When The Interviewer Asked Hoseok If The Members Have Heard His Album (this Is From The Time Of JITB)

what do you think was the arena for the first quarter quell ? I headcannon it was a labyrinth . Since this was the first arena built by scratch , I think the game makers wanted this arena to be memorable and honour the origins the games should they modelled the arena after the myth which inspired the hunger games ( Theseus and the Minotaur )

Also since Haymitch said Snow needed the 2QQ to go perfectly meaning something went wrong during the 1QQ. What do you think went wrong ? Maybe there was a Minotaur mutt in the arena that was killed by one of the tributes causing uprisings to happen in the districts ? Maybe they capitol was forced to let that person be victor because the remaining tribute were worse ?

A labyrinth would be so interesting! I’m gonna steal your line of thinking and pull from something else religious/mythological: the Mountains of Moriah.

Collins seems to have an affinity with the book of Genesis. The arena resembles the Garden of Eden, the poison berries mirror the poison fruit, snakes as message bearers (you’re murdering us), seeking to go beyond the walls (the force field), and I’m sure there’s plenty more I’m missing. 

The districts had to vote their own children into the Games for the first Quarter Quell. It resembles another story in Genesis: the Sacrifice of Isaac, where God told Abraham to sacrifice his only son on top of one of the mountains in Moriah. The districts are told the same thing: sacrifice your sons to the Games. I think it’s too strict of a parallel to not place it in the mountains, especially when Haymitch uses the word “environment” here: 

For the last twenty-four years, they’ve unveiled a brand-new arena each year based on a different environment or theme, from a desert to a frigid landscape to Wiress’s reflective puzzle, which they called the Nest of Mirrors.

However, the word theme and the mirrors both lend themselves towards the labyrinth idea. I see the appeal of a labyrinth in construction. Like you said, it’s the first arena they have constructed themselves for the sole purpose of the Games. A pure landscape of mountains wouldn’t give the image of grandiosity the Capitol would want to portray, and it wouldn’t mark the era of constructed arenas. So maybe, in keeping with the theme, perhaps there is an altar of sorts, symbolic of the sacrifice they are making at the altar of the Capitol, and that altar can hold the labyrinth. Two symbolic allusions in one.

As for what I think went wrong, my mind immediately jumps to construction. I highly doubt they had the technology for an efficient Sub-A back then. We see in the 50th games that they’re still using manual labor to clean up, but they are removing the bodies with the hovercrafts, so they do have some distance technology that works. It’s the first arena they have built. Something is bound to go wrong, whether the altar’s door won’t open, or the cornucopia rolls down the mountain.

Neither of those things seem like they would affect the “smoothness” of the Games, though, so my theory is more rebellious. What strikes me between the 74th and the 50th Games is the fact Haymitch was so close to Maysilee’s body when they removed it. Katniss knew that the hovercraft won’t take the bodies if someone is there. Haymitch knows it’s less likely, but they still take the bodies as we see with Maysilee. So what if that rule started in the 25th games? Maybe a tribute or two hitched a ride on the claw and hijacked a hovercraft. There’d be no reason to have a large staff on the ship itself until it happens. It seems simple enough.  

You raise a good point about the victor. We don’t know the victor, yet we know Mags. Mags is significantly older than the victor from the first QQ. Something happened to that victor to make them disappear. A QQ victor is not someone Panem forgets unless the Capitol wants them gone. Katniss says it herself in the 75th Games, all eyes would be on Haymitch because he won the 2nd QQ. All eyes should have been on the first QQ winner, but they weren’t. They weren’t even mentioned by name. So maybe that victor was a rebel after all. Now you’ve got me thinking. 

I’m curious what your theories on the victor would be.

Slowly I Married Her, Leonard Cohen

one of the biggest things I can advocate for (in academia, but also just in life) is to build credibility with yourself. It’s easy to fall into the habit of thinking of yourself as someone who does things last minute or who struggles to start tasks. people will tell you that you just need to build different habits, but I know for me at least the idea of ‘habit’ is sort of abstract and dehumanizing. Credibility is more like ‘I’ve done this before, so I know I can do it, and more importantly I trust myself to do it’. you set an assignment goal for the day and you meet it, and then you feel stronger setting one the next day. You establish a relationship with yourself that’s built on confidence and trust. That in turn starts to erode the barrier of insecurity and perfectionism and makes it easier to start and finish tasks. reframing the narrative as a process of building credibility makes it easier to celebrate each step and recognize how strong your relationship with yourself can become

Effie Trinket as José Ortega y Gasset’s Mass-Man

According to Philosopher José Oretga y Gasset, a mass-man is someone who values the comfort of dogma. In Revolt of the Masses, Ortega y Gasset claims a mass-man subscribes to popular opinion and deems it unnecessary to question the normative ideas of a society. The mass-man “has the most mathematical ‘ideas’ on all that happens or ought to happen in the universe,” and thus declares his dogmatic principles as true because they derive from his uncritical perception (Ortega y Gasset, 1929).

