It wasn't Peeta who kept Katniss alive when she was dropped back in D12 at the end of Mockingjay, and it sure as hell wasn't Haymitch. It was Greasy Sae, an old woman, and her disabled granddaughter. Katniss's COMMUNITY saved her life, when it would have been so easy to let her rot in her big fancy house all alone. Her community showed up for her because she'd shown up for them. She kept hunting and trading at the Hob even after she had no need to. She sacrificed her body and mind even when nobody would have blamed her for giving up over and over again. Even as grief-stricken and war-torn as she was, she undoubtedly helped Hazelle Hawthorne get her job cleaning Haymitch's house. Showing up for your community saves the day!
Something I've noticed in a lot of everlark fanfictions is the mention of Peeta wearing boots. Do you think Peeta owns other pairs of shoes, and if so, what would he wear?
I mean to be fair, I think the only shoes we ever hear mention of in canon are boots, but that's cos he's in the games.
I think pre games it's likely he only had a pair of boots. You know they're sturdy, good for all weathers, appropriate for working in a bakery in. Like, I think if I only had money for one pair of shoes boots are probably the logical option of what to buy. He'd potentially have some dress shoes for parties, but that would be about it. I think he probably would always be kept in with a new pair of boots when he needed them, they wouldn't be able to be completely worn down to the bare bones. And post games boots are likely his every day shoe too. I think also because Peeta is constantly described as having a heavy gait, boots kind of adds to the image/idea because they are so stompy lol.
Now I have to think about if things like trainers exist, aesthetically trainers being common in the districts doesn't make sense in my mind, but reasonably they probably do exist, especially post war. So I think he'd maybe have some kind of trainer or lighter shoe for the summer, otherwise he would simply get too hot.
Depending on whether you think he grows any more after the war, he may still have some stuff left over that portia designed, like a nice pair of fancier leather shoes.
In general though, I wouldn't imagine him to be a person who has an excess of shoes.
thanks for the ask anon! (and once again thanks for the fashion related ask- I love it lol!)
do people really see gale's remark about not keeping katniss's family safe as some sort of admission of guilt? he is well aware of the one remaining role he plays in katniss's life at that point. it will not be remembered that he saved prim's life in the bunker, because he was unable to keep prim safe (something that probably would have been a huge blow, though still emotional rather than logical, even if he hadn't envisioned a double tap earlier). because he knows that if he asked katniss to keep his family safe and then rory or vick or posy blew up in front of him, his traumatized teenager/young adult brain wouldn't be able to separate them either. all they had left was taking care of the kids (essentially coparenting); she didn't kill gale when she was supposed to, so even unintentionally she's broken off their hunting partnership. these two don't apologize, because the katniss that gale knew would probably rather someone not waste her time apologizing for the unforgiveable.
Was watching Dove Makes’ video analyzing the Sunrise on the Reaping trailer and she mentioned that the flint striker looks like ouroboros, but before the snake is eating itself because the mockingjay is still fighting for its life! And now I can’t stop thinking about how the snake eating its own tail is like Snow slowly poisoning himself so he can get rid of his enemies. And the way his own hubris led to his downfall.
So the thing I think a lot of people misunderstand about Gale's involvement in Prim's death is that it's not "Gale killed Prim" or "it was Gale's bomb that killed Prim"
The actual crux of the deterioration of Katniss' relationship with him is that he follows a completely different philosophy and line of thinking that she does and there's no coming back from that.
Because factually speaking Gale doesn't kill Prim. Yes, there's a question as to whether it was the bomb he designed, which neither of them know or can prove, but Gale never sent Prim out into the field or gave the signal to begin dropping them. What IS his downfall is that, even if they could categorically prove that it wasn't his bomb, their friendship still would have fallen apart anyway because Gale took an active role in the deaths of innocent civilians and children by even designing the bomb. EVEN if Prim hadn't died, it'd have still all fallen apart because of Gale's involvement and beliefs on the matter. Prim's death isn't an island, it represents the death of lots of children.
And he does show a little remorse in that final conversation with Katniss, but would he show that same remorse if didn't know (and presumably care about) one of the children in the crowd that day?
And he ultimately believes it was the right thing to do because they won the war.
