Mockingjay - **Spoilers **

[TruCelt]

**A note to those who haven't read it yet: This thread will begin with a super-big spoiler. Even I (who actually like to have stories spoiled before I go in to read them so that I can fully appreciate the craft of exposition and development) would not have wanted to know this before I started the book.

If you haven't read Mockingjay, but think you might, you should probably stop reading this thread. **

[TruCelt]

OK, so at the end of Mockingjay, why _does_ Katniss agree to the new "Punish the Olde Guarde" Hunger Games? Is it just because she wants Coin to announce it so that all of humanity will see her for what he is? Or is she curious to find out what the populace's reaction will be?

It seems to me that this could only keep the fighting going, as those who wanted the games to end would continue to fight those who thought the suffering should just be redirected. Given Katniss's gentle sympathy for her childlike prep team, it doesn't seem to me that she could reasonably be in the "re-direct the suffering" camp.

And maybe more intriguing, why does Haymitch agree? Katniss's internal conversation says she's waiting for his answer, thinking it will show her whether they are really alike. Alike how? Whether they are equally vindictive? Whether they both see the wisdom of exposing Coin? Whether they are both so curious about the overall state of mankind that they want to see what the populace will do?

OR are they both hoping for an outcome in which the fight continues until the only remaining humans are made up only of those who wouldn't stomach it and fought against it?


Bonus Question: And why doesn't Peeta become finally and completely disinfatuated with Katniss having seen her agree to this horror?

[Haunted Pasta]

She'd seen Coin's ruthlessness and knew that she (Coin) was a threat to her and had seemed to want her dead. She didn't really want new Hunger Games, but voted in favor of them to keep up the appearance that she supported Coin when she was in fact planning to kill her.

Haymitch voted with Katniss because he knew what she was up to, or at least knew that she was up to something he would support. Recall that at various points along the way, there had been references to how Katniss and Haymitch just seemed to have an intuitive understanding of each other.

Note: this only became clear to me after another Doper pointed it out in a previous Hunger Games thread. No points for insight for me- I didn't figure it out when I read it, either.

Not sure about the Peeta thing.

[Amateur Barbarian]

A lot of it is part of the ingrained "all gummint is bad, bad, bad" motif that underlies all three books, which I found terribly disappointing.

No, we shouldn't be making kids read boy-scout, boy's-life rah-rah pieces about Our Amazing Government, but highly influential stories that make government - all government - a bad thing are a terribly counterproductive thing. A Tea Party-era take on "same as the old boss," without the slightest artistic justification.

[Inner Stickler]

Coin never wanted an honest government; she just wanted to be the next Snow and she needed to know if Katniss was her pet archer or a true revolutionary. Had Katniss voted against the new games, Coin would not have let Katniss be in a position to assassinate her like that and would probably have found a way to eliminate her asap.

The problem is that Collins sped to the end so quickly, she didn't handle the last bit of drama well at all.

[Amateur Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

The problem is that Collins sped to the end so quickly, she didn't handle the last bit of drama well at all.

Credit a publishing contract that specified three equally-sized books, not allowing any room for the exponential growth of a story. There were chapters in the third book that covered more ground than either of the first two books. Very disappointing, but the Marketing Department Must Be Obeyed.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by NitroPress

A lot of it is part of the ingrained "all gummint is bad, bad, bad" motif that underlies all three books, which I found terribly disappointing.

No, we shouldn't be making kids read boy-scout, boy's-life rah-rah pieces about Our Amazing Government, but highly influential stories that make government - all government - a bad thing are a terribly counterproductive thing. A Tea Party-era take on "same as the old boss," without the slightest artistic justification.

Why on earth is that "counterproductive", and why on earth do you say there's no artistic justification for it? Art doesn't need to be productive. For myself, I think it's very valuable for kids to be instilled with a healthy skepticism about authority figures, and I think these books do a great job of it.

As for artistic justification, the ending was artistically perfect, IMO. Over and over in the world we see that revolutionaries become the dictator once they take power. It doesn't always happen, but it happens often enough that if there'd been no power-mad revolutionary at the end of the book it would have been artistically questionable.