Often, the mass-man benefits from his subscribed ideologies. He resents those who are different, justifies his thoughts on account of popular belief, lacks critical thought, and aligns himself with superiors under the guise he is part of that authority. Effie Trinket is a mass-man.

A mass-man upholds the standards of authority under the guise of tradition or respect. In the perception of the mass-man, the authority figure, sometimes referred to as the “state” in Revolt of the Masses, crushes all forms of disunion beneath it to uphold “the commonplace mind” (Ortega y Gasset, 1929).

In the reaping ceremony, instead of letting a distraught 16-year-old take the stage, Effie immediately interjects with the procedure of the capitol: 

“But I believe there’s a small matter of introducing the reaping winner and then asking for volunteers, and if one does come forth then we, um…” she trails off, unsure herself. (THG,  22) 

Her first instinct is to cite the rules and procedures. While the mayor claims it does not matter, Effie does not critically consider the implications or consequences of the rules. She knows she must enforce them because the authority above her demands compliance. Instead of thinking through the rule, she recites it imperfectly, likely realizing she does not know the extent of it after she has already begun. This recital is an ingrained instinct. She seeks to defend the Capitol at the expense of her own thoughts. 

Ortega y Gasset emphasizes this blind, uncritical recital of beliefs as a self-gratifying allegiance to authority. Effie’s reaction to slight disorder is “pronouncing, deciding,” ergo, she seeks to impose the opinion of the Capitol (Ortega y Gasset, 1929): 

The blind allegiance is furthered when she emphasizes the importance of the respect towards the Hunger Games as her duty. Instead of analyzing the consequences of the games, such as the death and pain they cause the districts, she cites them as a vehicle for peace and prosperity— the ideology touted by the capitol. 

“Listen, everybody. There is something bigger than you and me happening here. As we all know, the Hunger Games are a sacred ceremony of remembrance for the Dark Days. A lot of people lost their lives to guarantee peace and prosperity for our nation. And this is our chance— no, it is our duty —to honor them!” (SOTR,  172)

This aligns with another feature of the mass-man: the idea that mankind is at its best. In Revolt of the Masses, Ortega y Gasset emphasizes the importance of history.

Ortega y Gasset believes mankind has no nature— rather, everyone is a culmination of everything— from the founding of a country to stubbing one’s toe, every instance affects one’s consciousness. To forget the context of history and to overlook it under the assumption modern life is inherently better than time before, "casts away the rudder" and leaves societies vulnerable (Ortega y Gasset, 1929).

Effie fully believes the Capitol’s narrative of the Dark Days, where societies were unstable and humans were barbaric. She does not consider the pre-Panem age, nor does she wonder how humanity has survived if everyone has been barbaric outside of the rule of the contemporary Capitol. She blindly trusts the Capitol’s rendition, therefore negating the contrary facts of history.

In the context of The Hunger Games, the Capitol’s propaganda that life with The Games is better than life prior erases the history of peace prior to the games. Effie’s constant reminders of how the games "really are for a greater good," and deserve respect because they maintain peace fail to account for a time before the games (SOTR, 338). Yet, as an example of a mass-man, she does not consider anything beyond the information and rationale of the Capitol. She is incapable of thought beyond the comfort of the familiar dogma. 

Compounding the idea of a disdain for history and critical thought, the mass-man is unable to equate himself with someone who does not comply with the common social standards. To compare himself to someone who is different would mean holding oneself to a similar standard. The mass-man is unable to offer any grounds to do so, as comparison would mean “to go out of himself for a moment and to transfer himself to his neighbour” (Ortega y Gasset, 1929).

While Effie does have some very real empathetic moments, she often devotes them to her job status, in turn, looking back towards the Capitol for reassurance.

