Mockingjay discussion

What do you think were Katniss's reasons behind saying yes for another Hunger Games? Would you vote "yes" or "no" to having a Hunger Game for the Capitol and why?

I think it'd be interesting to have a discussion on why or why not you'd be in favor for a hunger game for the Capitol and what you think were the reasons behind Katniss voting "yes" for another Hunger Game.

I remember being able to understand the reason why Katniss voted yes when I first read the book after it came out, but when I recently re-read parts of the book, I couldn't really remember... After reading some reviews on why Katniss voted "yes" and said it was for Prim, I got the idea that she may have voted yes because it was a strategic plan to make President Coin think that Katniss was loyal to her. Having Coin believe she is loyal would help Katniss be trusted and get in closer so she could kill Coin, since Katniss found out (through Snow) that it was not Snow, but Coin's responsibility for the parachutes that killed Prim. So then the point was to kill Coin for Prim, which makes sense. What do you guys think are her reasons behind saying yes? Would you vote yes?

I think you are right in your assessment as to why Katniss voted yes -- at least that is how I read it. If she had voted no then Coin would have known she didn't have Katniss' loyalty. I think Haymitch also suspected her reasons and that's why he cast his vote the same way.
Personally, I wouldn't have voted yes, no matter how much I despised the Capitol. What a horrible thing to watch children kill each other. Something like that is never right.

Yeah, I was with Peeta on the whole "no" thing and it being wrong and sick... But at the same time, I get why Katniss voted yes, since it was to avenge Prim's death. I'm pretty sure Haymitch understood, otherwise I don't think he would've said yes.

the "avenging" of prim's death is what made me think that katniss didn't really mean she wanted another game. b/c by that point, katniss was pretty sure that it was NOT the capitol that was responsible for prim's death, right?

Kirby wrote: "the "avenging" of prim's death is what made me think that katniss didn't really mean she wanted another game. b/c by that point, katniss was pretty sure that it was NOT the capitol that was respon..."

I agree, I'm pretty sure Katniss didn't want another game, since she knows first hand what it does to a person, but I think she said yes just for Prim. She found out, when she talked to Snow (before the meeting where they decided on a Hunger Games), that it had been Coin who had bombed the place and that Snow was getting ready to surrender, so yes, she was pretty sure it wasn't the capitol.

i definitely would have said no, because no one should have to endure that kind of thing, even if they were evil or whatever.

I knew she wanted to take revenge and make people pay, but I thought she was working backwards. The whole reason why she rebeled was because she knew it wasn't right for the Hunger Games to go on. I was surprised at her choice because I thought she'd think of the future generation.
I would have said 'no' nomatter how angry I was at everyone. I wouldn't want people to go through what Katniss had to endure in the Hunger Games.

exactly!

Jenny wrote: "I knew she wanted to take revenge and make people pay, but I thought she was working backwards. The whole reason why she rebeled was because she knew it wasn't right for the Hunger Games to go on. ..."

I totally agree!!

I agree with Peeta, I personally would say no. I think she was a bit bitter, and rightly too - Prim, the only person she was sure she love just died. Her emotions are at a high. And the fact that she had to go through so much while the people of the capitol watched on for entertainment.

She probally voted yes because she wanted to avenge Prim, Rue, Most of her district, Finnick, The toture of Peeta and many other resons, I think her main reason was she wanted Revenge and To stop the suffering

I totally agree with you on Katniss wanting to take revenge on the capitol and it being sick and wrong.
But now that I think of it... isn't it the actual government's fault? And not the whole entire capitol (including the "normal" capitol citizens)? Because after the districts had rebelled or whatever, the government had decided to make the Hunger Games... and the other people in the capitol watched them for enjoyment and entertainment, but they hadn't decided themselves on the Hunger Games, had they? And they wouldn't have focused on the Hunger Games had the government not created it, they probably would've gone back to doing whatever they were doing before. After a while, the games became not only a punishment, but an entertainment system to the capitol citizens... That leads to the question of if it is the capitol's citizen's fault, or the government's fault for the Hunger Games. The actual citizens living in the capitol didn't do anything wrong besides take pleasure in the games, right?