The entire series suggests that the Powers That Be are cynical manipulators who don't have your best interests at heart. Nothing in the world wrong with that.

[Hamlet]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

As for artistic justification, the ending was artistically perfect, IMO.

Having an 11 year old daughter, I got sucked into the Hunger Games series and I found the ending to be one of the biggest steaming piles of fetid crap I could ever remember. From the emotional manipulation to the plot holes, to the stupidity and poor logic skills of the characters, I would be hard pressed to find anything good to say about the ending of Mockingjay.

Originally Posted by LHOD

Over and over in the world we see that revolutionaries become the dictator once they take power. It doesn't always happen, but it happens often enough that if there'd been no power-mad revolutionary at the end of the book it would have been artistically questionable.

The entire series suggests that the Powers That Be are cynical manipulators who don't have your best interests at heart. Nothing in the world wrong with that.

And there were certainly ways to make that point without devolving the series into nonsense. YMMV.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by NitroPress

No, we shouldn't be making kids read boy-scout, boy's-life rah-rah pieces about Our Amazing Government, but highly influential stories that make government - all government - a bad thing are a terribly counterproductive thing. A Tea Party-era take on "same as the old boss," without the slightest artistic justification.

You have a rather parochial interpretation I think. Tea Party? Check out the Mexican Revolution sometime. Many of the revolutionary leaders of Mexico were less interested in helping the people than they were in acquiring power for themselves. You see a counterproductive lesson whereas I see a productive one. First, allies today might not necessarily be allies tomorrow. Second, people working for a common goal may be doing so for very different reasons.

[Skammer]

I think that by that time, Katniss was so psychologically damaged, that she had become as cynical and vindictive as Haymitch. She wanted revenge. I don't buy for a minute that is was some scheme to eliminate Coin. She killed Coin when she had the opportunity, but it was a spur of the moment decision when the opportunity presented itself. By the end of Mockingbird Katniss was broken and (IMO) completely unsympathetic. In fact I didn't really like anyone by the end of that book.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by Skammer

I think that by that time, Katniss was so psychologically damaged, that she had become as cynical and vindictive as Haymitch. She wanted revenge. I don't buy for a minute that is was some scheme to eliminate Coin. She killed Coin when she had the opportunity, but it was a spur of the moment decision when the opportunity presented itself. By the end of Mockingbird Katniss was broken and (IMO) completely unsympathetic. In fact I didn't really like anyone by the end of that book.

Uh, Katniss specifically mentions to herself that she is disgusted by the idea of a new set of games using capital children. She also knows that Haymitch shares her attitude about the games but hopes that he will vote with her because she knows something is up. It was a scheme to show Coin that Katniss was still on her side. The book spells that out quite implicitly.

[RandMcnally]

Originally Posted by Odesio

Uh, Katniss specifically mentions to herself that she is disgusted by the idea of a new set of games using capital children. She also knows that Haymitch shares her attitude about the games but hopes that he will vote with her because she knows something is up. It was a scheme to show Coin that Katniss was still on her side. The book spells that out quite implicitly.

Concur.


I absolutely hated the third book. Way too rushed. I had to read the assault on the Capitol twice because things happened way too fast. Peeta not being shot immediately during the attack was laughably unrealistic, and Primm dying seemed like just a nifty way for the author to be able to set Peeta and Katniss together without making the Gail fangirls upset.

[Amateur Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Odesio

You see a counterproductive lesson whereas I see a productive one.

There are three governments presented across the trilogy. The first is the existing one, which is an irredeemably evil upper class exploiting 12 districts of worker bees.

The second is the revolutionary government, which almost instantly turns out to be corrupt, evil and self-serving.

The third, vaguely outlined, is the government put in place after the revolutionary cabal... and in a few sentences, she dismisses it as being as bad as the others but at least it sort of leaves them alone.

It's that message, that all government is bad and to be shunned and ignored, that disappoints me. Very much Tea Party thinking, and wrong, and corrosively wrong when hammered into young minds. Propaganda, even. It would not have been some bad thing for the final government to have been presented with positive aspects, showing that there's a reason to band together and create a better - community - future.

[Amateur Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

The entire series suggests that the Powers That Be are cynical manipulators who don't have your best interests at heart. Nothing in the world wrong with that.

