Last time on Mockingjay, Katniss ran into Snow, who told us what I thought we already knew.
There are two possibilities, although the details associated with them may vary. First, as I’ve believed, that the Capitol sent in that hovercraft, dropped the parachutes, and sacrificed its children’s lives, knowing the recently arrived rebels would go to their aid. There’s evidence to support this. The Capitol’s seal on the hovercraft, the lack of any attempt to blow the enemy out of the sky, and their long history of using children as pawns in their battle against the districts.
…that’s evidence?
The capital had already fallen, so taking one of their hovercraft (or just painting a fake seal) would have been easy. Whatever anti-aircraft missiles they had, those were no longer in their hands by that point, unless there was an extra set right there in the mansion.
As an aside, if the capital had actually done it, I’d assume they would have used a blank hovercraft instead of one labeled BLAME ME FOR THIS.
But the biggest thing is “knowing the recently arrived rebels would go to their aid”. Nice try, book, but the rebels are gunning down children in their first capital appearance.
Then there’s Snow’s account. That a Capitol hovercraft manned by rebels bombed the children to bring a speedy end to the war. But if this was the case, why didn’t the Capitol fire on the enemy? Did the element of surprise throw them? Had they no defenses left? Children are precious to 13, or so it has always seemed.
Katniss, the rebels had taken the entire city and were on the doorstep of Snow’s mansion, the last building they didn’t control. Fuck yes they didn’t have any defenses left.
There is also no textual evidence 13 values children. In fact, it’s never come up. There’s exactly one thing we know about their views on children, and that’s that their kids enter the army at age fourteen, which is quite the opposite.
And why would they do it knowing their own medics would likely respond and be taken out by the second blast?
Oh, that’s no big mystery. Assuming it’s true about the whole kill-kids-to-end-war, the reason they’d do it is for plausibility. Indeed, if we’re going on the idea Snow was framed, having their own medics blown up trying to save the children he murdered is public relations gold.
The real question is, which medics? Prim’s appearance raises an interesting possibility. What if the medics were made up of non-13 folk? Snow’s accused Coin of letting the districts take the worst of the war. If we generalize this to 13 attitudes, perhaps they don’t value the lives of people outside their district as highly. If it turns out that group was made up of people from other districts, that would be extremely suspicious.
Katniss then finally gets to the major point, the fact it was Gale’s bomb idea. She claims it’s possible that the capital could have the same idea. Normally, yes, but sorry book, you made too big of a deal of how special and brilliant Gale was.
Again, there’s room for actual investigation. First, did the capital ever use this before now? If not, did Gale ever put his bombs into use? If he has, the capital could easily have copied the idea. But if no one but Gale, Beetee and Katniss know of the concept and it’s never been used during the war, that means it was either 13 or there’s a traitor passing info to the capital (and that idea doesn’t have legs, because they’d have passed on the fact the rebels had a pod map first.)
Then there’s the fact that Snow made no escape attempt
I don’t see what that has to do with anything. The fact he made no escape attempt means he had no way to escape. It has nothing to do if he’d kill the kids or not.
when I know him to be the consummate survivor.
When did that happen?
First off, Katniss knows nothing about this guy beyond that he’s president, she thinks he looks like a snake, and he has the whole blood and roses thing going on.
Second, what little we do know about him completely contradicts this. We knew before he murdered his way into power, which says he cared more about power than survival – if he was killing those above him, that strongly suggests those below him were trying the same to him. Not only that, but he murdered his way by dining on the same poison as his victims, an enormous risk. And we know it was a risk because even with all his precautions, the poison still took its toll and he has, at minimum, permanently open wounds in his mouth.
From our most recent meeting, we know it’s even worse than that. He destroyed his body to get to where he is, and it was only with the constant care of his doctors (and likely, being extremely careful about his appearances) that he appeared healthy.
None of that is the behavior of someone who is “the consummate survivor”. That’s someone who’s willing to die for power. Indeed, it’s someone who might decide not to bother escaping even if he could. Definitely someone where there’s a good chance he’d sooner take everyone with him in death than live on in exile.
It seems hard to believe he didn’t have a retreat somewhere, some bunker stocked with provisions where he could live out the rest of his snaky little life.
No, Katniss. It really isn’t. Especially when it seems like he wouldn’t have had long to live even if he tried it.
And finally, there’s his assessment of Coin. What’s irrefutable is that she’s done exactly what he said.
My, he really is a clever devil, isn’t he?
As I mentioned last chapter, what he says about Coin seems to have far less to do with being an irrefutable description of what she’s actually done and far more to do with being exactly what Katniss wants to believe.
Let the Capitol and the districts run one another into the ground and then sauntered in to take power.
Unfortunately, we just never saw this. We did see some resource management issues, but always in the sense of Katniss tying up vast amounts due to being a self-centered sociopathic monster. We hear of a dozen hovercraft escorting her places, but whenever else they’re brought up, it’s doing things like delivering supplies. If this was supposed to be what was happening, it should have been brought up before. Instead, our one update on the situation directly contradicts it – Katniss claims 13 can’t just bomb the capital because most of 13’s hovercraft have been shot down. Everything we’ve heard also suggested that their soldiers were fighting during the war. Certainly they were a major component of the capital assault, which seems to have had an even more massive death toll than the usual slaughterfest urban warfare is.
But, thinks Katniss, it doesn’t mean she dropped those parachutes. Victory was already in her grasp. Everything was in her grasp.
Exactly.
Except me.
Oh.
This is going to get even worse.
This is the second to last chapter. Over and over I’ve thought we’ve finally hit bottom. But when we reach the bottom of the hole the book pulls out a shovel. When we hit rock it pulls out a jackhammer, and when that stops working it brings in the drill.
Suddenly, I’m thinking of Prim, who was not yet fourteen, not yet old enough to be granted the title of soldier, but somehow working on the front lines. How did such a thing happen? That my sister would have wanted to be there, I have no doubt. That she would be more capable than many older than she is a given. But for all that, someone very high up would have had to approve putting a thirteen-year-old in combat. Did Coin do it, hoping that losing Prim would push me completely over the edge? Or, at least, firmly on her side? I wouldn’t even have had to witness it in person. Numerous cameras would be covering the City Circle. Capturing the moment forever
This is the stupidest plot twist yet, and as I’ve detailed, we have had a great many contenders. But Katniss is now pulling up a tinhat theory that Coin masterminded a ridiculously complex plan that would destroy her otherwise ironclad chances of ruling (hell, of living) if it ever got out, and it wasn’t to win the war, it was just to fuck with Katniss’ head.
If Coin has enough loyalists to make bombs, get a hovercraft and kill children without anyone breathing a word, she has enough to kill Katniss in her sleep. Do you know how easy it is to overdose on morphine?
No, now I am going crazy, slipping into some state of paranoia. Too many people would know of the mission. Word would get out. Or would it? Who would have to know besides Coin, Plutarch, and a small, loyal or easily disposable crew?
Yes, exactly, “too many people”. The point at which you’re talking about a crew, you have gone way over the safe number of people. And bear in mind Patriarch is Coin’s biggest threat. He and she have been fighting over who’s in charge this entire book.