That's why their friendship falls apart, it's not as simple as Prim dying. And unfortunately for Gale, I don't think he really gets that at the end either, I think he believes if Prim were alive then everything would be fine.
if you were a fan of the hunger games in the 2010s, you likely were swarmed with “team peeta” or “team gale” the same way twilight fans were swarmed with “team edward” or “team jacob.” the hunger games is very often reduced to a love triangle. peeta—peace, gentleness, the dandelion? or gale—fire, rage? this perspective, however, misses the much deeper conflict at the heart of the story. the tension between peeta, gale, and katniss is romantic, but it’s also ideological and functions as an allegory for just war theory (1). suzanne collins asks us to consider when violence is justified, how it should be conducted, whether justice can survive the means to achieve it, and more. peeta represents pacifism and mercy, gale represents utilitarian violence and pragmatism, and katniss is between them, constantly weighing peace vs. resistance. collins doesn’t really endorse one character or viewpoint as morally superior; that’s not her goal. instead, she exposes the weaknesses inherent in both extremes: peeta’s peace risks preserving oppression, while gale’s justice-by-any-means leads to devastating loss. katniss’ struggle is both about who she loves and about which moral opinion she can live with—and, ultimately, how to create her own.
pacifism & the moral limits of peace
peeta functions as the moral conscience of the hunger games. he’s consistently advocating for mercy and the preservation of human dignity even in the midst of extreme violence. from the 74th games onward, he resists the capitol’s attempt to turn district survival into savagery. “‘...i keep wishing i could think of a way to…. to show the capitol they don’t own me. that i’m more than just a piece in their games’” (ch. 10) peeta tells katniss in the first book. this refusal aligns closely with the spirit of just war theory, particularly jus in bello (2), which emphasizes moral restraint even during conflict. peeta’s instinct is always to, when possible, minimize harm and avoid violence. in doing so, he represents an ethical ideal: that how you fight matters just as much as why you fight.
however, peeta’s pacifism isn’t totally unproblematic, and collins doesn’t present it as so. his commitment to peace often borders on moral absolutism, revealing a critical weakness in nonviolence when it’s detached from considerations of justice and power. this flaw becomes blatantly apparent after peeta is hijacked by the capitol, when he insists on live tv that katniss should surrender to end the war and save lives. while framed as a plea for peace, this position ignores the broader consequences of capitulation: surrender would preserve the capitol’s tyranny and abandon the districts to continued oppression. in terms of jus ad bellum (3), peeta’s stance fails the requirement of just cause, as peace achieved through submission does not meaningfully address the injustice that initiated the war in the first place. now, he was hijacked, but this statement works as a clear display of the most extreme viewpoint of his own.
peeta’s failure here illustrates a central tension within just war theory. peace is not inherently just, nor is the avoidance of violence always morally preferable. by prioritizing the immediate cessation of suffering without regard for long-term consequences, peeta’s pacifism risks enabling systemic violence to continue unchallenged. collins thus complicates the notion that moral goodness lies solely in restraint. overall, peeta’s intentions are unquestionably compassionate, but good intentions alone don’t guarantee a just outcome.
utilitarian violence & the corruption of justice
gale embodies a fundamentally different ethical framework from peeta. his is rooted in pragmatism, retribution, and utilitarian reasoning. for him, violence is not inherently wrong — at all. for him, violence is a necessary tool for dismantling entrenched injustice. growing up in the poorest region (the seam) of the poorest district under the constant threat of starvation and peacekeeper abuse, gale learns early that survival requires harsh choices. his father died in the same coal mine as burdock everdeen, and he had to provide for his family, even entering his name into the reaping bowl many, many times in exchange for tesserae for extra food rations. this background shapes his moral outlook: if violent action can end oppression more quickly and decisively, then it is not only justified but required. within the framework of just war theory, gale initially appears to satisfy several jus ad bellum conditions, particularly just cause, last resort, and likelihood of success. the capitol’s systemic exploitation and brutality provide clear moral grounds for rebellion, and decades of failed reform render violent resistance seemingly unavoidable.
however, gale’s moral reasoning becomes increasingly dangerous as the war progresses, which reveals the limitations of utilitarian ethics when applied without constraint. his focus shifts from resisting oppression to maximizing strategic effectiveness, even when that effectiveness depends on morally questionable means. this shift places him in conflict with jus in bello principles, especially the requirement to protect civilians (4) and ensure proportionality. gale’s willingness to accept civilian casualties as an unfortunate but acceptable cost of victory erodes the moral distinction between liberator and oppressor. violence ceases to be a necessity and becomes an instrument.
