when he spent so many years an an alcoholic?
Even though it seems like Haymitch's personality (as described in the 50th games in CF) matches his mentor persona (as seen in Katniss' "he didn't have to reach far for that one" comment) it's clear that he's putting on a facade, just like every other tribute does. We don't get much indicators of his personality apart from that one line in his interview with Flickerman, and he seems pretty neutral with Maysilee in the recording, so it's a bit hard to compare 16yr old haymitch with 41 yr old haymitch in CF. But quite honestly, I would've been astounded if his personality was the same in SoTR as it was in the Trilogy. I would hope a man changes a bit between 16 and 40, and we also knew that his family and girlfriend were killed by Snow. Him being a more charming, friendly guy in SoTR only emphasizes how devastated he was by his loss.
As for his intellect - in SoTR, he was a brash 16yr old who thought he had nothing to lose. It was only once he actually lost everything that he realized the depth of his mistake. Even with all the drinking, that's a lesson that teaches you to be smart about your decisions. He's also smart about maintaining appearances and an image with the audience in SoTR (hence the "rascal" mantle) and he clearly doesn't lose this intellect and knowledge by the time the 74th games roll around. I actually saw more similarities between young Haymitch and Peeta at the beginning because of this.
8. OP says that the message of a books shouldn't be so heavy handed bc it's implying that the audience is dumb or too stupid to get it.
Not necessarily. The subtlety of a book's message heavily depends on the audience the book is advertised to. The Hunger Games trilogy, TBOSAS, and SoTR are all YA novels, which means a certain level of blatant messaging is expected. Even though the novels are politically complex enough for me to wish it had been written for an older audience (a lot of the messaging went over my head as a 13yr old), you can expect the target audience for a book to be the same age as the protagonist. And even if the themes/messaging are a bit too obvious or blatant for some ppl's taste, that doesn't mean that the message is wrong or not worth reading about. Personally, I think the message about how "you must fight within the corrupt system before you are able to overthrow it" and "attempting to control others will only lead to your downfall" was well done, but this can be subjective, so I'll move on.
9. OP says that propaganda was used effectively in TBOSAS and the Trilogy because Snow, Katniss, and Peeta were all able to use it to their advantage within the Games. Haymitch's games only withheld information, which is different from propaganda, therefore the propaganda message falls flat.
You mention what propaganda is defined as, but I'll put the full definition here. Propaganda is "information of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." We see how the Capitol used propaganda to make the systemic murder of children into a game of entertainment, similar to betting on horse races. We see how Snow and Peeta are able to take control of that propaganda and use it to their own advantage (Snow getting ppl to care about Lucy Gray bc of her musical ability and getting sponsors as a result, Peeta leaning into the romance to engage the audience in a different way and keep their attention).
Katniss, on the other hand, cannot play the game the same way as those two. She is inherently honest, and while she can shut down the projection of her emotions on her face, she very consistently can't act to save her life, which becomes a huge problem when she fully steps into the role of the mockingjay. The rebellion needed her to act like the larger than life hero for their propaganda so she could be a figure for the Disticts to rally behind, but she simply couldn't do it (haymitch says something along the lines of "and that's how a rebellion dies" when she tries to give them what they want). In the Mockingjay, Katniss proves the point of the George Orwell quote used in SoTR: propaganda is lying, no matter which direction it's in. Katniss wins over the public by being HERSELF - a girl who loves her sister enough to take her place in the Games, a girl who respects and values those she trusts, a girl who honors the dead in a system designed to see them as a number. Katniss is proof that propaganda can fall to authenticity.
Haymitch, and SoTR, on the other hand, shows what happens when only one side has the power of propaganda. Haymitch tried to control his image in the propaganda with the whole "rascal" thing, but he was unsuccessful. He got the Capitol's attention before he got the Districts, which meant Snow was able to control his narrative before he even had the chance to get a foothold in his own propaganda.