Hannah wrote: "She probally voted yes because she wanted to avenge Prim, Rue, Most of her district, Finnick, The toture of Peeta and many other resons, I think her main reason was she wanted Revenge and To stop t..."

Yeah, that's the reson she voted yes... but i don't think it would be ok to have another hunger games though, because then, Katniss and all the people from the districts would be no better than the Capitol and president Snow.

I would have voted no because I think saying yes and holding another hunger games would throw the efforts of anyone who died to the ground. It would have made them die in vain.

Of course I understand Katniss and the reason she said yes to the games, it makes sense that she would have to be on Coin's side to hold the games in order to make her final move.

Still if Coin wouldn't have been murdered there would be no guarantee that the games would cease to exist. I personally think Coin never would have stopped the games because it was an ingenious way to incite fear upon those might want to rebel. I feel Coin wanting Katniss dead once the war on the Capitol started makes the nature of her intentions evident. I mean Coin was afraid that Katniss might take away her power and was willing to kill her, to me that means she would still find a way to make the rest of the people of Panem afraid in order to keep herself as President.

Saying yes would open the door to future torture and it would be unfair to the people of the Capitol. The people of the Capitol were generally not that smart and they condoned the games because they were so ignorant that even entertainment had lost any sense of ethics. The children obviously had no fault in what their parents did, and even their parents weren't a real threat because they would naturally be afraid to rebel being so few.

She didn't really want another games. Katniss knew that if she voted no, she wouldn't have another opportunity to stop them for good. The only way that she could do that was to kill Pres. Coin and the only way that she could kill her was to vote yes and then turn the arrow at Coin during Snow's assassination. Coin was actually no better than Snow for even suggesting that there be another games and Katniss realized that instantly. I know Haysmitch knew what Katniss was planning to do and that's why he voted yes. I'm not sure about the others though.

She said it was because of Prim. But... there is another reason behind it that I can't think of. Maybe she was still bitter from Prim's death, from the tribute's death, from the nation's death.

Mocha Spresso wrote: "She didn't really want another games. Katniss knew that if she voted no, she wouldn't have another opportunity to stop them for good. The only way that she could do that was to kill Pres. Coin an..."


I want that to be true, but how was that the 'only' way? I don't understand. If she had said no, she still would have been in the position to execute Snow and therefore Coin. So why does she need to show support at Coin's idea at all in order to get the chance to kill her? She was already set up as the executioner. Or was it simply so that Coin would have no idea that Katniss was against her?

It was still safer to have Coin completely have faith in her and believe that Katniss wasn't going to do anything. If she had suspected that Katniss was unloyal or something, Coin could have done something before the execution. Even though Katniss had been named the executioner, they could've still taken that away. And yes, it was also so that Coin wouldn't be able to guess that Katniss was plotting against her. Coin already didn't really like Katniss that much, there was no reason to make Coin suspicious or do anything to provoke her.

I kinda feel like she said yes because she had already basically given up by that point. She talks about how all those people died, but they're still just taking a vote to start the horrible hunger games again. Also, since it was Coin's idea, she says that nothings changed and nothing will, so even though it may be partly because she want revenge or to make Coin think she's complacent, I think she's just defeated and doesn't think it matters what she says. I think Haymitch understands this and that is why he votes yes also.

A 21st century me would've said no. I've been raised with compassion principles and I think it would've been a futuile way to get even. If I had lived then, though, and had never learned my values I would've done what I really wanted: I would've said yes.

Patricia wrote: "I would have voted no because I think saying yes and holding another hunger games would throw the efforts of anyone who died to the ground. It would have made them die in vain.

Of course I unders..."

Isabel :) wrote: "I totally agree with you on Katniss wanting to take revenge on the capitol and it being sick and wrong.
But now that I think of it... isn't it the actual government's fault? And not the whole entir..."


I agree that they're ignorant and conditioned, but I still find it difficult to pity them very much. They're not children, as much as they may act like it. I'd think that an adult should be able to come to the realization that making children kill each other is unacceptable.