this ethical collapse culminates in the bombing strategy that kills prim. the attack deliberately exploits compassion — targeting medics and first responders — to increase casualties, a tactic that cannot be justified under the doctrine of double effect (5). civilian deaths aren’t incidental side effects but integral to the strategy’s success. in just war terms, the action fails multiple criteria: it targets illegitimate victims, causes disproportionate harm, and exceeds what is strictly necessary to achieve military objectives. through gale, collins illustrates how revolutionary violence, when unmoored from moral restraint, replicates the very logic of terror and domination it seeks to overthrow.
crucially, gale doesn’t view his actions as cruel but as just. this is what makes his character so unsettling; his moral clarity leaves little room for doubt or accountability. however, this is also, in my opinion, what makes his character so relatable. many of us think that the oppressed have the right to resist and beat their oppressors by any means necessary, and that it is absolutely justified. collins shows us the dangers of a black-or-white worldview, of extremism and the inability to consider nuance.
in contrast to katniss, who is haunted by the cost of each life lost, gale accepts loss as an inevitable statistic of war. collins thus critiques a version of justice that prioritizes outcomes over humanity, suggesting that victory achieved through dehumanization is morally hollow. gale’s largest flaw is in his certainty that justice can be engineered through force alone.
through gale, we get to see how seductive moral absolutism seems when it’s parading around as pragmatism. even wars begun with just cause can become unjust when jus in bello is abandoned, regardless of the reason. he represents the ethical danger of believing that the ends will always redeem the means, a belief that just war theory exists to challenge.
moral conflict & the burden of judgment
throughout the trilogy, katniss is torn between peeta’s insistence on mercy (he’s the dandelion) and gale’s belief in decisive force (he’s the fire). she recognizes the necessity of resistance — she understands that the capitol’s oppression provides a clear just cause for rebellion — but she remains deeply uneasy with how that resistance is carried out. katniss repeatedly questions authority, particularly the legitimacy of those who claim to act in the name of liberation. her distrust of coin reflects a central jus ad bellum concern: who has the right to wage war, and toward what end? when revolutionary leaders begin to mirror the capitol’s tactics, katniss senses that moral legitimacy is being lost, even if victory appears within reach.
katniss’ moral clarity emerges through her lived experience and trauma. unlike gale, after her games, she cannot distance herself from the human cost of violence. each death — rue, cinna, prim, cato — reinforces her awareness that damage is never theoretical. this sensitivity aligns her closely with jus in bello principles, particularly proportionality and necessity. katniss may accept that violence is sometimes unavoidable, but she refuses to accept it as routine or morally neutral. her revulsion toward strategies that deliberately endanger civilians demonstrates her insistence that means matter as much as ends.
the culmination of katniss’ ethical journey occurs in her decision to assassinate coin rather than snow. she’s basically rejecting cyclical violence justified by power. coin’s proposed continuation of the hunger games under her new regime represents the failure of utilitarian pragmatism and hollow moral rhetoric. by killing coin, katniss refuses to legitimize a victory achieved through terror and retribution. in just war terms, this moment signals her rejection of illegitimate authority and unjust intention, even when cloaked in revolutionary language. she’s rejecting both the capitol and revolutionary excess and refusing to perpetuate endless “necessary” violence.
what i love about katniss is how realistic she is. she doesn’t emerge from the war as some moral victor or hero but as a survivor that’s been forever scarred by the weight of her choices. it is this refusal of moral certainty that defines her ethical position. katniss isn’t offered as a model of perfect justice, because that’s an impossible standard to reach. she’s more of a reminder that moral responsibility does not end once a cause is deemed just, and that violence may be necessary but must never become separated from accountability. through her character, the hunger games ultimately argues that the most dangerous stance in war is certainty, and that true justice requires the courage to resist both oppression itself and the temptation to continue it.
stepping back & looking at the hunger games as a whole through just war theory
if you look at the hunger games with just war theory in mind, it’s a meditation on the ethics of war and so much more than a simple dystopian story about rebellion. collins depicts a just cause opposed by an unjust regime while also asking whether a war that begins justly can remain just in its execution and outcome. by dramatizing both jus ad bellum and jus in bello collin shows us the fragility of moral legitimacy and dangers of moral absolutism in revolutionary movements.
under jus ad bellum, the rebellion against the capitol initially appears morally justified. the districts suffer from exploitation, repression, state-sponsored violence, and a constant state of terror, establishing a clear just cause for resistance. diplomatic or nonviolent alternatives have been exhausted over decades, satisfying the criterion of last resort, and the growing unity among the districts suggests a reasonable likelihood of success. but collins complicates these conditions by questioning legitimate authority and right intention. as leadership shifts from snow to coin, the moral foundation of the war becomes unstable. the authority claiming to act on behalf of liberation increasingly reveals an intention not exactly to end oppression, but to inherit its power. in this way, we see how a war can meet formal criteria while still hollowing out morality.
