Mockingjay
discussion
Most misunderstood ending I've come across
date
newest »
newest »
I agree with you that Katniss didn't want another Hunger Games.What I can't understand is how this is "tricking" Coin. Why not vote against the games... what difference would this have made the in plot? Would she have lost the opportunity to assassinate Snow/Coin? I don't think so. In fact, this whole vote seems to be completely irrelevant to the rest of the book.
I honestly don't think it would've mattered if she said 'yes' or 'no'. It's not like Coin could've killed Katniss and gotten away with it. I overall didn't like the last few chapters of this book.
I agree that Katniss's decision was to make Coin believe that she was on her side all so that she could kill her when she was to kill Snow.
By that point in the story we all knew Coin was the lesser of two evils (barely), heck, even the fact that Coin even had the nerve to ask those survivors to vote on such a matter, was atrocious. The HG winners knew Coin was power hungry and cunning. They aligned to stop the games as much as Snow. Coin even suggesting this vote was a betrayal of all of them. Katniss was a smart girl and always did what she had to, even before her first game.
Thankyou for this explanation - I didn't see it when I was reading the book, and Katniss's vote bothered me - this clears things up. When she says 'for Prim', it seemed wrong because Prim would never have wanted that... now it makes sense.
Gabriella wrote: "your argument is valid and your are entitled to your opinion, but so are other people, and your interpretation of the text can hardly be considered more 'correct' than others, so you can't say that..."It's not a theory, what I read pretty much reads as facts in my eyes. Sometimes, people read too fast they don’t let it sink in what is happening.
In an English tests, if you don’t interpert it right, it’d be wrong. It’s not open to opinions. Otherwise everyone can pass by writing whatever they want. That passage I hightlighted pretty much reads as facts and explains her reasoning and thinking.
If you ask yourself -
Why she would think about 75 years ago?
Why would think about pleas of mercy being ignored?
It all leads to one answer. You don't even have to think hard or for long. The 'surface message' of these phrases are clear.
She was thinking, realised pleas would be ignored so pretended to go with the plan for another hunger game.
What I consider would fall under opinions would be who is better suited for Katniss - Gale or Peeta. When do you think Katniss fell in love with Peeta. Did you like or dislike mockingjay? Does Katniss deserve Peeta?
To me Katniss’s reasons for agreeing to another Hunger Games just reads as fact.
Beth wrote: “I agree with you that Katniss didn’t want another Hunger Games.What I can’t understand is how this is “tricking” Coin. Why not vote against the games... what difference would this have made the i...”
♪~Kelly~♪ wrote: “I honestly don’t think it would’ve mattered if she said ‘yes’ or ‘no’. It’s not like Coin could’ve killed Katniss and gotten away with it. I overall didn’t like the last few chapters of this book.”
Well, I think because Coin had already tried to get her killed “accidently” and blame Snow or Peeta for it, Katniss was probably wary of giving Coin more reasons to mistrust her and keep her away. It was probably the only way to get a weapon close to Coin to kill her, since she usually had to check in her weapons at base.
Gabriella wrote: "your argument is valid and your are entitled to your opinion, but so are other people, and your interpretation of the text can hardly be considered more 'correct' than others, so you can't say that..."I interpreted the text you wrote as saying that Nuran is 100% correct in her explanation of the end of Mockingjay.
There are correct and incorrect interpretations to things. What parts of the conclusion lead you to believe that Katniss actually wanted another Hunger Games? It doesn't much stick with her character, those she represents, or the text I read in the book. Could you give some details on why you think Katniss wanted another Hunger Games to actually happen? I'd love to get an understanding of that interpretation.
Nathan wrote: "Gabriella wrote: "your argument is valid and your are entitled to your opinion, but so are other people, and your interpretation of the text can hardly be considered more 'correct' than others, so ..."First line cracked me up the second time I read your post.
Reading comprehension/analysis is not an automatic skill, just because someone is literate. In fact, I am fairly decent at it and I increase my understanding by rereading passages when something stands out as ridiculous. Which is what that affirmative vote from Katniss was. The entire series showed how she really felt and the last book already demonstrated how callous and conniving Coin was. Coin was no better than Snow when she held this vote.
I agree with Gabriella. No two people read the same book. Everyone has a different interpretation.Nathan asked " What parts of the conclusion lead you to believe that Katniss actually wanted another Hunger Games?" Though the question wasn't directed at me, I'll answer it anyway: Katniss was presented with two options and she was forced to vote. Her options were: (1) another Hunger Games with select children or (2) kill all people with Capitol citizenship. She was never presented with the option to let bygones be bygones and no more killing. The key portion of the text (in my opinion) was not highlighted by Nuran, and it is "and we were discussing the next Hunger Games in an attempt to avoid wasting life." (emphasis added)
Like Nuran, I too am completely baffled by people's interpretation of the ending. When in the course of the novel has Katniss shown the kind of foresight to think so far ahead and trick someone without letting the reader know what she is doing? She has never tricked her audience. When in this scene was she given the option to vote for mercy for all citizens?