Katniss wants to talk to someone, but all of the people who agreed she was super special are dead. She only has Peeta, who’s still in the hospital and she doesn’t know how coherent he is (apparently, she hasn’t visited or even asked) and Gale, who she can’t ask because she’s wondering if it’s his bomb.
Um, no, that’s sort of an extra reason to ask him. If Gale was involved, he should be horrified it ended up killing Prim. If he wasn’t involved, he should be suspicious and investigating as well. If Gale was involved but doesn’t care, she’ll be able to tell that by him not caring, and then she’ll know it was 13 as well.
To broach the subject at all will be a risk. But while I think Haymitch might gamble with my life in the arena, I don’t think he’d rat me out to Coin.
And Katniss is casually rewriting reality again. I’m not even going to dignify this by calling it a retcon, it’s too petty and self-serving even for that. What the hell does gambling with her life mean? Haymitch was getting nothing out of it, no bet of any kind. All he was doing was trying to get her back alive.
So she tracks him down and dumps water over his head to get him up.
He comes to with a gasp, slashing blindly with his knife. Apparently, the end of Snow’s reign didn’t equal the end of his terror.
I mentioned in book two I liked this detail. But now it disgusts me with its handling. Why would it? We even had Katniss last chapter panicking at the smell of roses despite Snow being captured, and there’s never been any suggestion Haymitch’s fears even had anything to do with the capital itself. But the narrative reports it as if it’s a surprising little quirk.
Haymitch asks what she wants, is it more boy issues?
Inexplicably, Katniss decides that this hurts me in a way Haymitch rarely can. Why? No reason. She even says she doesn’t know why. Haymitch sees how upset she is and apologizes, but she runs off anyway.
In the lining of my pocket, I find a stray morphling tablet and swallow it dry, heading off my rising hysteria.
Who gave her morphine pills? Why does she have them?
Although morphine can be used for mental problems, it’s not very good. There are many, many better drugs to use, especially from the viewpoint of doctors who are so worried about addiction they don’t even give injured people enough painkiller to do more than mute the pain a bit. Katniss, of course, is benefiting from the placebo effect (it doesn’t matter how awesome the drug is, swallowing it would not instantly calm her down), but that doesn’t explain why anyone would give her them in the first place. And if it’s a perscription it’d be in a bottle. Katniss would need to have stolen some for her to just have spare ones lying around, and there’s been no suggestion of that.
Swathed in silk, I feel like a caterpillar in a cocoon awaiting metamorphosis. I always supposed that to be a peaceful condition. At first it is. But as I journey into night, I feel more and more trapped, suffocated by the slippery bindings, unable to emerge until I have transformed into something of beauty. I squirm, trying to shed my ruined body and unlock the secret to growing flawless wings. Despite enormous effort, I remain a hideous creature, fired into my current form by the blast from the bombs.
It’s weird. I’m incapable of caring about Katniss by this point. I just feel irritation. I think this might even be a reasonable, if not that well written, paragraph. But it’s just Katniss being whiny and melodramatic to me. End, book, end.
She ends up having horrible nightmares and getting tangled in the clothes, and some guards have to find her and bring her back to her room.
A very hungover Haymitch waits with a handful of pills and a tray of food that neither of us has the stomach for. He makes a feeble attempt to get me to talk again but, seeing it’s pointless, sends me to a bath someone has drawn. The tub’s deep, with three steps to the bottom. I ease down into the warm water and sit, up to my neck in suds, hoping the medicines kick in soon.
…when you say you hate bathing and seeing yourself naked, that should still be true the next day.
The prep team shows up and Katniss realizes it must be execution day. They’re all duly horrified by what Katniss insists on calling her ravaged mutt body. Shut up, Katniss.
She comes out to see Effie?
Sitting upright in a chair. Polished from her metallic gold wig to her patent leather high heels, gripping a clipboard. Remarkably unchanged except for the vacant look in her eyes.
Oh. That’s depressing.
One of the prep team says that Patriarch and Haymitch were barely able to keep her alive, but because she was imprisoned this whole time they managed. Apparently, every other stylist for the games is dead.
She doesn’t say who specifically killed them. I’m beginning to wonder if it matters.
Obviously, 13 killed them because Snow had nothing against, say, the District 1 stylist. But it’s nice to know you completely don’t give a fuck about these issues as long as they’re not directly impacting you.
Flavius performs some beauty miracle on my hair, managing to even out the front while getting some of the longer locks to hide the bald spots in the back.
So I guess that’s why, against all reason, they didn’t just shave her head. The obsession of the narrative about her appearance gets more disgusting each time it appears. I think the worst part here is that if it’s so important she not be bald, they should have just stuck her in a wig, but as we’ve established, wigs are what evil whores wear. (Even with her still having some hair, they should still have cut it off and stuck a wig on her.)
My face, since it was spared from the flames, presents no more than the usual challenges.
So the book is even going back on its already lackluster “mostly”.
And of course, the uniform covers almost everything else.
There’s no mention of makeup for some reason. Considering it’s not even true scarring but just discoloration, painting over it shouldn’t be hard.
Gale shows up and Katniss emos about what if she hadn’t been a tribute and had grown up and married him and then left one day to live happily in the wild. Then she emos about how even that wouldn’t have been good enough: Would they have been happy, out in the wild, or would the dark, twisted sadness between them have grown up even without the Capitol’s help?
I really don’t see how it would have.
He’s brought her a single arrow because she’s supposed to fire the last shot of the war.
“Was it your bomb?”
“I don’t know. Neither does Beetee,” he says. “Does it matter? You’ll always be thinking about it.”
This isn’t really a surprise.
Really, if you thought Katniss cared about the bombing of children, or the politics, or anything, well, what book have you been reading along with? Katniss cares because her property and ego booster, Prim, was killed. Nothing else about it matters.
And because all people are an extension of Katniss, Gale cares only in so much as it affects her feelings. His reply is solely about how it’s weighing on her mind.
Gale should always be thinking about it. He should always be wondering if his plan was used to murder their own people, including people he knew. Always be wondering if their deaths are his fault. After all, without his plan, the most that could have happened was the kids dying. It’s only the secondary blast that killed the medics and nearly killed Katniss.
Should. But like I said, if you were expecting it, what were you reading?
Even if he doesn’t care about them, he should be worried about himself. If 13 is willing to kill people for its own ends once, they’re willing to do so again. And he’s first on the list, because he’s someone who could, if someone mistakes him as having a conscience, be killed so he can’t spill the beans about his bomb design.
But again. That’d require him to have thoughts independent of Katniss. And since when has that ever been true?
He waits for me to deny it; I want to deny it, but it’s true. Even now I can see the flash that ignites her, feel the heat of the flames. And I will never be able to separate that moment from Gale.
Not that Katniss would deal with these feelings by investigating to find out. But then this whole thing is one giant clusterfuck. Gale is basically saying “Hey I got your sister killed, still wanna bang?” and Katniss’ response is “I’m so sorry but seeing you reminds me of her death, it’s kind of a turn off :(“. They’re both horrible on yet another level for this.
I find myself sent into a room where six people sit around a table. Peeta, Johanna, Beetee, Haymitch, Annie, and Enobaria.
We learn they’re the only surviving tributes.