More tea?

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by NitroPress

It's that message, that all government is bad and to be shunned and ignored, that disappoints me. Very much Tea Party thinking, and wrong, and corrosively wrong when hammered into young minds. Propaganda, even. It would not have been some bad thing for the final government to have been presented with positive aspects, showing that there's a reason to band together and create a better - community - future.

No, it wouldn't have been a bad thing. But the story is told from the point of view of a young woman who has very good reasons to have a cynical view of government. Not only that but the community she knew was destroyed during the war. The book ended happily, or, as happily as it could I think, but Katniss and others are still deeply affected by their lives before and during the war. Propaganda? No, I don't think Collins' intention was to turn readers into anti-government types.

[Amateur Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Odesio

No, it wouldn't have been a bad thing. But the story is told from the point of view of a young woman who has very good reasons to have a cynical view of government. Not only that but the community she knew was destroyed during the war. The book ended happily, or, as happily as it could I think, but Katniss and others are still deeply affected by their lives before and during the war. Propaganda? No, I don't think Collins' intention was to turn readers into anti-government types.

She's certainly following the zeitgeist. In a book for adults, I'd shrug it off - grupps are grupps and entitled to read and absorb any wisdom, nonsense or propaganda they choose. I find it disturbing in a YA context; as hopelessly naive as it might sound, I think YA authors have to have some consideration for ideas they may be embedding in their works that naive readers may swallow, and incorporate, whole.

Would it have ruined the story for the final, post-oppression, post-revolution government to have been presented as a 'success' to some degree, even if the notion that all governments are prone to corrupt dissolution was retained? That there's some point to fighting for 'better' and winning, not just a weary, half-hearted "at least us and our kids are being left alone" attitude?

[squeegee]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

Having an 11 year old daughter, I got sucked into the Hunger Games series and I found the ending to be one of the biggest steaming piles of fetid crap I could ever remember. From the emotional manipulation to the plot holes, to the stupidity and poor logic skills of the characters, I would be hard pressed to find anything good to say about the ending of Mockingjay.

Same here. I read the first book because my kid liked it, then kept going. I thought the first was pretty good, if light, and the second was okay. The third was a really tough slog.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by NitroPress

I think YA authors have to have some consideration for ideas they may be embedding in their works that naive readers may swallow, and incorporate, whole.

Fair enough. I don't think this is anywhere near the scale of something like Twilight which romanticizes what is essentially an abusive relationship.

Would it have ruined the story for the final, post-oppression, post-revolution government to have been presented as a 'success' to some degree, even if the notion that all governments are prone to corrupt dissolution was retained? That there's some point to fighting for 'better' and winning, not just a weary, half-hearted "at least us and our kids are being left alone" attitude?

There was some success to a degree. For example, Katniss and Peeta have children which is something she wouldn't have agreed to before the revolution. They're left to live in peace and there are no more Hunger Games. That's success right there.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by NitroPress

The third, vaguely outlined, is the government put in place after the revolutionary cabal... and in a few sentences, she dismisses it as being as bad as the others but at least it sort of leaves them alone.

I think you're wrong about this. My impression was that the third government was imperfect, but was better than the other two. I was kind of amused by the idea that the best government was the one established by a military coup.

[TruCelt]

I think the idea of a positive, truly Democratic Governemnt is at least injected by the comment to Katniss "Maybe we are seeing the evolution of the human species." Who said that again?

Anyhoo, while I didn't mean to start an overall review of the book, I'll jump in and say this: The entire progression through the Capitol felt to me like the direct result of a marketing meeting with the Nintendo representatives. It's like that scene in any kids movie where they go flying up and down and around turns in a mining cart or a runaway carriage. I immediately start making bets with myself about how much money the flick has to make before Disney World starts construction on the corresponding ride.

[Amateur Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I think you're wrong about this. My impression was that the third government was imperfect, but was better than the other two. I was kind of amused by the idea that the best government was the one established by a military coup.

Kind of like most modern governments?

I went and pulled Mockingjay off my kid's shelf and reread the last dozen pages. I think I was wrong - it doesn't really say much about the final government. The statements are more about Katniss's state of mind and her semi-imprisonment in her old home, which must have struck me as being more widely relevant.