Also, I've rarely heard a "wrong" interpretation, even on a test in English class. If you can support your reasoning, you're right. I don't agree with Nuran's interpretation, but that is my opinion. I see the evidence and don't think Nuran is wrong. I just disagree.
Maybe she really did want to reestablish the Hunger Games- not for the cruelty of it, but possibly because it felt like the only way to get revenge against the Capitol. Maybe she realized this was wrong- and that's why she killed Coin. Katniss didn't care who succeeded her in power. She just didn't want another Snow. And I firmly believe that the reason why she didn't kill Snow when she had the chance is because she realized that she was not just opposed to him. She was against the Games, and anything or anyone that murdered and caused suffering for the sake of power.
Emily wrote: "I agree with Gabriella. No two people read the same book. Everyone has a different interpretation.Nathan asked " What parts of the conclusion lead you to believe that Katniss actually wanted anot..."
I am truly baffled by your post.
Katniss has tricked plenty of people or had planned to trick plenty of people. She had the foresight to see Coin had sent people to kill her and tricked them that Coin had a different plan from just recording footage from safety but for her to actually go assasinate Snow.
She originally pretended to ally herself with Finnick and her plan was to betray him at the end to save Peeta. Not dismimiliar to Coin's situation but Finnick prove himself to be a true friend.
And Katniss has never tricked the audience that is true. We were in her head to see why she said yes.
And yes, she wasn't presented with a 3rd option, that doesn't prove anything. She clearly came up with a plan of her own.
And this text you highlighted - "and we were discussing the next Hunger Games in an attempt to avoid wasting life." - can you not see the irony in it, that proves the her dislike of the situation. Proof she didn't even want another hunger games discussion at all.
I understand different interpertations if the writer has left it ambigious, but to me this is clear cut and dry.
Nuran wrote: I understand different interpertations if the writer has left it ambigious, but to me this is clear cut and dry. Me too! Which I think is a mark of Collins's excellent writing and storytelling! It's like an optical illusion: one person is convinced she sees the couple kissing and another is convinced he sees the vase. I think if we don't open ourselves to new interpretations, we're missing out.
(edit: just to be clear, I don't think she *wanted* another games. I think she chose it as the lesser of the two evils then thought of killing Coin later.)
Katniss didn't want another games. If she'd voted no, Coin would have viewed her as a threat and eventually had her killed. She voted yes to the games so that she would have the opportunity to stop them by killing Coin.
Emily wrote: "Nuran wrote: I understand different interpertations if the writer has left it ambigious, but to me this is clear cut and dry. Me too! Which I think is a mark of Collins's excellent writing and st..."
I appreciate your answer, and I can begin to see where you're coming from a bit. I don't think our beliefs are too far apart - in the end, we both think Katniss did not want another Hunger Games. I think the only part we're not in agreement on is the reason for her choice in agreeing to another Hunger Games.
I can appreciate the way you feel about Katniss and her ability to fool the reader. That's probably one of the most valid pieces of evidence you've presented because that really hasn't been the case with most of the series. Her character changed a lot in Mockingjay, which is part of the reason I believe that she did it this way (and it made for a more 'exciting and shocking' ending for Collins.
I don't understand how she would have lost the opportunity to kill Coin based on her vote. If she or Haymitch would have voted no, Coin would have canceled the execution and taken back the bow and arrow she had already been given? I think the argument about her and Haymitch's understanding is persuasive, but I don't see how any collusion on that point would have changed anything. I think their understanding refers to something else.
Emily wrote: "I don't understand how she would have lost the opportunity to kill Coin based on her vote. If she or Haymitch would have voted no, Coin would have canceled the execution and taken back the bow and ..."Coin had already tried to have Katniss killed because she didn't do what Coin expected of her. Why give Coin more reason to mistrust her? Katniss is forced to check in her weapons at district 13, she wouldn't have got a weapon anywhere near Coin without the execution.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
She didn't want another hunger game, she was pretending because she realised that pleas of mercy 75 years ago were ignored and it would happen again. Proof below.
During the meeting with Coin about having more Hunger Games, she realises nothing would change, and she thinks about her answer, about the past, which means it's not an irrational answer.
She thinks about 75 years ago and wonders if there were pleas of mercy that were ignored by the calls of revenge. And when she realises nothing has change. She realises just like 75 years ago, pleas of mercy now would also be ignored by people in power.
And when she thinks of whether Haymitch truly understands her or not, she was hoping he would and support her and say yes to trick Coin too. Because Haymitch didn't want another hunger games either, but he said Yes because he understood who Katniss truly is and what her motive is. I also think Haymitch's test is also a test for the readers, who really should know better because we're in her head.
After being manipulated by others, she learns to manipulate the situation herself.
It's really obvious that she never wanted another Hunger Games, especially when she realises pleas not to have another one will be ignored. And people who misunderstood her, I hope that you read the ending again or at least read the photo.