There’s constantly a tab open in my brain that’s thinking about “but Peeta wanted them so badly.” But today it hit me, what if we read it differently?
Often it gets lumped into a cause and effect with the sentence before it. It took me five, ten, fifteen years to agree, but Peeta wanted them so badly. We read it as if she’s saying that Peeta wanting them was the reason she agreed.
Except that’s not how it’s written. It’s It took me five, ten, fifteen years to agree. Full stop. New thought. But Peeta wanted them so badly.
She’s presenting two separate perspectives on having children. Two potentially contrasting perspectives. It’s not I needed convincing, but Peeta wore me down. It’s I was hesitant, Peeta was certain. She’s showing the difference in the way they each see the world. Where she saw everything that could go wrong, Peeta saw the good. And where else do we see this?
“What I need is the dandelion in the spring. The bright yellow that means rebirth instead of destruction. The promise that life can go on, no matter how bad our losses. That it can be good again. And only Peeta can give me that.”
It’s just a page before the epilogue for us as the readers but for her it’s almost 20 years later, yet the sentiment still remains. So what if “but Peeta wanted them so badly” isn’t just “he convinced me”? At least not in the negative way it’s sometimes taken.
It’s an “I told you so”. She’s checking in decades later to let us know that her thesis was correct. That Peeta is still her bright spot on dark days. Where she felt terror and doubt, Peeta wanted. That he fulfilled his promise that life can go on, quite literally by creating new life with her.