And they did contribute to the Games' continuance through their inaction. It's basically that quote: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

I'm not much of an "eye for an eye" person, so I don't think they should have to be subjected to the same thing, but I definitely don't feel like their conditioning excuses them. They weren't tortured into believing it was right; they're just too petty and self-absorbed to think about it.

I think, Katniss' didn't want another HG. She intended and managed to kill Coin before woman could announce their voting result. Katniss' couldn't allow for Coin to live and become another Snow. She knew that she would get only one chance to kill Coin and said yes was so that she could convince Coin of being blinded by revenge and thus not a threat to her. At the same time, Katniss wanted to have revenge on Capitol's president. Since she could no longer kill him personally, she wanted to make him despair for his granddaughter's life. That's why she asked for Coin to make sure that he wore white rose during execution. She guessed that Coin would not miss this opportunity to personally inform Snow of their voting result.

No, because no one deserves to go through that. In time it probably would have turned all around and start a rebellion like what they were going through.

i would say "no" cuz i wouldn't want anyone to feel the way i would feel after being in the Hunger Games.

No because it would just start an endless cycle of Hunger Games and a lot of people would end up dead and nothing would ever be resolved.

No, savagery is a hideous thing.

If I was there, then I'd vote yes. For justice and equality, even though the Game is not the proper way to solve the situation.

You would have to say no to not be exactly like President Snow. Think about it. If you start another round of Hunger Games, only this time the Capitol is in the arena, it's only a role reversal. Nothing is solved, no one is more moral, more right. Both sides are just taking turns being in charge, and one day, the Capitol will fight back, just like the District rebels did, and the role will be reversed again.

By saying yes to another round of the Hunger Games, you're just killing more children needlessly.

Think of Prim!!! I have a brother, and if anything happened to him, I would have definitely said YES!!!

On the other hand, thing about how wrong it is. Children killing each other? I would want to end it forever. No matter what! I had nightmares from all the killing!

I'll re-post when I make my decision.

i wish i had a brother instead of 2 sisters but normally people hate their brothers

Isabel :) wrote: "Yeah, I was with Peeta on the whole "no" thing and it being wrong and sick... But at the same time, I get why Katniss voted yes, since it was to avenge Prim's death. I'm pretty sure Haymitch unders..."

Yes exactly what I think.. I think I would say no to another Hunger Games

YA totally no to hunger games 4 capitol...they would be just as bad as snow

No to the hunger games, it caused enough problems.

Just finished the book. Couldn't get asleep thinking of this episode.

My first thought was that Katniss intention was to find out the truth about the parachutes. And it makes sense. The implication was that she wanted to avange Prim's death by actually killing the kids of Capitol authorities. But at that moment she wasn't sure who was responsible for the death of her sister. Even when she was standing with her arrow pointed at Snow's heart, she was dubious and was looking at his eyes to see the answer. She had made an attemt to discuss the matter with Haimich, but found him drunk. After that there was no possibility for her to get a private word with him. So she decided to make him clear that out for her right there, during the discussion of the next games. If he said yes, that would mean he agreed that Snow was responsible for parashutes and the kids must die. If, on the other hand, Coin was to blame, he should have said no, to prevent the games.

But something is not right in that theory. Haimitch wasn't a big authority to know exactly the truth about the parachutes. And I don't believe Katniss was so coldhearted to put the lives of innocent children at stake just for getting a responce at her question.

She didn't intend to reassure Coin in her loyalty, because there was just no point. She was assigned to kill Snow and her answer couldn't change anything. They couldn't punish her for voting against the hunger games. It was her right to say no after all that she had been through and, I think, even Coin expected her to say no.

The implication of the next games was also to prevent further fighting, to prevent the deaths of the whole Capitol population. And maybe that was what Katniss wanted. To save more lives, to do it for Prim. But again it is not right. It was in Coin's power to prevent both the deaths of the Capitol people and starting the games all over again. By the way, Katniss herself could influence the people, stop them from further fighting.

