( continues...) s and this is seen as an incitement to rebellion: “When they chant my name, it is more a cry for vengeance than a cheer” (54). She finally clues in that the mockingjay is more than just a bird; it’s a secret symbol of the rebellion against the government, and now she has, in many people’s eyes, become the mockingjay.
“A mockingjay is a creature the capitol never intended to exist. They hadn’t planned on the highly controlled jabberjay having the brains to adapt to the wild, to pass on its genetic code, to thrive in a new form. They hadn’t anticipated its will to live” (68).
Katniss has to decide: is she really the mockingjay? This year coincides with the Quarter Quell -- every twenty-five years, a new twist is added to the Games to make them more exciting. With the threat of uprising hanging over the government like the haze of smoke at a Snoop Dogg concert, past winners are being tapped again. Peeta and Katniss are back in the Games. But did they ever really leave?
Catching Fire might as well be subtitled “Katniss Grows Up.” She has to look outside of herself and make hard decisions: play along with the government in order to keep the few people she loves safe? Or take risks with her family and friends ‘ lives, step into the role of symbol of rebellion and knowingly put everything on the line in order to bring about real revolution.
Will she work for herself and her own interests, or will she step outside her own little circle and work with others towards a common goal, even though it could mean disaster or death for those closer to her? Katniss makes the hard choice, and chooses rebellion – the good of the many over the good of the few. But her decisions have real impact – Peeta is captured and District 12 is reported destroyed.
Was her choice worth the price?
There's something really weird about the formatting of your post, Erin. Did you use the quick-edit?
No, I used the HTML. I had a bear of a time; but I wanted to white-font it.
Is it readable?
The whole rest of the page is whited out....
I edited it and put in quick-edits. Your error was that every time you open a spoiler span tag, you need to close it. You only closed it once at the end of each post.
I finished HP1 yesterday, and, man, awarding those last-minute Gryffindor points is such a dick move! I mean, yes, they deserved them, but, geez, Dumbledore, way to crush the hopes and dreams of Slytherin House and rub it in their faces.
Are there any good Slytherins? This has always seemed to be a major flaw in the books. All the Slytherins are evil jackasses. Snape is a non-evil jackass, but still, there aren't any Slytherin characters that are decent human beings, are there? I think there was maybe one. The Potions teacher in Book 6, I think?
I also started HP2, and Mr. Weasley totally mentions Mundungus Fletcher!
In conclusion, the Dursleys are so entirely awful I CANNOT STAND IT.
Are there any good Slytherins? This has always seemed to be a major flaw in the books.
I concur.
Incidentally, P-Cow I saw your picture in a magazine the other day. 7x7 San Francisco, the current June issue with the Best of San Francisco. They have a piece on the cheater's spelling bee and show your team.
P-C,
Since the Slytherin house is so linked to Voldy, I think the kids who are Slytherin are those who see Voldy at least as a neutral person, if not are an active supporter, so yeah, I think they are evil.
the Dursleys are so entirely awful I CANNOT STAND IT.
Indeed. I am beginning to think it's kind of a flaw in the writing, or at least the way in which the Dursleys are awful is a flaw.
The bigotry in the Wizarding world is a bigotry we can recognize, in the way it blights the entire society. It's name-calling and "passing" and people being unemployable because they're half-breeds or muggle-born. Drago calling Hermione "mudblood" is seen as equivalent to the use of any one of many ethnic slurs we know now.
But then there's the Dursleys, and I see them as JKR flipping the situation over: muggle bigotry against the wizarding, with the added fillip of childish wish-fulfillment (I'm secretly a wizard and when I'm grown and powerful, won't all you bullies be surprised?). Except they're just so ridiculous in their antipathy, it's not really dangerous, not evocative of current cultural problems, it's just out of a fairy-tale. The annual Christmas gifts, for instance: why send anything at all?
Additionally, the bigotry against muggles by wizards is seen as a real threat to the long-term stability of the wizarding world, because they do draw members from muggle families, and they are grossly outnumbered by muggles: if they get too obvious, they will be overwhelmed by the response.
Whereas the bigotry of muggles against wizards, as shown by the Dursleys, is toxic to those individuals subject to it (Harry and Tom Riddle), but it seems to pose no risk to muggle-dom itself. It is of course a risk if heightened, as witnessed by the history of witch-burning, but nobody ever seems to consider that possibility.
Anyway, the increasing gravity of Harry's situation w/rt Voldemort and the looming war is undercut (and not, I think, balanced) by the ridiculous nature of the Dursley's behavior toward him. And maybe that's the point, but it strikes me as unbalanced and increasingly awkward.