In the first book, upon saying goodbye to Katniss and Peeta, she finishes her statement with, “I wouldn’t be at all surprised if I finally get promoted to a decent district next year!” (THG,  138). Despite the tears in her eyes, instead of thinking about how the teenagers in front of her are going to die, she still sees them as a means to receive praise in the form of a promotion. She desires the encouragement from authority in the same way as Ortega y Gasset’s mass-man. 

Ortega y Gasset continues to develop this notion as follows: 

Effie, unable to part the occasion from her ever-present thoughts about pleasing the capitol, lacks the ability to view the situation outside of the lens of propagating the capitol’s message. To Effie at this moment, Katniss and Peeta are a means to please the state. When something occurs that is anti-state, such as the private sessions in Catching Fire, Effie exclaims, “That kind of thinking… it’s forbidden, Peeta. Absolutely.” (CF, 240). Critical thinking is not a necessity when the capitol has told the citizens otherwise. Effie is opposed to free thought. She calls it forbidden on account of the punishment it may bring from the Capitol. She does not speak ill of Peeta’s actions, rather, she explicitly states the “thinking” (CF, 240). 

For this same reason, Katniss points out the hypocrisy in gold and the mockingjay pin becoming fashion trends in the Capitol: 

“Evidently, Effie doesn’t know that my mockingjay pin is now a symbol used by the rebels…. In the Capitol, the mockingjay is still a fun reminder of an especially exciting Hunger Games. What else could it be?” (CF, 190). 

Effie, like the rest of the Capitol, lacks the option for the free, critical thought it takes to see the mockingjay as a rebellious symbol. The Capitol citizens see it as a fashion trend, akin to how they view the games as a reality television show. Once more, the mass-man subscribes to popular beliefs, refusing to think more deeply about the symbolism of the pin. 

Effie’s lack of critical thought is foundational to her value of hierarchy. Despite consistently being assigned District 12, she still sees herself as a respected part of the Capitol. Ortega y Gasset discusses this exact notion— the mass-man believes he is one with the state. 

However, on the victory tour, peacekeepers, a branch of the state, treat her, in her words, like “we’re all criminals,” (CF, 57). Despite believing herself of more respect, Effie has no real authority in the state, as proven by the prodding of the gun in that same section. She remarks she does not “like the way we’ve been treated,” yet lacks any real authority to change it (CF, 69). She continues to believe the state will protect her, when it is, in fact, the state doing to the prodding. 

Despite her treatment from the state itself, she still believes herself to be near the summit of the hierarchy. On occasions where Katniss attempts to speak to an Avox, Effie reacts with displeasure. First questioning how Katniss could “possibly know an Avox” (THG,  77), then clucking at Katniss for picking up a spill and maintaining “that isn’t your job, Katniss!” (CF,  219). Effie has hierarchy ingrained in her belief system. She believes everyone is above Avoxes, just the same as she believes she is synonymous with the state. She knows not of their crimes, only that the Capitol must have judged them guilty correctly, and thus she trusts the Capitol once more to do her thinking. 

Effie’s disdain for her relatives in Sunrise on the Reaping develops the cognitive dissonance it takes to maintain the dogmatic standards of hierarchy. While it is not revealed why Effie dislikes her relatives, the line she agrees with afterwards displays the dogmatic reality of the capitol citizens:

“You don’t pick your ancestors.” (SOTR, 173)

While standing in front of four children who are about to die because they did not choose their ancestors, the capitolites console each other on account of their own inability to choose their ancestors. The capitol’s hierarchy must maintain this dissonance. While capitolites can conduct heinous atrocities, such as verified in Finnick’s story in Mockingjay, they believe they are still better than the district people. According to the dogmatic system ingrained in the mass-men of the Capitol, no one gets to choose their ancestry, but ancestry only matters if they are district. 

The effects of the cognitive dissonance present in the mass-man allow the Capitol to portray the districts as less-than, such as in the constant comparisons to animals. Effie casually remarks about how “the pair last year ate everything with their hands like a couple of savages,” (THG,  44) and how both Katniss and Peeta have “successfully struggled against the barbarism of [their] district,” (THG, 74). Effie’s characterizations of District 12 as barbaric and savage are likely preconceived notions from capitol propaganda. Instead of forming her own opinions and taking into account the socio-economic state of district twelve, she simply judges, pronounces, and decides based on the Capitol standards she considers perfection, such as in the characteristics of the mass-man.