“The price of celebrity,” says Beetee. “We were targeted from both sides. The Capitol killed the victors they suspected of being rebels. The rebels killed those thought to be allied with the Capitol.”
This is, of course, sickening, because we saw no victors who sided with the capital. But that’s been overlooked by the book this whole time.
Johanna (<3) then demands to know what Enobaria (<3) is doing here then.
…D: no Johanna don’t do this!
Coin sweeps in to say that Enobaria is protected by Katniss’ deal, with the implication being that they slaughtered everyone else. Katniss does not, naturally, feel any regret for not just saying “all the tributes”.
Enobaria smiles at Johanna. “Don’t look so smug,” says Johanna. “We’ll kill you anyway.”
Everything about this book is terrible.
“I’ve asked you here to settle a debate. Today we will execute Snow. In the previous weeks, hundreds of his accomplices in the oppression of Panem have been tried and now await their own deaths. However, the suffering in the districts has been so extreme that these measures appear insufficient to the victims. In fact, many are calling for a complete annihilation of those who held Capitol citizenship. However, in the interest of maintaining a sustainable population, we cannot afford this.”
I was actually spoiled for this earlier because people can’t keep their mouths shut, although I hadn’t seen it coming until right now. What I thought, and for some reason kept thinking as I slogged through this hateful piece of shit, was that what’s about to happen was done without the sanction of Katniss. I was actually picturing her getting thrown in with them, and getting a bit confused as time went on and we seemed to be running out of room for that plot.
What has been proposed is that in lieu of eliminating the entire Capitol population, we have a final, symbolic Hunger Games, using the children directly related to those who held the most power.”
To go on a side track right now.
Given the population issue and the barely touched upon subproblem of genetic diversity (I suspect the author has not considered the latter as a problem that goes beyond 13, despite the fact it’s the only reason to be worried about low population numbers) the actual response here should be to keep them as broodmares.
This is one of those rare times I’m glad the author can’t write her way out of a paper bag. From what we know, there is no reason anyone would see any problem with this. It’s certainly more rational to do something to the adults than to the kids, the younger of whom can probably be adopted out and brainwashed into citizens of the new society, it fits with how both sides view each other as subhuman, it even goes well with the repulsive slut-shaming subtext this book keeps having about what whores those capital women are.
But. The author never thinks these things through, so today, we avoid rape camps for something else terribly immoral, but definitely preferable to read about.
“Was this Plutarch’s idea?” asks Haymitch.
“It was mine,” says Coin. “It seemed to balance the need for vengeance with the least loss of life.
I will also say I continue to be on the Coin bandwagon. She’s saying flat out she’s doing this because the only other option she has is killing more people. There are no claims this is a good idea, just that slaughtering the whole of the capital is a worse one. Furthermore, there’s no mention that the children would be spared with all the adults killed, so the choice is really “kill everyone or kill some people”. She’s amoral and practical, but she’s doing what a leader should do – enacting the will of the people who chose her to lead them, and trying to do so in the least damaging way.
Interestingly, the fact that she brought it up as an either/or thing is immediately dropped, and it turns into an issue of hold the hunger games and kill kids verses don’t kill people in general. Necessary, of course, for this to have any real weight, but if that was the idea it shouldn’t have been presented as the lesser of two evils. The book wants to sell Coin as evil? It should have been her suggestion because people were being too moderate and she needed support to at least kill some of them, even if she couldn’t get backing for her kill them all and salt the earth plan.
I’m fine with people’s responses, as well.
Well, I’m fine with the ones voting for the games. Peeta says this is horrible, but I roll my eyes at this. Peeta has never shown the slightest sign of a moral compass. He thinks with his dick. Johanna and Enobaria both vote yes. I particularly like Enobaria, and take this as proof that no, none of the tributes were ever on the capital’s side. Why would they be? Annie says no, and she’s been an insane cypher this whole time so sure. Of course, she says that also Finnick would have said this, and Finnick did get raped by the capital since age sixteen and then get torn apart, so I’m not sure he’s actually that forgiving.
What it’s turning into, of course, is the Good People voting no and the Bad People voting yes. Beetee chimes in to say that no, they have to stop hating each other!
Was it like this then? Seventy-five years or so ago? Did a group of people sit around and cast their votes on initiating the Hunger Games? Was there dissent?
Well, I guess that answers my question of just how far the author will go to avoid blaming anyone ever for the games. Now even the capital was just forced into it. The capital didn’t want to murder children and then rape the survivors by threatening their families, they just had to because of the cycle of vengeance.
It’s especially sick because from the first book’s description, the capital itself was never successfully attacked by the rebels. None of their children died, so why would there be calls for the deaths of the districts’ children?
“I vote yes…for Prim.”
I don’t really need to say anything, do I?
Haymitch votes the same, so the motion passes.
Then it’s time to assassinate Snow.
The point of my arrow shifts upward. I release the string. And President Coin collapses over the side of the balcony and plunges to the ground.
Dead.
Welp.
That actually felt kind of inevitable. Katniss has been hating her the whole book. She’s been given an excuse to justify the murder and we’re told she has no interest in living, so neither is she held back by the fact she’d expect to be killed afterward.
The best part is that textually, the theory with the fewest holes in it is Snow did it to convince Katniss to murder Coin. He had the motive, the wits, and the knowledge he was doomed no matter what.
…
So. Current poll winner is Gemma Doyle, which by the magic of democracy means I should pick it and disappoint the other seventy people. Any other choice means disappointing even more people, after all!
I’ve read the first five chapters and there just isn’t much to say. It’s readable but pretty basic writing with little meat to it. If I do this one, it’s not going to be a line by line thing like Hunger Games. Fair warning.
Is it possible for you to read a couple of chapters for the runner-up? Cause if it’s easier to point out flaws in and you wanted to read that one more in the first place on account of the necromancers, I think it would be an easier/more entertaining one to spork. Besides, at the time of writing this, it’s only a 9 person difference in voting. I don’t see them getting to huffy about it.
I was planning to do the runner up next. If I do Gemma at all it’s going to be in pretty big chunks, anyway, not one chapter a day.
I was planning to do the runner up next. If I do Gemma at all it’s going to be in pretty big chunks, anyway, not one chapter a day.
Found this discussion of this chapter on Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Katniss-continue-ulterior-motives-agreed/forum/Fx25ILNX4E3K732/Tx151U2RAI8RBBG/1/ref=cm_cd_fp_ef_tft_tp
“the events of this book that are most important are often very subtle and are what makes the series powerful, ”
“I agree completely. Suggesting to continue the Hunger Games is the proof that Coin was just as bad and responsible for the death of Prim. ”
“This was brilliant writing, people. When Katniss goes out and shoots Coin, the reversal of feeling… Oh man. Wish I’d written that!
It blows me away, the readers who don’t appreciate the writing in these last couple of pages. ”
I like your comments better.
Some people would rather accept what they’re being told to think than disagree, I suppose…and you’d expect fans to the ones talking about the book in places like that.
Even listening to the fan’s eye view version, it still doesn’t make sense. They seem to have the idea that killing Coin prevents the games, even though she said she’d announce it and she presented is something other people had proposed, not something she was doing.
Some people would rather accept what they’re being told to think than disagree, I suppose…and you’d expect fans to the ones talking about the book in places like that.