I plead the same weariness as most readers who didn't toss the book - I just wanted to get to the goddamned end at that point. Rereading the last pages brought back the sense that the whole book was a badly written Cliff Notes to the real novel. One dreary, literal, and-then-this-happened sentence after another, for page after page. Gah. At least they had the sense to split it into two movies, so maybe some of the real story (storytelling) can shine through where the marketing-driven book publication didn't.

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by Skammer

By the end of Mockingbird Katniss was broken and (IMO) completely unsympathetic. In fact I didn't really like anyone by the end of that book.

With the exception of a single chapter in the first book, I found Katniss rather unsympathetic from the start. There were some good side characters (like the old woman who sacrificed her life twice over to save others), but all three of the main characters were horrible people.

[phouka]

Originally Posted by Odesio

Fair enough. I don't think this is anywhere near the scale of something like Twilight which romanticizes what is essentially an abusive relationship.

There was some success to a degree. For example, Katniss and Peeta have children which is something she wouldn't have agreed to before the revolution. They're left to live in peace and there are no more Hunger Games. That's success right there.

Except that she referred to her children as "the girl" and "the boy" and not by names. She's incapable of bringing herself to emotionally connect with her children.

With Katniss's overwhelming PTSD stressed over and over again, I see her as a very broken, damaged person who managed at the last moment to kill Coin, because she put together the clues and was able to unload all her grief and rage in that direction.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by phouka

Except that she referred to her children as "the girl" and "the boy" and not by names. She's incapable of bringing herself to emotionally connect with her children.

With Katniss's overwhelming PTSD stressed over and over again, I see her as a very broken, damaged person who managed at the last moment to kill Coin, because she put together the clues and was able to unload all her grief and rage in that direction.

Yeah, the PTSD is part of why I think the last novel is so great. Folks who talk about the Nintendoness of the last book, I guess I can see that; certainly the moves through the city were not my favorite parts of the book.

But I think the genius of the series is that the first book makes it out that a single person can defy the system; the second book makes it out that only an organized effort can defy the system; and the third book suggests that most organized efforts are made up of horrible people who just want to change the top of the system.

Most fantasy never makes it out of the first stage, and so the first book felt like a typical (albeit very well-written) fantasy thriller. The second book changes the tone a bit, and then the third book totally subverts the normal fantasy ideology by showing how scarring and traumatizing it is to be involved in violence (again, something very rarely shown) and also how often it's futile.

Very, very bleak, but I kind of appreciate bleak stories. (I wonder whether fans of Perdido Street Station and of Mockingjay have a high overlap.)

[TruCelt]

Originally Posted by Grumman

With the exception of a single chapter in the first book, I found Katniss rather unsympathetic from the start. There were some good side characters (like the old woman who sacrificed her life twice over to save others), but all three of the main characters were horrible people.

Peeta is horrible? Please explain. Or are your three Katniss/Haymitch/Gale?

[magnusblitz]

All I remember was that I got kinda pissed off at Primm's death, since it turned the whole thing into a psuedo Shoot the Shaggy Dog story. On the other hand, you can certainly take the look that it's more realistic, endings aren't always happy, and stories don't always have a "point." Still, for my fantasy, I prefer endings that can at least be described as bittersweet - Mockingjay made me just feel depressed/angry.

(As an aside, I felt somewhat pissed at the "lack of a point" ending to the second book in Joe Abercrombie's First Law trilogy, but this was mitigated by the fact it was the second, not third, book).

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by TruCelt

Peeta is horrible? Please explain. Or are your three Katniss/Haymitch/Gale?

Perhaps horrible is too harsh, but Peeta seemed like a Nice Guy. Here's an idea: don't blindside the girl you claim to love on national TV, thereby forcing her to pretend to love you back.

[rocking chair]

she started to put it together after she spoke with snow. that is when she realized that he would have just left if he had a craft, not use it in an attack. live to fight another day.

she finally started to put things together instead of just reacting or going on instinct.

going along with the capital hunger game was the way to be sure she was in position to kill snow, and be able to get to the person who did kill her sister, along with all the other children. at that point she didn't care if she survived.