You say that withholding information is different from propaganda, but I wholeheartedly disagree. I would argue that simply withholding some information is the most insidious form of propaganda, since it has the most truth to it, and it can use that truth to make whatever point it wants to. Haymitch witnessed how the withholding and reorganizing of the order of events turned him from a trail-blazing rebel into a self-centered kid who barely cared for the rest of the kids in the arena. Haymitch witnessed how the propaganda literally changed his history in the eyes of the Capitol, and it showed the reader how subjective any telling of the past can be.
You mentioned how propaganda plays on emotions - which is true - and in Haymitch's games, we could pick how so many moments that could've been used to play on the emotions of the audience and draw or repel the viewers to/from Haymitch's side. Lou Lou's death, the sharing chocolate with the Career, Ampert's death, blowing up the arena etc. But when we see the replay of his games, the Capitol has deliberately nullified the emotional impact of these scenes. Some were removed entirely, some were placed in a different order so they had no connection to Haymitch. This shows the Capitol's skill with propaganda, and they expertly rearranged the narrative so that Haymitch was longer someone to rally behind. In the recording of the games, they made him almost like every other Victor. Self-centered. Forgettable. Won by luck. They took away the power of his actions by removing them from the tapes, and because that made all the difference. It cause the rebellion to fail before it could even begin.
The next few thing you say I've already addressed, so I'll skip past them.
10. OP says the 48 tributes wasn't used to its full potential, and that more people were interested in Haymitch's deterioration than the games.
We already knew from CF that Haymitch was practically on his own for the length of the games bc he went in a different direction, so we wouldn't see the bloodbath that happens at the cornucopia. I don't think we ever really witness that part of the games (bc the narrator has to live) so SoTR isn't unique in that regard. But focusing too much on the games (much like the Capitol citizens) would distract from the actual message - the dangers and impacts of propaganda.
As for the interest in Haymitch's deterioration part, I would be incredibly surprised if people actually want to read about a novel that focuses explicitly on the descent into alcoholism and depression, especially since we know how isolated he is. What, he gets up, drinks until the sun goes down and then passes out? He watches the tributes die again and again for the next 25 years? Sure, I would've been interested in seeing how he viewed at least one pair of tributes, but I wouldn't want that to be the majority of the book by any means. What was important is the WHY behind his alcholism, which we got in spades in SoTR.
He doesn't drink bc of all the dead tributes he mentored, like we thought. He drinks because he thought he could be the hero and it got everyone he loved killed. He watched his mother and brother burn to death in front of him. He put the poisoned gum drop in his gf's mouth himself bc he didn't realize Snow switched the bags. That, for me, was much more meaningful than a detailed descent into despair.
11. OP says that the spark for rebellion the THG was much more compelling while the attempted rebellion in SoTR was laughable. The fact that no one died trying to take down the Capitol in SoTR feels like suffocating plot armor bc there were no consequences.
The rebellion plan in SoTR was extremely desperate and far-fetched, but that is the point. Beetee was desperate to have his son's death not be in vain, sure, but it shows one key thing: rebellion cannot be manufactured.
What Katniss and Peeta did with the berries worked bc they lucked into the exact right circumstances: Katniss desperately loves her sister, and she's shown to be smart and capable and honorable (Rue's funeral); Peeta loves her and was trying to keep her alive bc he thought he had no chance of winning; AND (key point) they thought they would be able to win together before the Capitol revoked the rule change (made them into sympathetic characters in the audiences eyes bc Captiol cheated and changed the rules). All of these combine to make them - and Katniss especially - extremely compelling to both the Capitol citizena and the Districts.
These sets of circumstances simply didn't happen with Haymitch, and so he didn't have the opinion of the public on his side. But even so, Snow didn't want to risk the chance of making him a martyr (which is why he didn't kill Katniss after the berries) and gave him the chance to kill himself with the milk in the arena. But when Haymitch didn't do it, Snow killed those he loved as consequence. He already killed Ampert to punish Beetee, and I wouldn't be surprised if he did the same to Mags and Wiress. So no, the main characters of the rebellion weren't killed bc of what they did. But their loved ones were, and they probably would've rather been killed than endure that punishment.
Killing the rebels makes them a martyr. Killing the families of the rebels makes them a warning. And it was a warning that Haymitch heard loud and clear.