The most possible variant is that she was just broken. Coin suggested the next hunger games. The bloody history of mankind was repeating again and again. What was the point of living? What is the purpose of the entire human race? Wars, sorrows, pain, death. And it repeats all over again throughout the history. Maybe it is merciful to let the kids kill each other in the arena? Remember, how many times Katniss wanted to die herself after her games. And Haimich couldn't live without alcohol. Everyone was broken by the war. And Katniss understands that it will happen again in the fiture. So why leave those kids to live? Why not just exterminate the whole human race?

May be that was just why Katniss approved the next games.

But still... The author said that Katniss weighted her options cerefully. So her decision wasn't influenced just by her sorrows and pain. She took into consideration everything. She wasnt't afraid to kill the children by her decision, she concidered it to be merciful. She wanted to know Haimich opinion about the parachutes (and after he said yes, she was determined to kill Snow until the very last moment). Her decision could stop further fighting. And she could prove her loyalty to Coin in case Hamich voted negatively and she would have to kill Coin after all.

PS While im typing, some other questions arise. And I happened to come up with a rather pessimistic point of view. And I don't want to believe it. So, I'm eager to see more discussion on this topic.

I think Katniss voted yes because she had to put a mirror up to the people in the Capital. They were helping to drive and fuel the hunger games. They relished those games and celebrated them because it was always someone else getting hurt. They needed to have a taste of it before it could stop or be stopped. Katniss and Peeta were both broken. How could they not be in the end.

I say no because this was y the war between the rebels and the Capitol even started. Besides the people in the Capitol were jerks but do they deserve death. At least give a taste of there own medicine another way then holding another hunger games. If the rebels held the hunger games then aren't they as bad as the Capitol? Innocent children r going into the games too. Probably another rebellion would break out soon.

Iakovlion wrote: "Just finished the book. Couldn't get asleep thinking of this episode.

My first thought was that Katniss intention was to find out the truth about the parachutes. And it makes sense. The implicati..."
I agree with you that the key here is that Katniss made calculated decision. Such clearly stated by the author.
The best way to understand her choice is to think what would have happened, if she said 'NO'.
She would have spared 24 children from participating in atrocity.
BUT. People from the districts were hungry for revenge on capitolians. Coin was willing to let them have it.

1) Kat could have chosen to shoot Snow and and later, publicly oppose Coin, and try to calm bloodthirsty masses. There would have been no guarantee that Kat would have managed to talk people out of carnage. She would have also lost opportunity to shoot Coin. To sum up, Children and Coin live + possible carnage of capitolians.

2) Kat could have killed Coin, be tried, sentenced and loose any influence on masses. That way she would have succeeded in removing Coin form president post. However, with nobody to hold masses back, the war was almost surely to continue.

Katniss' chose was:
to abandon her revenge on Snow, and to sacrifice few innocent lives, in order to prevent numerous deaths and cruelties of war, and to kill rotten leader.

I think, when she said "Yes...for Prim". She either meant it as:"Yes, for Prim, who is war victim, in order to stop even more bloodshed."; Or, since Prim would not have wanted HG, - it was message to Haymitch that 'It is not as it seems.'

Isabel :) wrote: "nd the other people in the capitol watched them for enjoyment and entertainment, but they hadn't decided themselves on the Hunger Games, had they? "

That's kind of the point, though -- citizens in the Capital got enjoyment and entertainment from the games. So, see how much they enjoy it when it's their own children fighting and dying.

I definitely thought Katniss said yes just to gain Coin's trust. I saw Katniss's "Yes... for Prim" as a tip-off that Katniss wasn't being honest -- after all, Prim is supposed to be one of the kindest people in the book, that's the very trait that led to her death. That kind of character definitely would not want another hunger games. Besides, Katniss knew it was Gale's idea that killed Prim, not the Capitol.
Getting revenge on the Capitol wouldn't make sense, getting revenge by creating another hunger games makes even less.

Lanegyro wrote: "The best way to understand her choice is to think what would have happened, if she said 'NO'..."

