Disclaimer: I do not own The Hunger Games.
Review Reply to GirlOnFire44 - Thanks for the review. The Foxface one was not supposed to be about the arena or any of the facts we know about Foxface hence it was a tad confusing. It was simply a scene from her life before the Games. Does that clarify it at all? If not, sorry for the confusion!
A/n: OK, i'm not going to lie: this is a confusing one. It took me 4 drafts to get my head around it. If you don't get it the first time, i'd advise reading it again (and then ranting at me when it *still* makes no sense ;)). It's not a typical oneshot but more a philisophical consideration of Katniss and Prim's relationship. Which says it all really. Hope you enjoy, regardless!
38) Primrose Everdeen – Quid Pro Quo
A very common saying is "fair exchange is no robbery". It is a saying which is supposed to emphasise how fair a deal was. It is often said when someone has just received the losing end of a bargain and simply demonstrates how stupid that person was. Consequently, it is not a nice saying.
A less common saying is "quid pro quo". It essentially means: tit for tat. In other words, equal actions on both sides. A real fair exchange. The connotations of this saying are generally quite positive.
Primrose Everdeen's life, in relation to her sister, can be seen in terms of both of these exchanges. Quite often, Katniss would do something for Prim or because of her. An action based on something Prim must have done. Sometimes, of course, Prim would do something for Katniss.
People separate her exchanged into the two categories. A "fair exchange" has often been seen where Prim simply existed. For example, Prim gave Katniss a reason to win the Hunger Games by simply being her sister. In return, Katniss won the Hunger Games to keep Prim alive. One person does all the work. The 'losing' person, or so people say. As such, these exchanges are seen as Prim doing nothing and simply being a burden upon Katniss' life, no matter how fulfilled she may have been or how much she needed this existence. Somehow, it comes to naught. Inherently, it seems "fair exchanges" must be wrong and unfair.
"Quid pro quo" exchanges seem to occur more where Prim actually did something. For example, when Katniss sparked a rebellion and caused everyone to move to District 13, Prim's life improved. In return, Prim sat with Katniss and helped her work through the anxieties which other people knew nothing of. An action for an action. Equal actions. Thus people say it is right that Prim should be repaid. Perhaps Katniss would not have felt any differently if Prim had not acted but that appears to be irrelevant. Inherently, it seems "quid pro quo" must be right and fair.
Considering these conclusions, one reaches the question: if fair exchange is wrong and quid pro quo is right then why does the latter feel so wrong? After all, when something is right, it must surely bring happiness. Yet this was not the case at all. For the biggest and most important exchange between Prim and Katniss, as far as people are concerned, was a "quid pro quo".
When Katniss went to the streets of the Capitol and lost her life trying to save people, Prim repaid her by going to the streets of the Capitol and losing her life trying to save people. Quid pro quo. Equal actions on both sides.
When Prim lost her life, she gave Snow the ability to let Katniss know what Coin was really like. Katniss saved Panem because Prim had given her the means to do so. Quid pro quo. Equal actions on both sides.
The pain suffered by Katniss, her mother, Gale, Peeta and many others was immense. An aftermath of the exchanges. Surely something which is inherently right should be inherently happy too. Or perhaps not. Perhaps it is simply that for something to be right, sacrifices have to be made. That was Prim. The death of one prevented the death of thousands and caused happiness for everyone else. There is something inherently right about this idea. Of course, this is because no one can ever know the alternative - what if Katniss never initiated the first exchange? What if Prim never went to the Capitol? – and so no one can ever know and will never wish to know whether the final result could have been achieved without these exchanges.
Maybe "fair exchange is no robbery" is inherently worse than "quid pro quo". But the fact remains that, at least for a small number of people, when the exchanges between the Everdeen sisters were of a 'fair' nature, they were happier. Of course, the rest of the world was no happier with those exchanges. And the unhappiness of a few is worth it for the happiness of many. The many did not know Prim and could not be affected by her death. Thus "quid pro quo" is inherently better than "fair exchange is no robbery".
But only for the rest of the world.