Even listening to the fan’s eye view version, it still doesn’t make sense. They seem to have the idea that killing Coin prevents the games, even though she said she’d announce it and she presented is something other people had proposed, not something she was doing.
So there’s this big debate in the fandom whether or not Katniss’ “Yes for Prim” was to get Coin to trust her and that Haymitch’s “I’m with the Mockingjay” meant he sort of knew what she was planning. I think this is true, but what do you think?
I can believe that was what the author meant. The problem is that isn’t what she wrote. There isn’t any clear causal link there, where if Katniss says no she wouldn’t get to kill Snow, and Coin has no reason to be expecting the shot either way. And killing Coin shouldn’t prevent it, because it sounded like she would make the announcement as soon as they decided.
I am baffled by the emphasis on ‘it was Gale’s BOMB’ that keeps coming up now. Setting off one bomb, and keeping the next blast for when rescuers arrive is an established technique in terrorism. (In fact, it’s the one and only piece of this I can actually see that Collins picked up from reading about Iraq, despite the claims that this is All About That).
You don’t need specially designed bombs, you just need to set things up so you can detonate one blast, then another a short period later. People do this (in Iraq, say) with explosives people rig in their living rooms.
Now, if they mean ‘it was Gale’s idea’, that’s fair. This may have been a brainstorm of his, something he contributed that the rebels hadn’t previously thought of. But once it was done a couple of times, it’s anyone’s idea to pick up and make use of.
Am I missing something here?
“I will also say I continue to be on the Coin bandwagon.”
Even after she wanted to continue the Hunger Games? That’s really, really astonishing. Coin admitted that it was her idea, not anyone else’s. Any half-decent human being wouldn’t even think of murdering children because of the “need for vengeance”. Seeking vengeance by murdering two dozen children is for horrible, despicable excuses for human beings, which is exactly what Coin is.
Well, yes, as the rest of the paragraph goes on to say:
She’s saying flat out she’s doing this because the only other option she has is killing more people. There are no claims this is a good idea, just that slaughtering the whole of the capital is a worse one. Furthermore, there’s no mention that the children would be spared with all the adults killed, so the choice is really “kill everyone or kill some people”. She’s amoral and practical, but she’s doing what a leader should do – enacting the will of the people who chose her to lead them, and trying to do so in the least damaging way.
I gather that we’re supposed to act as if Coin is just saying she wants to continue the games because evulz, but what Coin claims is that people are calling for the complete obliteration of all capital citizens, and she’s suggesting a compromise of torture-killing twenty-four capital kids.
I don’t know why it wasn’t just presented as some people wanted to continue the Hunger Games and some didn’t, and Coin was on the pro-childmurdergames side and needed the support of the victors to pass it. But she says otherwise and it fits with how people seem fine with every other horrible thing Coin does as if she’s acting in line with the population and not just a sole evildoer.
She’s saying flat out she’s doing this because the only other option she has is killing more people.
No, she said “many” are calling for killing all Capitol citizens. Even if she’s telling the truth–and it’s doubtful that she is–there are still almost certainly many people who are actually decent human beings and don’t think that obliterating the entire population of the defeated enemy is a good idea. She openly admits that continuing the Hunger Games is her idea, not anyone else’s.
And just because some people from the districts are calling for obliteration of the Capitol citizens doesn’t mean that continuing the Hunger Games is the more logical practical decision. Nothing could be further from the truth. What’s more likely: the districts starting a civil war between themselves because what they had fought so hard to end didn’t get continued, or the remaining Capitol citizens deciding to restart the war because the districts are murdering their children? Obviously the second is far more likely. Not continuing the Hunger Games is a far better road to peace than continuing the Hunger Games, only this time with the Capitol children. Coin knows this fully well. She’s not continuing the Hunger Games because it’s the better road to peace; no one is crazy enough to actually believe that. She’s doing it because she’s a horrible person and wants to exert her authority and further entrench herself as ruler of a totalitarian regime.
Exept the books seemed convinced that the Hunger Games were a valid method of controlling the districts to begin with.
The Hunger Games were a valid method for the Capitol to control the districts, not for the districts to control each other. What people seem to be missing is that the new Hunger Games proposed by Coin are similar to the original Hunger Games in a number of chilling ways.
No, they were not a good way for the capitol to control the districts. But the books said they were. That’s the problem. The books work under such a weird logic when it comes to keeping people under control that for all we know, what Coin says is right in-universe and it’s the only way to keep the peace.
This isn’t an excuse. If the Hunger Games weren’t a good way for the Capitol to control the districts, then they also aren’t a good way for Coin to control the remaining Capitol citizens, which makes it even more of an illogical, impractical decision. Coin isn’t doing it because she’s “amoral and practical”, she’s doing it because she’s a horrible person.
So, what you are saying is that Coin is badly written. I can get behind it.
I’m not saying Coin is “badly written”. I’m saying that Coin is clearly a horrible person and people are refusing to admit this obvious fact.
Horrible people aren’t all stupid, however. If reenacting the murdergames is a bad way to keep people in line, that means Coin doesn’t have any reason to do it unless she made a pact with Satan and now has to sacrifice some kids or something.
Basically, the problem here is that Coin’s actions don’t make sense, no matter how horrible a person she is. But neither do capitol’s actions, so it’s nothing new.
Hunger Games is a world operating under logic of the narrative rather than socio-political dynamics with a foundation in reality. That makes it rather hard to tell who is right without dismissing the whole thing as ridiculously implausible.
Coin’s actions make perfect sense. While continuing the Hunger Games is a terrible way to ensure peace, punishing people for specific things, yet things they didn’t have any control of, is an effective way to exert her authority. Once the Capitol citizens, and the districts, see Coin murder the Capitol’s children, they’ll know that anything they do could put themselves in danger even if they didn’t really do anything wrong. It will instill fear in the population, and people will align with what she wants to do and enact her will because they’re terrified for their life, even if her will demands they murder dozens of children. She’s doing it to make sure she can stay in power no matter how horrible a leader she is.
And she goes for murdering children instead of oppressing the population directly, as the very people backing her want, because?
Targeting children is a really shitty way to control anyone because it just brews resentment and prompts rebellion.
It doesn’t help that controlling capitol’s population is pretty irrelevant to staying in charge to begin with: districts citizens are the ones producing everything and also the ones fighting. Capitol is a home of the leadership and consumers, neither of which is needed in the new regime.
Coin claimed that some, not all, of the population were calling for complete obliteration of the Capitol population, which is not the same as “oppressing the population directly”. Coin doesn’t want to kill off all the Capitol citizens, she wants to rule over them. Murdering their children and instilling fear into them so that they enact her will purely out of fear is certainly good start for her to exert her authority. She does want to oppress the population directly, but to do that she first wants to instill fear into it. Even if Coin is telling the truth, and it’s very doubtful that she is given the circumstances, have you ever wondered why those same people who were supposedly calling for complete obliteration of the Capitol population weren’t still calling for it after Coin died? Or why Katniss got off entirely for killing Coin?