I thougt of something else today. Those, who voted against the games, understood very well, that there could be a diplomatic solution, which could prevent the games and the destruction of Capitol people. And Katniss should have known that as well. (We know, that the solution has been found eventually. Neither games nor further bloodhed were mentioned at the end of the book.) But now Katniss saw that the real problem was Coin, who suggested the games and wasn't trying to stop fighting. And even possibly had arranged the parachutes. And Katniss must have decided to try and kill Coin. Coin had to attend the execution and there could be a possibility to shoot her. Now Katniss wanted to hint Haimich at her intentions by saying yes. How could she possibly want to avange her sister's death? By saying yes, she showed Haimich that her answer did not really matter. And that would be possible only in case Coin were dead. If, on the other hand, she couldn't fulfill her plan to kill Coin, the next hunger games would prevent the destruction of Capitol Population. And Haimich says he is with the Mockingjay. He doesn't spesifically say yes to the games. He approves Katniss' intentions.

I can't believe that the rebels killed prim!! Poor prim!

After i finished Mockingjay, i thought a lot that why would wise Katniss Everdeen will vote for Hunger Games for Capitol's children. the only thing i can think of is because she was drowning in her own grief over Prim's death. It makes sense.
And if i get to choose, it'll depend on what kind of situation im in. The choice does'nt always matters.

Rachel wrote: "I'm not much of an "eye for an eye" person, so I don't think they should have to be subjected to the same thing, but I definitely don't feel like their conditioning excuses them. They weren't tortured into believing it was right; they're just too petty and self-absorbed to think about it."


It does excuse them. The sad fact of the matter is that at any time on this planet, the ignorant, average intelligence of the masses is the norm. It's never revealed why the citizens are so fanatically obsessed with the Games, but I'd be willing to bet it's because much like every nation on this planet today, people are indoctrinated to fit into each respective society. Even in the West people are conditioned to love certain things and hate others. Think about 9/11...at the time I remember Saddam Hussein sent condolences and whether he was sincere or not my first reaction was to suggest we nuke the entire region about 50 times. It's idiotic in hindsight, but that's the power of conditioning. Who knows what happened during the initial uprising and the atrocities that may have been committed by the districts. Wheel out some of that old footage for their version of the history channel, insert it into school curriculum and basically beat it into their heads continuously and they start to view people from the districts as subhuman savages.

People, even to this day, don't give enough credit to propaganda and ideology for it's role in every massacre and genocide that's ever happened both in history and probably in fiction, as well. In fiction if you had to explain it, there would no doubt be only one reason and that would be because the people were indoctrinated to the point that they saw it as an "us or them" kind of thing. People don't become evil or do evil things just for the hell of it, something makes them that way. All killing them, or worse their children, does is continue the neverending cycle of bloodshed that effects the innocent far more than it ever does the architects of such destruction. The only way to stop it is by stopping it. Not to be redundant, but that's the only logical first step to creating a better world, through compassion, forgiveness and mercy.

Even though the book ends with a new government starting up, the message to me was clear; Abolish government and squash ideology. Erase the delusions of Utopia completely and realize that truly we have not yet evolved far enough to even attempt organizing a society. Back to the forests and the caves and the trees, and even the inevitable roaming bands of warlords, and their massacres, wouldn't amount to a hill of beans when compared to the organized mass murder committed by the collective entity of government, itself. We're better off without government because in the end, even the "good guys" become corrupted by power and become the monsters they may have once despised.

It's our obsession with control and our pursuit of a purpose that keeps this misery alive. Our only purpose is to make it to the next day, and regardless o how much we learn, how far we sail or what star systems we may one day reach...life always ends. All organized power structures do, and have done, is deliver death to us quicker for causes that are usually completely unworthy. And even the cause of freedom wouldn't be necessary if we didn't have masters hovering over us at all times.

I think at this time katniss was just very angry and she wanted have some sort of revenge on the capitol, especially after what happened to poor prim, but once her head cleared and she started looking at the bigger picture she realised it was wrong to put them through this.