However, any time she is confronted with the idea she, herself, is not perfect, such as when her schedule gets delayed in Catching Fire, she often removes herself from the situation and expects an apology. In Revolt of the Masses, Ortega y Gasset equates this to the mass-man being “satisfied with himself exactly as he is”. Anything that would equate Effie with a second-class citizen, such as imperfection, would dismantle her worldview. 

In some instances, Effie shows a “keen instinct about certain things” (THG, 360). The unkindled development is a prime characteristic of the mass-man. Ortega y Gasset notes that in times of conflict, such as when Katniss and Peeta return from the first games, the mass-man will show signs of critical change. However, he will regress to his dogma, as it is uncomfortable to explore ideologies that conflict with his prior beliefs. As Ortega y Gasset puts it: “For the basic texture of their soul is rot with hermetism and indocility.” (Ortega y Gasset, 1929):

This explains the glimpses of promise Effie shows. On the train, she says something she finds to be revolutionary, because, to her, it is. She immediately apologizes for how absurd it sounds, but it shows signs of critical thought previously unseen:

“Well, it serves them right. It’s their job to pay attention to you. And just because you come from District Twelve is no excuse to ignore you.” Then her eyes dart around as if she’s said something totally outrageous. “I’m sorry, but that’s what I think,” she says to no one in particular. (THG, 107). 

Effie’s signs of promise continue, from her less-enthused air at the reaping in Catching Fire, to her enthusiasm to be viewed as a team via the matching gold bracelet, yet she always regresses back to valuing the Capitol’s ideologies foremost. 

Effie’s lack of critical thought and her allegiance to the Capitol are most likely a consequence of her conditions growing up. She has only ever known the Capitol’s ideologies. She, likely, has not engaged with ideas of opposition, because “that kind of thinking… it’s forbidden” (CF, 240). As Oretga y Gasset puts it, “our existence is at every instant and primarily the consciousness of what is possible to us.” 

Perhaps to Effie, it is impossible to conceive of a way district people could be fully worthy of being Capitol. Yet still, her glimpses of humanity prove she is capable of a semblance of critical thought. Yet her continued regression and the indoctrination from the propaganda of the Capitol makes her a mass-man. 

Haymitch puts it best when discussing Effie’s sister: “Prosperpina wasn’t born evil; she just had a lot of unlearning to do.” (SOTR, 308).

I’ve been the shadow of your shadow

Richard Siken, Peter Wever, Ilya Kaminsky, Margaret Atwood, Ada Limón, Akseli Gallen-Kallela, Richard Siken, @maieste, Madeline Miller, Holly Warburton, Shauna Barbosa, Benjamin Alire Sáenz

Something i didnt quite understand in the book is why in the arena they had to kill the game makers is theres any bigger piece to it or is it just pure brutality?

Thanks for your ask!

The answer comes from a few different places, but it ultimately leads back to David Hume’s essay Of the First Principles of Government. (It's a short read, and I highly recommend it!)

In Of the First Principles of Government, Hume discusses implicit submission. He maintains governing bodies derive their power from public opinion, and it is exactly why all of the characters acted the way they did in that scene. I will break it down by character, but first I want to examine some context in SOTR.

In the text, the training scene right before Plutarch begins to question Haymitch foreshadows the later scene:

“There’s this moment, just as I get to my feet, where I look around, and I’m armed, and they’re armed. A half dozen of us hold sleek, deadly knives. And I see that there aren’t many Peacekeepers here today. Not really. We outnumber them four to one. And if we moved quickly, we could probably free up some of those tridents and spears and swords at the other stations and have ourselves a real nice arsenal. I meet Ringina’s eyes, and I’d swear she’s thinking the same thing.” [...] “The more I think it over, the more my dismay grows. Every year we let them herd us into their killing machine. Every year they pay no price for the slaughter. They just throw a big party and box up our bodies like presents for our families to open back home.”

When you read this as context to the scene in the arena, it is the same idea. The armed tributes outnumber the Gamemakers, and in the arena, everyone is on equal footing. The tributes have the numbers and the momentum of days in the arena behind them. 

There are two lines that are thematically significant in this section. The first line is from a Gamemaker: 

The Gamemaker with the drill raises her mask and straightens up to a full height. "That’s right. And all four of you are in absolute violation of the rules. You must immediately withdraw or there will be repercussions." "That’d be a lot more impressive if you weren’t shaking like a leaf," observes Maysilee, fingering her blowgun. 