Targeting children is a terrible way to maintain peace, but Coin doesn’t care about peace. She wants to send the message to the entire population that if you’re not on her good side, you life could be in danger. She does just this to Katniss–she sends Peeta, an untrained, mentally unstable and pretty much useless soldier, into combat hoping that he’ll kill Katniss. At one point he almost does. Then she proposes the new Hunger Games to the victors, and one of the purposes of this is to test Katniss’s loyalty. If Katniss isn’t in agreement with her plans to murder the Capitol’s children, she’ll try to have Katniss killed again.
Murdering the Capitol’s children also instills fear into the districts. If she punishes the Capitol citizens in proportion to how much they’ve done wrong, that sends the message that she’s a fair leader and if you behave decently you aren’t in any danger. But if she murders people for things that aren’t in their control, that sends the much more effective message that pretty much anything you do could put you in mortal danger and the only way to be safe is to align with whatever Coin wants.
[Or why Katniss got off entirely for killing Coin?]
The answer to this is “incredibly lazy sue author.”
You don’t know the author personally, calling the author lazy is an insulting thing to say. “The incredibly lazy writing by the author” is an acceptable response.
This isn’t even true, either. Katniss got off entirely because people decided to be decent human beings and made the completely correct decision to let Katniss go after she killed a president who wanted to continue murdering children after they’d fought so hard to stop exactly that from happening. They understood Katniss’s reasons for making her decision and decided to be decent human beings and not kill her.
I meant it as an insult, so I think my phraseology was fine. We don’t give out gold stars for effort.
As history shows, the most effective way to instill fear into the population is to murder and torture the shit out of them, systematically.
Going after the children just instills resentment and anger.
And making it clear that no matter what people do, they still can get tortured and killed is an absolutely horrible idea, control-wise. You want people to try and please you and your regime. If they know that doing it is no guarantee they will live, and not doing that can also lead to death, well, why not rebel?
“Targeting children is a terrible way to maintain peace, but Coin doesn’t
care about peace. She wants to send the message to the entire
population that if you’re not on her good side, you life could be in
danger.”
See, peace and oppression have one thing in common: both require the population to not be actively trying to kill you. Which is what going after children gives you.
“Even if Coin is telling the truth, and it’s very doubtful that she is
given the circumstances, have you ever wondered why those same people
who were supposedly calling for complete obliteration of the Capitol
population weren’t still calling for it after Coin died? Or why Katniss
got off entirely for killing Coin?”
Bad writing is generally a safe bet.
“But if she murders people for things that aren’t in their control, that
sends the much more effective message that pretty much anything you do
could put you in mortal danger and the only way to be safe is to align
with whatever Coin wants.”
No, it send the message that you should kill Coin and be done with it.
I mean, districts just went through one revolution, what’s stopping them from doing it again?
You seem to be forgetting that Coin is only targeting some of the Capitol children, not all of them. The ones who aren’t murdered in the Hunger Games will know for sure that the only way to ensure their own safety is to align with what Coin wants, whatever that is.
And making it clear that no matter what people do, they still can get tortured and killed is an absolutely horrible idea, control-wise.
This isn’t the message Coin is trying to send. She wants to send the message that she isn’t going to be fair and make sensible decisions. If she’s not happy with you, you’re in danger. This forces people to align with whatever she wants and please her and her regime because they’re terrified for their lives.
I explained in a previous comment that bad writing is certainly not why Katniss got off entirely for killing Coin.
Anytime you oppress the population, you’re always in danger of having people wanting to kill you. What Coin is trying to do is send the message to the people that whatever she wants, they’d better align with it and enact her will or else their lives are at risk. Continuing the Hunger Games with the Capitol’s children is a very effective way to send this message.
Look, Coin isn’t a wizard. Her power is not personal, it is the power of a leader. And to have that kind of power you need to have people around willing to do what you want and not murder you instead.
I mean, just look at the third world countries: you have leaders dying like flies because people there know very well that whoever controls the military controls everything else.
And who is the military? Why, district citizens.
So, the question is, why would they do what Coin wants instead of killing her and allowing some general to take her place?
Capitol population is, frankly, irrelevant. They are not important enough to bother with scaring them. Given that they don’t produce any food, they are going what districts tell them just to not starve.
It isn’t just the Capitol population that Coin’s instilling fear into by continuing the Hunger Games; it’s an excellent start for her in terms of forcing the districts to enact her will.
And to have that kind of power you need to have people around willing to do what you want and not murder you instead.
There’s more than one way to do this. Forcing people to do what you want because they’re terrified for their lives works just fine instead.
So, the question is, why would they do what Coin wants instead of killing her and allowing some general to take her place?
Look: whether Coin oppresses the population by doing what you’re saying she should be doing, or oppresses them by doing what she does in the book, there will always be some people who would want to kill her. Coin’s willing to take this risk because she wants to stay in power and oppress the population. She’s aware of the risk; look at the bodyguards she has around her.
I don’t see why you’re incapable of accepting that Coin’s doing the things she does in the book because she’s trying to exert her authority and oppress the population. It’s certainly in line with the events of the book, and there’s no other explanation for her behavior. Just because she could have done things differently doesn’t mean that no one trying to exert their authority and oppress the population would do what she does. Your arguments about how she could do things differently are ultimately irrelevent. You need to look at what’s actually in the books and figure out what Coin’s doing from what she actually does, not what she could have done. This book is about what happens, not what could have happened.
“It isn’t just the Capitol population that Coin’s instilling fear into by
continuing the Hunger Games; it’s an excellent start for her in terms
of forcing the districts to enact her will.”
And they would do that instead of murdering her and going on with their lives because?
“There’s more than one way to do this. Forcing people to do what you want
because they’re terrified for their lives works just fine instead.”
You still need a privileged class that is not oppressed, otherwise you are just one person surrounded by people with guns that could just as easily point at you.
“Look: whether Coin oppresses the population by doing what you’re saying
she should be doing, or oppresses them by doing what she does in the
book, there will always be some people who would want to kill her.”
I have an impression that you think oppressing the population is a goal in itself. It isn’t. Oppression should serve you to remain in charge, and that requires minimizing the amount of people wanting to kill you. Typically by killing them first.
Murdergames is the opposite of it.
“You need to look at what’s actually in the books and figure out what
Coin’s doing from what she actually does, not what she could have done.”
The actual books contain a world that cannot exist, so they aren’t an authority on anything, human nature least of all.
And they would do that instead of murdering her and going on with their lives because?
You are completely missing the basic point. Whether or not Coin continues the Hunger Games, if she brutally oppresses the population there will be some people who would want to kill her. Coin continuing the Hunger Games does not in any way prove that she doesn’t intend to oppress the population and exert her authority. The book, on the other hand, irrefutably proves that Coin does intend to oppress the population and exert her authority, or at least that it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that she might do this.
Oppression does not in any way require minimizing the number of people wanting to kill you. It’s perfectly realistic to say that Coin’s willing to take the risk that someone will try to kill her because she wants to remain in power and exert her authority. Coin certainly does want to oppress the population to remain in charge, but if she kills all the people who she fears might want to kill her, that would pretty much mean killing everyone, and then she’d have no one to oppress and exert her authority over so that she can remain in charge. She can’t specifically target people who want to kill her simply because she has no way of telling who does and who doesn’t.
The actual books contain a world, that cannot exist, so they aren’t an authority on anything, human nature least of all.