I would have said no. There's no point in doing this to the capitols children. What everyone initially wanted was for the end of the hunger games. By making these kids go in would be another horrible reminder to the districts of their past. The districts want to be free. Revenge doesn't solve anything, it will only push things further to war. Plus, if the capitol kids were never really fighters how would they compete in the hunger games?

Katniss said YES, because she is stupid dickhead. Sorry for the language, but really. It just made no sense. Avenging someone´s death is the same excuse as killing anybody in the arena. Just a murder. Yes, murderer, that Kantniss is.

I think it kind of mad her a lame heroine. What hero character wants to kill people. No excuse

It is pretty clear from the passage that Katniss had worked out a strategy to ensure there would be no more Hunger Games. Many here have already said it. She could not allow Coin to suspect that she was disloyal. Coin was just another loveless leader with a thirst for power. Here are the key quotes: "I weigh my options carefully, think everything through. Keeping my eyes on the rose, I say, 'I vote yes...for Prim.'" and
"A furious Peeta hammers Haymitch with the atrocity he could become party to, but I can feel Haymitch watching me. This is the moment, then. When we find out exactly just how alike we are, and how much he truly understands me." And, I think it is very clear that the planned Hunger Games with Capitol children never happens. Collins would not have left that out. It would have been televised. It was Coin's idea and with her dead, everyone was distracted with the question, "What do we do with the Mockingjay?"

Boggs had warned Katniss that Coin would consider her a threat if she believed that she didn't have her full support. This is the woman who sent Peeta to kill her. This is the woman who dropped a bomb to either kill or weaken her.

Katniss had enormous influence over the populace about who should be the next president of Panem. If she didn't go along with Coin's plans for another HG, then Katniss would likely be either killed or weakened to the point that she couldn't be a threat.

It's possible that it was a test by Coin to evaluate Katniss's loyalty and also who she suspected of authorizing the bomb that killed Prim. A 'no' vote would have put Coin on alert.

Would Coin allow an armed Katniss in her presence (at the execution of Snow) if she had any suspicion that Katniss believed that it was Coin responsible?

According to me, she simply said 'Yes' to Coin because she wanted revenge on President Snow. Just think about it, wouldn't you want the person to have a little part of the same experience you had when that person basically ruined your whole life and your family??

Please note that she hadn't yet thought about killing Coin right then. When she said yes she wanted to Kill Snow but first make him know that his grand-daughter will be in The Hunger Games too.

I want to add that both of these incidents- Saying immediately 'Yes' and then killing President Coin depicts her impulsive and quick nature. She might have returned from hell but that doesn't change the way she is. She takes her decision quickly, and most of the time her judgement is correct too. Its because she's been a hunter afterall, so its in her blood to always observe every character she meets before even acknowledging them, thats why her judgement is often correct.

As for me, I think I would've say 'No'. No matter how cruel the Capitol had been, I don't think I would've enough strength to bear one more Hunger Games, much less President Snow's daughter in it.

Neha (Athena) (Bast) (Queen Elinor) wrote: "According to me, she simply said 'Yes' to Coin because she wanted revenge on President Snow. Just think about it, wouldn't you want the person to have a little part of the same experience you had w..."

Then your days would be numbered as you've exposed yourself as an adversary of Coin. Perhaps not even permitted to execute Snow, and subsequently Coin.

I think I would have said yes. I understand her piont of view. She wanted to avenge Prim´s death. And then all of those other people. Rue, Mags, Wiress, Finnick, Madge. An all of those tributes that died for no good reason.

But then, I allso kind of agree with Peeta´s "We fought so this would stop" point of view. They HAD lost everything to stop it. And all those Capitol people are innocent. In a way.

Though they did enjoy it, wich is really cruel. And though I could give a million reasons of why to say no, I´m going to say yes.

All those people that died in the games didn´t deserve it. They where innocent. And yet, the Capitol citicens liked it. It´s about time all those people got avenged. About time the Capitol felt what the districts had suffered for decades.

Reply if you don´t agree. I love discussions.