The only defense the Capitol worker has is that of governing status. She attempts to assert the rules of governance on her side by claiming that they are all in violation of the rules, and therefore they must submit to the Capitol by leaving them alone. Even she knows, as her shaking voice exposes, there is no true way to enforce this rule. This is where David Hume’s essay comes in:

"When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion."

The force is always on the side of the governed. The governed, in this case, are the tributes of the arena. Yet, in the arena, where the purpose, according to Dr. Gaul, is to strip man down to his base instincts, a governing body cannot exist. The government exists to make sure man doesn’t regress to said instincts. Therefore, the government cannot exist in the arena in the same way it does in the rest of Panem. Ergo, the public opinion needed to enforce the rules is obsolete, to the point where both parties are on equal grounds. There is no illusion of power. 

The second line is: 

Silka seems stunned into inertia as well. “What’d you do? Did you kill Gamemmakers? They’ll never let us win now!”

Silka still believes there are winners in the games. In fact, she goes so far as to say “let us win”, thus she recognizes that the Capitol has true control over who wins, and prior to this, she expected to be able to win. Now, she believes winning is a right that the Capitol can revoke, which lends itself to the idea of Hume’s secondary principles of government:

"There are indeed other principles, which add force to these, and determine, limit, or alter their operation; such as self-interest, fear, and affection: But still we may assert, that these other principles can have no influence alone, but suppose the antecedent influence of those opinions above-mentioned."

Because Silka expects to be able to win, she is stunned into submission under her expectation of particular rewards:

"For, first, as to self-interest, by which I mean the expectation of particular rewards, distinct from the general protection which we receive from government, it is evident that the magistrate's authority must be antecedently established, at least be hoped for, in order to produce this expectation."

On the other side, fear stuns Haymitch. Hume details how fear is a form of submission:

"No man would have any reason to fear the fury of a tyrant, if he had no authority over any but from fear; since, as a single man, his bodily force can reach but a small way, and all the farther power he possesses must be founded either on our own opinion, or on the presumed opinion of others."

Haymitch recognizes how futile it would be to take down a few Gamemakers. It is the same reason he deduces when he reflects on his time in the training center. They may outnumber the peacekeepers in the training center, but what would happen? It would be a fruitless rebellion, and public opinion would squash anything that could potentially develop from it. Hume’s discussion of fear is not exactly fear of the tyrant himself, rather, fear of the power he possesses over others. Snow had public opinion on his side outside of the arena. Killing a few Gamemakers here would just bring upon the tyrant’s arsenal.

Maysilee and Maritte, however, both recognize that the perception of power via public opinion doesn’t exist in the arena. Both realize they cannot be punished more than they already are. I don’t usually quote the movies, but I think Reaper’s taunting of the Capitol when he rips the flag down in the 10th Games suits this philosophy extremely well: 

“Are you gonna punish me now? Are you going to punish me now?”

Both girls act because they are disillusioned with the power of the Capitol. They refuse to submit. They are free from the secondary aspects of self-interest, fear, and affection. Maysilee alludes to the idea that winning was never going to happen in the first place: 

Maysilee’s voice drips honey. “Still chasing that sad little dream, Silka?” 

While one can interpret this by assuming Maysilee means she was going to kill Silka, it can also be taken to counter Silka’s belief of a fair win, calling it a dream. Maysilee likely recognizes the Capitol can always give advantages to people they want to win, or send mutts on whoever they don’t like. We see this with Titus in his games. She doesn’t submit. 

I would like to cross reference this with the 10th Games in Ballad, where Coriolanus and Sejanus entered the arena. Dr. Gaul used Coryo’s experience in the arena about a lesson on human nature: 

“Without the threat of death, it wouldn’t have been much of a lesson,” said Dr. Gaul. “What happened in the arena? That’s humanity undressed. The tributes. And you, too. How quickly civilization disappears. All your fine manners, education, family background, everything you pride yourself on, stripped away in the blink of an eye, revealing everything you actually are. A boy with a club who beats another boy to death. That’s mankind in its natural state.”