Regardless of whether or not this is true, in this particular case there is a fully plausible situation where Coin wants to exert her authority and oppress the population to remain in power and decides that murdering Capitol children will instill fear into the population and force them to align with what she wants and enact her will.
The problem here is that using murdergames to control districts population is just plain not going to work.
Because, you know, they just finished with the previous regime that tried it.
And minimizing the number of people wanting to kill you is kinda essential to remaining in charge. Because you would be too dead otherwise to exert your authority over anything.
Killing everyone who looked like they would want to kill him worked pretty well for Stalin until the very end, so the precedent is here.
The problem here is that using murdergames to control districts population is just plain not going to work. Because, you know, they just finished with the previous regime that tried it.
Using murdergames to control populations worked for three quarters of a century, and that previous regime that tried it worked for three quarters of a century. These comments have become so idiotic and completely detached from reality, I’m going to assume from now on that you haven’t read the book, because the other possibility is that you lost your mind and I don’t want to go there.
For people that have read the book, we all know that Coin is a horrible person for murdering dozens of children to exert her authority and oppress the population, and the author of this blog going on and on about how it’s totally fine for the character that she arbitrarily decided to love the instant the character came into the story to murder dozens of children to exert her authority and oppress the population doesn’t change the plainly obvious reality of the situation.
I did in fact read the books. They are just nonsensical, so taking them as evidence for anything and buying into the narrative was impossible for me.
It is idiotic that murdergames worked at all, for any regime, but even if we assume that it’s a workable method of control, the circumstances have changed.
Coin is dealing with people who went to war against the inventors of murdergames, and there is little reason for them to bow down to the new tyrant when they have all the proof they need that the situation can be changed.
Really, murdergames work as a decadent entertainment. Saying that they somehow help you control the population is simply dumb, unless they are part of some dark ritual enabling mind control or something.
You need to look at what’s actually in the books and figure out what Coin’s doing from what she actually does, not what she could have done. This book is about what happens, not what could have happened.
I don’t think we’re on the same page here. You keep arguing using evidence from the book, but Illhousen isn’t contesting that. Yes, according to the book Coin is Satan and the Hunger Games were effective. The problem is that the book is terribly written and can’t actually back up its assertion because it operates on its own moon logic, not reality. The actions and events portrayed in the book simply do not make sense if you try to apply real-world logic to them, which is the standpoint Farla and Illhousen are arguing from. (Honestly the books do rather poorly even from an internal consistency angle, but that’s another debate.)
Yes, according to the book Coin is Satan and the Hunger Games were effective.
This statement can have multiple meanings. It can mean that the book just states that Coin is evil, or it can mean that in the book Coin’s actions clearly indicate that she is evil. The correct statement is the second one, but the other commenters seem to be denying this.
The problem is that the book is terribly written and can’t actually back up its assertion because it operates on its own moon logic, not reality.
Aside from the fact that this is a ridiculous assumption to make, it’s irrelevant in the current situation. The book isn’t “asserting” that Coin is evil. The book gives us a consistent, entirely plausible, completely realistic scenario that proves this true. Illhousen is arguing that it’s impossible for a person to act the way Coin does in the book to exert her authority and oppress the population. This is completely ridiculous and not even remotely true. The only way this logic works is if you say that none of the characters in the book can be said to be horrible people because of the book’s “moon logic”, but that’s not the impression I’m getting from the comments. The comments act like Coin is a special case compared to the rest of the book, which is completely untrue.
Ah, you are one of those people who would argue Joker is completely realistic.
Ceasing the discussion.
This statement can have multiple meanings. It can mean that the book just states that Coin is evil, or it can mean that in the book Coin’s actions clearly indicate that she is evil. The correct statement is the second one, but the other commenters seem to be denying this.
…We are still not on the same page.
Yes, obviously the book is going to create a narrative where it sets up evidence for Coin being evil. That is its agenda and the method by which it accomplishes it. However, Farla and Illhousen aren’t arguing purely on the basis of the tautological events of the book, but also on a meta plane. The book portrays Coin as evil and sets up evidence for this purpose, but as has been repeatedly proven, the book is unreliable and unrealistic. You are treating it as perfect scripture, when it is flawed. This blog is dedicated to analyzing those flaws, as well as going on tangents about how it would work according to real world logic because that’s a good writing exercise that Farla seems to enjoy.
Basically, you are arguing about whether or not the book’s stated message exists. The blog is arguing about how well it gets that message across, the accuracy in which it is portrayed, and its social ramifications. They are similar but different arguments, and conflating them will just get you confused and frustrated, as we have seen here.
To bypass the entire comment thread entirely and start anew…
No, she said “many” are calling for killing all Capitol citizens. Even if she’s telling the truth–and it’s doubtful that she is–there are still almost certainly many people who are actually decent human beings and don’t think that obliterating the entire population of the defeated enemy is a good idea. She openly admits that continuing the Hunger Games is her idea, not anyone else’s.
She says that many want the capital all killed. She says this can’t happen or the rest of them will die. She suggests the Hunger Games as a compromise.
While the people below are right that my disagreements are generally with the world presented, I’m actually willing to argue on textual basis with Coin.
What evidence do you find in the books that Coin is acting on her own here? Not Katniss hating the woman, actual evidence that the cruelties we see stem from her rather than reflecting the will of the population at large? What evidence do you have here that she’s lying, or that currently most people are willing to let the capital live?
What’s more likely: the districts starting a civil war between themselves because what they had fought so hard to end didn’t get continued, or the remaining Capitol citizens deciding to restart the war because the districts are murdering their children? Obviously the second is far more likely.
Also, what? The tiny fraction of the population that is the capital, having lost already and with every advantage they once had gone, singlehandedly restarts the war on the basis a couple of their kids are being killed?
Them and what army, exactly?
So please, list the evidence that Coin is personally evil and doing this for personal evil reasons and we can go from there. My list currently stalls at 1) Coin tried to assassinate Katniss with Peeta. What else do you have?
Not Katniss hating the woman, actual evidence that the cruelties we see stem from her rather than reflecting the will of the population at large?
For the record, Katniss has never hated Coin without having valid reasons to. It was actually Plutarch who she hated for most of the book. After hearing that Plutarch was “thrilled” at their efforts in the war, Katniss said something along the lines of “Plutarch doesn’t care who dies. Not as long as his Games are a success.” Then, after Coin brought up the 76th Hunger Games, Katniss initially guessed that it was Plutarch’s idea, even though she had far more reason at the time to think it was Coin’s. If she hated Coin so much, wouldn’t she immediately associate Coin suggesting the 76th Hunger Games was obviously Coin’s idea. You seem to base your theory that Katniss has always hated Coin off Katniss pondering if Coin’s hair was a wig in the first chapter. This is not even close to Katniss “hating” Coin.
What evidence do you have here that she’s lying, or that currently most people are willing to let the capital live?