[RandMcnally]

Originally Posted by rocking chair

she started to put it together after she spoke with snow. that is when she realized that he would have just left if he had a craft, not use it in an attack. live to fight another day.

I thought Snow made a valid point for his defense: why would he waste resources to kill the Capitol's own children? That action would have zero benefit for him whatsoever.

[tellyworth]

Originally Posted by NitroPress

A Tea Party-era take on "same as the old boss," without the slightest artistic justification.

Suzanne Collins signed her 3-book deal for the series in 2006 - at least a year or two before the Tea Party movement appeared. And it's not like dystopian fiction is a new idea.

[Little Bird]

Originally Posted by Grumman

Perhaps horrible is too harsh, but Peeta seemed like a Nice Guy. Here's an idea: don't blindside the girl you claim to love on national TV, thereby forcing her to pretend to love you back.

Well he wasn't doing it to get her to love him back, he was doing it because Hamitch said it would help her survive the games. I'll give him a break on that.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

Having an 11 year old daughter, I got sucked into the Hunger Games series and I found the ending to be one of the biggest steaming piles of fetid crap I could ever remember. From the emotional manipulation to the plot holes, to the stupidity and poor logic skills of the characters, I would be hard pressed to find anything good to say about the ending of Mockingjay.

Well, it was blessedly free of sparkly vampires...

[Lamia]

Originally Posted by Grumman

Perhaps horrible is too harsh, but Peeta seemed like a Nice Guy. Here's an idea: don't blindside the girl you claim to love on national TV, thereby forcing her to pretend to love you back.

Originally Posted by Little Bird

Well he wasn't doing it to get her to love him back, he was doing it because Hamitch said it would help her survive the games. I'll give him a break on that.

Even if the book were about an ordinary Survivor type reality show where no one's life was in danger I'd cut Peeta some slack -- he's a teenager from the sticks who's suddenly thrust into the spotlight, and he'd genuinely had a crush on Katniss for years. As things were, his confession made them both more interesting and likable to viewers and thus more likely to get potentially life-saving gifts from sponsors during the Games.

[RandMcnally]

Peeta's actions weren't a sudden burst of emotion, but a calculated move designed by him and Hamitch in order to help Katniss.

[shijinn]

and it had to be a surprise because Katniss couldn't act, and her reaction wouldn't have been genuine otherwise.

my question is Katniss' disastrous mission into the capitol - absolutely nothing good came of it. storywise, what was the purpose of that venture? what are we, the readers, supposed to get from that entire ordeal?

[TruCelt]

The more we talk about it the more I think that my deep dissatisfaction is more with the lack of info about the final government in the Epilogue. I want to know whether they succeeded in creating a fair society.

I am also bugged by the lack of info about the fate of 12. With 13 back on line providing nuclear power, did thy need coal at all anymore?

Re: Haymitch - could Katniss have concluded from his sudden violent return to drink that he had already reached the same conclusion about Coin? Was it enough of a clue? And if so, why would he ontinue to drink himself to death after Peeta's return to the Victor's Village?

I agree that the explanation for a lot of Peeta's and Katniss's decisions is: they never expected or even intended to survive. Haymitch has chosen a slower method, but he's made the same decision. Does Gale ever do that? Really walk into something with the full expectation of never walking out? Perhaps the rescue?

[Lamia]

Originally Posted by RandMcnally

Peeta's actions weren't a sudden burst of emotion, but a calculated move designed by him and Hamitch in order to help Katniss.

Yes, but he also honestly was infatuated with Katniss. My point is that even if Peeta hadn't had any strategic reasons for confessing his love for Katniss then I wouldn't think he was a jerk. Since he was actually doing his best to help Katniss survive then I don't see why Grumman objected to his behavior at all. It might have been nicer to let Katniss in on the plan, but as shijinn says, she's no actress so it wouldn't have been as effective if she'd been in on it.

