Of course not. But if you enjoy watching a person get eaten alive, complete with listening to their piteous, visceral screams, it's highly unlikely that cannibalism (comparatively less brutal, especially as the book makes note that the boy tribute at least waited until the poor chaps were dead before he started gnawing on their arms) can do much in the way of startling you.

And I honestly think the Capitol would enjoy watching someone get ripped limb from limb by a hungry animal, because...well...the muttations, for one.

When there are so many intentional Ancient Rome parallels, it stands out that the most obvious parallel was the one discarded. Not just omitted, but brought into the spotlight, then discarded. The reason I am asking about it is because I want to know what the thinking behind such a decision could be. I am aware Katniss mentions that the boy tribute was probably insane, but who wouldn't be, when you're a minor fighting other minors for your life? Singling him out for insanity strikes me as odd. If anything, I think he was probably the smartest kid in his game.