Later in the scene, she talks about how the death of Coryo and Sejanus would not have brought anyone closer to winning. This is the same idea, just from the perspective of what would have been the Gamemakers, had they survived: 

“What did you think of them, now that their chains have been removed? Now that they’ve tried to kill you? Because it was of no benefit to them, your death. You’re not the competition.”  It was true. They’d been close enough to recognize him. But they’d hunted down him and Sejanus — Sejanus, who’d treated the tributes so well, fed them, defended them, given them last rites! — even though they could have used that opportunity to kill one another.  “I think I underestimated how much they hate us,” said Coriolanus.  “And when you realized that, what was your response?” she asked.  He thought back to Bobbin, to the escape, to the tributes’ bloodlust even after he’d cleared the bars. “I wanted them dead. I wanted every one of them dead.”

Interestingly, he makes a point about human nature that calls back to what Hume is saying:

“I think I wouldn’t have beaten anyone to death if you hadn’t stuck me in that arena!” he retorted.  “You can blame it on the circumstances, the environment, but you made the choices you made, no one else. It’s a lot to take in all at once, but it’s essential that you make an effort to answer that question. Who are human beings? Because who we are determines the type of governing we need. Later on, I hope you can reflect and be honest with yourself about what you learned tonight.” Dr. Gaul began to wrap his wound in gauze.

While initially it seems to validate Dr. Gaul’s argument that humans, by nature, are violent creatures, his refutation actually provides the basis for the very reason Maysilee and Maritte killed the Gamemakers. “[They] wouldn’t have beaten anyone to death if [the Capitol] hadn’t stuck [them] in that arena”. 

The arena does not strip people of their nature. It forces them to submit for the very secondary aspects Hume provides. The governing body forces them to kill, and by stepping into the arena, where the Capitol has stripped itself and all beings of their own power to display what it believes to be human nature in its primitive form, it has erased the protection of public opinion. 

The Capitol holds no real power in the arena itself. Sure, they bomb it afterwards to clear out the four tributes. Sure, they sic the mutts on Maysilee and Maritte, but they do not govern in the way they do over Panem. 

Inasmuch, the Gamemakers died because the arena disillusioned Maysilee and Maritte to their implicit submission. The moment the Gamemakers entered the arena, they were powerless as of their own creation.

I hope this makes sense. Thanks for the ask!

This YouTube comment has been on my mind since I finished SOTR so this is what I came up with:

Lucy Gray was the mockingbird, living on the outskirts of district 12 and was there at the wrong time when they were forced to stay there after the Dark Days. They were subjected to the Capitol’s politics despite not being a part of Panem, technically speaking. Lucy Gray became part of the Games and, likewise, the mockingbird became affiliated with the Capitol through the jabberjay’s release into the woods, but it still continued to sing its own song.

Haymitch was the jabberjay, a Capitol tool that did what it had to in order to survive. The Capitol thought they could control them, but they retaliated in the form of rebellion. Haymitch refused to be a piece in their game and tried to end it, and the jabberjay, in the eyes of the Capitol, created a freak of nature that showed the Capitol’s lack of complete control.

Katniss was the mockingjay, a slap in the face of the Capitol, something that was never meant to exist. Together, the song of the mockingbird that lived on for generations and the stubbornness of the jabberjay that refused to die, the mockingjay had the best of both worlds. It was a symbol of rebellion and unity.

God importance of food in HUNGER Games is such amazing aspect of the books and shows the mentality of both Katniss AND Snow.

Coriolanus learns that food is power. He sees Nero Prize cutting off maid's leg to eat it. He sees what tributes will do for food. He knows what Lucy Gray did for food. He knows what he would do for food.

In his eyes food is a luxury and ultimate means of manipulation. That's why there is a tessare system, that's why there are monthly packages for the winning districts, that's why Games are a yearly public spectacle in the Capitol. He keeps districts hungry for food and Capitol hungry for entertainment.

Katniss learns that food is love. It starts with Peeta throwing her the burned loaf of bread. Then goes further into her love for Prim, which is the main cause of her hunting. Then with Gale as her hunting partner. Then with Madge who is her best friend and loves strawberries. Then with Mr. Mellark who loves squirrels. Then with Rue and bread from District 11. Then with Peeta again, with the berries.

Katniss doesn't use the power of food over people. She shares it. That's how she builds connections, forms friendships, wins over people's hearts, starts and wins revolutions.

For Snow food it a tool with which you can sew starvation and chaos.

For Katniss food is a tool with which you can form bonds and find peace.

this is so important 🤍