[rocking chair]

Originally Posted by RandMcnally

I thought Snow made a valid point for his defense: why would he waste resources to kill the Capitol's own children? That action would have zero benefit for him whatsoever.

and gave us one of the best lines of the books, "oh my dear miss everdeen, i thought we had an agreement not to lie to each other."

katniss was not a fan of coin from the get go. but that attack on the children, that was the very big straw on the camel's back.

can't wait to hear sutherland say that line.

[John Bredin]

Originally Posted by TruCelt

I am also bugged by the lack of info about the fate of 12. With 13 back on line providing nuclear power, did thy need coal at all anymore?

Coal is used in the production of steel, so I'd say yes.

[Sparky the Wonder Spirit]

Originally Posted by TruCelt

Re: Haymitch - could Katniss have concluded from his sudden violent return to drink that he had already reached the same conclusion about Coin? Was it enough of a clue? And if so, why would he ontinue to drink himself to death after Peeta's return to the Victor's Village?

I think that Haymitch's return to drinking was due to his intractable alcoholism, rather than any kind of political disappointments.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by TruCelt

The more we talk about it the more I think that my deep dissatisfaction is more with the lack of info about the final government in the Epilogue. I want to know whether they succeeded in creating a fair society.

By the end of the third book, I thought the central theme could be summed up along the same lines as the three rules of thermodynamics:

1) You can't win.
2) You can't break even.
3) You can't get out of the game.

What looked like victories for Katniss turned out to be fleeting. What looked like victories for society were fleeting. The best thing Katniss was eventually able to do was to try to get out of the game entirely, and even then, there's no avoiding the effects of the government.

My guess about the final government is that it was imperfect in many ways, but, lacking a charismatic leader, wasn't as effective, and so it didn't hurt people as much as either of its predecessors.

[RandMcnally]

Originally Posted by Sparky the Wonder Spirit

I think that Haymitch's return to drinking was due to his intractable alcoholism, rather than any kind of political disappointments.

Yeah, just because the government changed doesn't mean his entire family wasn't murdered. Those demons are still there.

[Hampshire]

(late to the party, as usual)

Just finished the last book and I'm suprised nobody has brought up this point:

Why bother attacking the capital at all? It was a massive loss of lives on the rebels part as well as innocent capital civilians.
They already made the explicit point that the capital's survival was dependant on all the other districts. Districts for food, a district for energy, a district for weapons and soldiers, etc. etc. All the districts were free at this point. So why not just let the capital implode on itself?

[shijinn]

iirc, the one who ran District 13 wanted to rule. so she had to take the Capitol and install herself. they were running propaganda videos even as they were attacking the Capitol to unite the districts to 13.

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

Having an 11 year old daughter, I got sucked into the Hunger Games series and I found the ending to be one of the biggest steaming piles of fetid crap I could ever remember. From the emotional manipulation to the plot holes, to the stupidity and poor logic skills of the characters, I would be hard pressed to find anything good to say about the ending of Mockingjay.

Well, it is the rare YA book that ends with the main character being deflowered. There's that at least.

I actually liked the book. Katniss was an emotional wreck, wasn't an inspiring leader, and spent most of the time at the mercy of greater forces than her. Rather refreshing that she was quite human and not some typical sci-fi superhero who saves the day through their meticulous plotting, amazing ability to forecast people's reactions, and feats of inhuman physical strength and perseverance.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Well, it is the rare YA book that ends with the main character being deflowered. There's that at least.

I don't remember that.

(unless I've just been whooshed)

[JohnT]

We sold our copy but I'll see if I can get the wording later. But, yes - in the end of the book, she settles for Peeta and, the first time they're doing it, he asks her a question of some sort, whereupon she answers affirmatively (I can't remember the question, but I had my wife read the passage and she agreed it's strongly implied that they're in the midst of love-making during the sequence.)

[JohnT]

I looked it up and it was the "do you love me for real?" question. This might not have been the exact end of the book, but it was in the last few pages.

[shijinn]

this is the exact end, the last lines right before the epilogue with their kids.

... “So after, when he whispers, “You love me. Real or not real?”
I tell him, “Real.”

so yeah.

[epbrown01]

I didn't care for Katniss thru the entire series - she was too much like Forrest Gump, just pushed along by events or the manipulations of others. The only decent thing about her was her desire to protect her sister and then the author had her fail at that.