That would make a worthy ending. But did we all get there, did we all come away with that conclusion? I don't think so. It might have been the author's intent, but somewhere along the way things got muddled.mrpluckey wrote:You don't fight to save yourselves. You fight to save your children.
I need help, for instance, making sense of the scene where Katniss votes "yes" on continuing the Hunger Games after the rebellion has won. Why? Pure revenge? Wouldn't the noble thing, the thing that would have shown her growth as a character, have been to vote "no" like Peeta did? Am I missing something on page 378? I think maybe I am.
Yes, I think that is the core of what bothers me too. If Katniss had fought harder for Peeta's recovery maybe? That would have been a victory. Instead, he kind of wanders around in despair. Katniss wanders around in despair. They bump into each other and hug. I think I needed more.Sommer Leigh wrote:I think the reason I really loved the first two books was because of Katniss and Peeta...not their relationship, I mean their courage and power and fire. The girl on fire right? But when it is finally over, neither of them are on fire. Neither of them have much of anything to them. Empty shells. And maybe that's what happens after war...but Katniss and Peeta aren't normal people. They aren't normal soldiers. They were the heroes. The strong characters that inspired us. They aren't much of anything in the end, and I don't buy it. And I don't like it.
(Also, Sommer -- most depressing song lyrics EVER)
I know! I kind of fell in love with Gale a little. And throw your cyber tomatoes at me if you want, but I never really did bond with Peeta. He always seemed like a bit of a wimp to me. Sorry.ltm wrote:lol @DTW--I had the same reaction of "at least she didn't kill Gale." Sheesh.