After Katniss killed Coin, not only did they let Katniss off entirely, which suggests they understood her reasons for killing Coin and knew Coin was a horrible person, but apparently no one still wanted any kind of harm to be inflicted upon the Capitol population, let alone complete obliteration of the population. If so many people wanted the Capitol obliterated, Katniss killing Coin wouldn’t change that. Why then wasn’t the Capitol obliterated in the following months? Or at least discussions about it and some kind of attempt to inflict major harm upon the Capitol citizens? Apparently the 76th Hunger Games weren’t needed to ensure peace. (Coin never said anything about ensuring peace; she based having the Hunger Games off the “need for vengeance”, which has nothing to do with ensuring or maintaining peace. It’s clearly counterproductive to achieving peace, but Coin doesn’t care about peace. Only remaining in power no matter what the cost is for the population.
The tiny fraction of the population that is the capital, having lost already and with every advantage they once had gone, singlehandedly restarts the war on the basis of a couple of their kids being killed?
It isn’t just all-out war that’s the issue. The Capitol may not decide to launch all-out war, but reinstalling the Hunger Games is a terrible way to make peace with the Capitol in general, which is what they’re supposed to be doing. Beetee understood this; he said they had to stop viewing each other as enemies, which is why he voted no. The first step toward peace is to stop viewing each other as enemies, which is exactly the opposite of what murdering the Capitol’s children accomplishes.
For the evidence that Coin is personally evil and doing this for personal evil reasons:
1) This first one is actually really important. Ever since Katniss had argued with Coin in front of the entire district about whether or not the other victors would be tried as war criminals, Coin would have suspected that Katniss at the very least wouldn’t have thrown her support toward Coin. She probably wouldn’t insist against Coin but the odds are she wouldn’t support her either. Boggs told Katniss “If your immediate answer isn’t Coin, you’re a threat.” This was definitely Coin’s line of thinking. If Katniss was an obstacle to her taking and maintaining power and authority then she had to be gotten rid of. Coin saw sending Peeta to kill her as the perfect opportunity because it might make Peeta look like the one to blame.
2) Coin insisted on having the remaining victors tried as “war criminals” even though they did nothing wrong aside from being forced into the Hunger Games. Since she for some bizarre reason wanted them to be not only tried, but tried as “war criminals”, she obviously wanted them to be tortured and/or killed, or at least imprisoned. Only a horrible person would demand this. (The “bizarre reason” why she wanted them to be tried as war criminals is because she saw them as a political threat to her; as you’ve previously pointed out, victors could be a popular choice from the population as people to be in charge.)
3) We also know that dozens of other victors were killed, since there were only seven left by the end of the book.
To quote what you wrote in this chapter review:
Coin sweeps in to say that Enobaria is protected by Katniss’s deal, with the implication being that they slaughtered everyone else.
Plus, the Capitol would have had no reason to target the victors, and even if they did, they wouldn’t have been able to just pluck them out of the districts individually. It’s Coin who’s been in charge since the end of the war, and she’s had access to the entire country. She’s obviously the one who killed all the other victors. Like I said previously, the reason why she killed the victors is because she saw them as a threat to her power.
4) Coin’s proposing of the 76th Hunger Games, aside from her personal reasons for wanting it, was also intended as a test for Katniss. There were three things Coin was probably contemplating at that time:
a) Had Katniss realized that the purpose of sending Peeta into combat was to kill her? If Katniss had figured that out, she would be extremely untrusting of Coin from that point on and would be more likely to take an anti-Coin position after the war. So if Katniss voted yes for the Hunger Games, Coin could feel pretty safe that since Katniss didn’t appear to be against her, she hadn’t figured out that Coin had sent Peeta to kill her.
b) How did Katniss feel about the idea of murdering the Capitol’s children? If Katniss voted no, this obviously meant she was against the idea and might try to stop her, or convince others to try to stop her. Only if Katniss voted yes could Coin feel safe in letting Katniss live.
c) Did Katniss know who was responsible for the bombing? If Katniss had figured out that Coin was the one who did it, she would obviously be a huge threat to Coin’s power. But if Katniss voted yes, Coin could feel pretty sure that Katniss had been fooled and still thought the Capitol had done it. Katniss was aware of this and managed to fool Coin with her “for Prim,” which implied that she thought the Capitol was responsible for Prim’s death and the deaths of the other medics and wanted revenge at the Capitol for it.
5) The Hunger Games with the Capitol’s children could serve as an effective way for Coin to further entrench herself as ruler of the nation. First of all, murdering some, but not all, of the Capitol children (and doing so in a systematic matter) would send a powerful message to the rest of the Capitol children (and children in general as well) that if she had any issue with you, even if you didn’t personally do anything wrong, she’d kill you. The children would be terrified for their lives so they’d spend their lives aligning with whatever Coin wanted and enacting her will purely out of fear for their lives. Plus, it sent a more general message to the entire population that the only way to ensure your personal safety is to be on her good side. She’s not randomly punishing people. Nor is she punishing people in proportion to what they’ve done wrong. She’s punishing people for specific things but things that aren’t exactly easy to predict beforehand (although you can figure out her line of thinking after the fact, but it will be too late). Everyone will know that if Coin wants x, you’d better align with x and enact x or else, which is a very effective way to exert her authority, oppress the population, and further entrench herself atop the nation.
6) Just a curious thing: it’s interesting when you take a look at Coin’s previous interactions with Katniss. Every time Coin is looking for a particular reaction to something from Katniss, Boggs, Plutarch, Fulvia (was that her name?) and others–basically, “Coin’s people” are present. You see this when Coin tries to convince Katniss to become the Mockingjay, when Katniss tells Coin her conditions if Katniss is to become the Mockingjay, and when Katniss watches Peeta’s interview on television. But then strangely, when Coin comes in and proposes the Hunger Games, it’s just Coin. No one else. This is another situation where Coin is looking for a particular reaction from Katniss, but she chooses to be the only one there. This suggests Coin knew that if her “people” were there, they’d demand that the Games not happen. But if just Coin is there, no matter what the victors end up deciding she can just leave the room saying whatever she wants. She can always say they voted for it, no matter what the actual outcome was. Not only this, but whoever objects to the Games, she can always place the blame on the seven victors. “It’s their fault it happened.” In fact, it’s curious why she killed off most of the victors but allowed those seven to live. It may have just been that she didn’t have the right opportunity to have them killed (this is certainly true in Katniss’s case, although she did try to have her killed by Peeta once), but maybe it was because she saw those seven tributes as being the best candidates for playing the blame game.
You seem to base your theory that Katniss has always hated Coin off Katniss pondering if Coin’s hair was a wig in the first chapter.
No, that’s for the theory the book hates Coin.
My theory Katniss hates Coin has to do with her spending the book assuming the worst of Coin while refusing to do anything the woman says without bribery.
After Katniss killed Coin, not only did they let Katniss off entirely, which suggests they understood her reasons for killing Coin and knew Coin was a horrible person, but apparently no one still wanted any kind of harm to be inflicted upon the Capitol population
What the complete lack of trial or explanation suggests is that the author couldn’t even bullshit one for us.
If we’re just considering the text, my best guesses are that either it has to do with the victor immunity Katniss negotiated for, which I recall was blanket and not limited to crimes as of the point of the agreement, or there was someone who stood to benefit by brushing the whole thing under the rug, probably someone using this to get power themself.
