Subject: I've got a few things, actually.
Author:
Posted on: 2013-06-24 02:11:00 UTC

Well, let's break this down one medium at a time. But first, let's talk about some of the flaws in logic that affect both.

1) "Who drags themselves five miles or more to a river..." I'd really like to know your source on that. I've been scouring the book trying to find any actual distances, but I haven't found any. I do know that Katniss makes the trip from the stream to the Cornucopia, by an indirect path, in the dark, while trying to be quiet, starting in the middle of the night, and still makes it there before dawn. So, I am guessing that it is well less than 5 miles.

2) "...he consistently led them straight to her campsites..." The implication here is that he either knew where Katniss was already, or that the baker's son somehow secretly had the skills necessary to track someone who spent her entire life hunting in the woods. I don't buy either explanation, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that Peeta was doing anything but looking out for Katniss when he joined the Careers. In fact, he ran back to her to get her out of there after the Tracker Jackers attack. If he wanted her dead, why didn't he just keep her there (which would have been really easy at that point) until the Careers came back.

3) "Meaning that he was a Career all along, and had set up a trap to lure Katniss in so his posse could pounce on her..." There was a distinct lack of pouncing going on. If it was a trap, where was the trap? They knew he wasn't dead yet, there would have been a canon shot. So, if they meant to just leave him there to die (which is really out of character for the Careers), then why wouldn't they just come back and check to make sure he wasn't in a nearby cave being nursed back to health over the course of a few days? Worst trap/double cross ever.

4) Peeta's problem in both the book and the movie wasn't loss of blood. It was, instead, blood poisoning. He was slowly dying of his blood turning toxic. The inflammation from the infection could easily have stanched the flow of blood from the leg, not to mention the fact the he is smart enough to do that himself.

All that out of the way, let's talk about the book and movie. This mainly deals with the camouflage.

Peeta is described in the book as being camouflaged by "brown mud and green leaves" which would be readily available on the bank of the stream. That means there wouldn't be any running around the woods for hours looking for paint supplies.

In the movie, the wound is far less terrible, and he was clearly painted to resemble the boulder he was lying against. In this case, because of the less severe wound, he may have had the time to mix up, using readily available materials, something gray to color his face with. The rest of him was covered in mud, like in the book.

Long story short, the material I have found doesn't support your theory. I don't see any reason to believe that he was ever a bad guy or a turn-coat.

-Phobos

Reply Return to messages