We also have no idea what happened to the capital people beyond that they apparently weren’t killed off to the last because somehow that’d doom humanity and that the Hunger Games aren’t still running at the point the epilogue takes place. Given there’s not one lone mention of anyone rescinding the Hunger Games order either, I’d say the reading most in line with the text is that they ran one, killed 23 kids, and felt they had their pound of flesh. Given Coin’s suggestion makes no sense as a recurring thing when they’re worried about the population, I’d think it was always meant as a one-time thing.
Coin never said anything about ensuring peace; she based having the Hunger Games off the “need for vengeance”, which has nothing to do with ensuring or maintaining peace.
That would be really relevant if I had said it was about maintaining peace. But my position is Coin is saying it’s kill 23 people to stop the districts from voting to kill all of them and accidentally dooming themselves by losing all that quality capital DNA.
What I disagree with is the with the idea it’d cause the capital to go to war. The capital can’t do anything at this point or else complete genocide wouldn’t be one of the options on the table.
reinstalling the Hunger Games is a terrible way to make peace with the Capitol in general, which is what they’re supposed to be doing.
No, they’re trying to not go extinct from lack of DNA which happens to involving avoiding a full genocide.
Even assuming morals, they don’t want to make peace with the capital because the capital has no redeeming values and they gain nothing by trying to be nice. They’re going to exterminate the culture one way or another.
Anyway…
1) This first one is actually really important. Ever since Katniss had argued with Coin in front of the entire district about whether or not the other victors would be tried as war criminals, Coin would have suspected that Katniss at the very least wouldn’t have thrown her support toward Coin.
No, it’s irrelevant. I’m not arguing Coin is a good person. She orders torture. I’m arguing that if she orders torture and everyone else thinks that’s a great order, then the problem is widespread evil, not a specific leader.
Unless Coin worrying about lacking Katniss’ endorsement hurting her popularity with people meant the best idea was lie about how everyone wanted the capital dead and force a Hunger Games no one wanted, that’s still no reason to lie that people are calling for genocide.
2) Coin insisted on having the remaining victors tried as “war criminals” even though they did nothing wrong aside from being forced into the Hunger Games. Since she for some bizarre reason wanted them to be not only tried, but tried as “war criminals”, she obviously wanted them to be tortured and/or killed, or at least imprisoned. Only a horrible person would demand this. (The “bizarre reason” why she wanted them to be tried as war criminals is because she saw them as a political threat to her; as you’ve previously pointed out, victors could be a popular choice from the population as people to be in charge.)
What? No, that makes no sense.
If the victors were popular at all, killing them would make people hate Coin. Katniss makes it clear in the first book that everyone hates everyone else’s victors, and the majority of victors get double-hated for being trained kids in collaborator districts. That’s without getting into the part where, even if people didn’t hate other people’s victors, they’re still going to vote for their own one, splitting the vote. If anything, losing them just inflates Katniss’ importance as the only remaining victor.
We’re again back to this argument that she’s acting in complete defiance of what people want in the name of being the one people want.
3) We also know that dozens of other victors were killed, since there were only seven left by the end of the book.
…
Plus, the Capitol would have had no reason to target the victors
Except supposedly they’re such a big deal?
Either the victors have value for the rebellion, and so their enemies want them dead, or the victors don’t have value, so they’re not Coin’s main opposition.
and even if they did, they wouldn’t have been able to just pluck them out of the districts individually.
Sure they would. They started off in control of the districts and were fought back over the course of the book. Even after losing control of a district and somehow not thinking to grab the victor before then, we spend chapter upon chapter on the fact they can make things track individual people.
4) Coin’s proposing of the 76th Hunger Games, aside from her personal reasons for wanting it.
Do you realize everything you say starts with “since I know Coin is evil, therefore she did this because evil”?
was also intended as a test for Katniss.
Which makes no sense because Katniss has been flipping off the entire district since she arrived! She doesn’t need to test Katniss, she already knows the answer! And thinking a yes meant anything is even more insane. Katniss at this point had recently returned from that thing she where she took over her group and lied to them to make them do what she wanted.
If Katniss voted no, this obviously meant she was against the idea
Unless Katniss had just spent the book being pointlessly obstructionist to get stuff, in which case it’d look like Katniss was being Katniss again.
The question tells her nothing. Maybe it’d tell her something about the other people.
) Did Katniss know who was responsible for the bombing? If Katniss had figured out that Coin was the one who did it, she would obviously be a huge threat to Coin’s power. But if Katniss voted yes, Coin could feel pretty sure that Katniss had been fooled
But why do something as simple as asking a question to try to figure out a known liar’s answer to a totally different question, when Coin could hire some actors to put on a play reenacting her guess about some events and then scrutinize Katniss’ reaction?
Also, you’re arguing that she’s doing something no one wants on the off chance it gives her a clue how someone who obviously hates her feels as your non-conspiracy theory evidence?
5) The Hunger Games with the Capitol’s children could serve as an effective way for Coin to further entrench herself as ruler of the nation. First of all, murdering some, but not all, of the Capitol children (and doing so in a systematic matter) would send a powerful message to the rest of the Capitol children (and children in general as well) that if she had any issue with you, even if you didn’t personally do anything wrong, she’d kill you. The children would be terrified for their lives so they’d spend their lives aligning with whatever Coin wanted and enacting her will purely out of fear for their lives.
Wait, I thought the Hunger Games were a terrible idea?
Plus, it sent a more general message to the entire population that the only way to ensure your personal safety is to be on her good side.
So before they pick her as leader she makes it clear she’s going to terrorize everyone if they give her power?
But then strangely, when Coin comes in and proposes the Hunger Games, it’s just Coin. No one else. This is another situation where Coin is looking for a particular reaction from Katniss, but she chooses to be the only one there. This suggests Coin knew that if her “people” were there, they’d demand that the Games not happen.
This is a really interesting observation…but let’s consider who the people you listed were. Two are capital people and one was head of childmurder games.
Why would they object to childmurder? And if all her people object, how would she expect anyone else to go along with it?
I mean, if you’re arguing the entire thing is a lie and she’s saying this solely to fuck with Katniss’ head with no intention of actually doing it…but then, why confuse the issue by saying if they don’t agree other people will push for genocide? Also, why not go to Katniss personally rather than having everyone else walk out of the meeting saying that Coin was asking them to vote on a new Hunger Games?
But if just Coin is there, no matter what the victors end up deciding she can just leave the room saying whatever she wants. She can always say they voted for it, no matter what the actual outcome was.
….because she planned to have the room flooded with cyanide gas to keep them from ever talking?
Also, we’re back to why bother asking them at all.
In conclusion, this was pretty much all irrelevant to the issue of if Coin is acting in accordance with what people in general want. Ie, 13 is clearly fully down with torturing people for taking food, so removing Coin does nothing about that. No one but Katniss complained when Coin said the victors were evil, which suggests “the victors are evil” wasn’t really a hard sell. Troops were firing indiscriminately into unarmed civilians during the taking of the capital, which suggests that at least some of them are fine with genocide.
wow this… was written by one salty person. Get your facts and quotes straight when you claim that “there is no textual evidence to support..”
not sure if this was a review or analysis, but either way, 0/10 would recommend.
If you’re going to argue that point, it would be useful to provide any textual evidence you can. Just saying. :-)
why would you recommend something you think is 0/10