in my opinion, the trilogy’s most forceful critique unfolds through jus in bello. as the rebellion intensifies, violations of jus in bello criteria become commonplace. civilian casualties are framed as acceptable/necessary losses, and tactics designed to maximize terror are defended as strategic and efficient. the bombing that kills prim represents the ultimate failure of just conduct in war: harm to civilians is a calculated feature of the plan. by placing this moment at one of the emotional climaxes of the story, collins emphasizes that moral collapse occurs in the accumulation of decisions that treat human life as expendable.
through peeta, gale, and katniss, collins personifies competing responses to these ethical failures. peeta’s pacifism highlights the importance of restraint and moral intention but falters when it refuses to confront injustice. gale’s utilitarianism highlights the urgency of resistance but collapses under the weight of its own excesses. katniss’ role is not to and doesn’t resolve these tensions. she lives within them and has to bear witness to the cost of every moral compromise. her final rejection of coin’s authority through violence signals the trilogy’s ultimate alignment with just war theory’s central insight: that justice in war is not guaranteed by good intentions or righteous causes alone, but must be continually reaffirmed through ethical judgment.
rather than offering a definitive answer to whether the rebellion was “worth it,” the hunger games settles on the conclusion that war may sometimes be necessary, but it is never morally safe. collins does not sanctify violence nor nonviolence.
beyond teams & toward moral vigilance
in the end, the hunger games doesn’t fall into the comfort of simple moral alignment. for katniss, it was never a question of just choosing peeta over gale, just as it was never a matter of choosing peace over violence in the abstract. collins shows us the inadequacy of moral extremes. peace can enable evil. violence an reproduce it. the love triangle is romantic and ethical, dramatizing the tensions at the heart of just war theory.
katniss’ ultimate rejection of coin by killing her crystallizes this warning. moral responsibility doesn’t end with victory. the trilogy tells us that the true measure of a just war lies not in who wins but in whether humanity survives the process intact. additionally, i think it’s important that she killed coin instead of, say, imprisoning her. katniss’ final act tells us that justice cannot survive when power is pursued without restraint. it doesn’t tell us that violence is always wrong, because it’s a means she and many other rebels use constantly throughout the series. but this is where it ends. katniss uses violence to end violence’s cycle, mixing both gale and peeta’s viewpoints.
the hunger games therefore asks us readers to question authority, scrutinize intention, and remain uneasy with any claim that any suffering is just “necessary.” in a world where violence is often justified in the language of justice and peace is offered at the price of submission, we’re reminded through this trilogy that some of the greatest dangers to us are extremism and absolutism.
1. an ethical and philosophical framework used to decide when it’s acceptable to go to war and what actions within that war are permissible.
2. one of the two concepts within just war theory asking how a nation can make sure the war they’re already fighting stays just. there are six criteria in jus ad bellum, and for a war to be justified, it must meet all of them.
just cause: there has to be a moral reason to go to war. however, there is a lot of gray here. for example, if a nation’s moral reason for war is self-defense, when can they act? when they think they’re about to be attacked? after they’re attacked?
right intention: the goal has to be to achieve the cause. selfish aims like territorial gain or money, for example, are the wrong intention. a nation must ask themselves if they have the right intention to go to war, and if this war is trying to achieve something good.
nationhood/legitimate authority: only a proper governing body can declare war, not private individuals or groups. there’s a lot of gray in here, too, because what constitutes a nation? how do we determine a legitimate vs. illegitimate authority?
reasonable hope or likelihood of success: there has to be a realistic chance of achieving the war’s aims. otherwise, it’s a futile waste of life, resources, time, etc. but what defines success?
proportionality (of ends): the overall good expected from the war has to outweigh the inevitable harm and destruction it’ll cause. imagine a future with the war. imagine a future without it. which one is better? how do you know? are you certain?
last resort: all reasonable peaceful alternatives (ex. negotiation, sanctions, diplomacy) have to have been tried and failed or proven ineffective. war has to be the aboslute last resort. this one’s tricky, too, because how do you know what peaceful alternatives are available and feasible? at what point can a nation say said alternatives are ineffective
3. one of the two concepts within just war theory covering what a nation should consider before going into war. there are three criteria in jus in bello, and for a war to be justified, it must meet all of them.
distinction/discrimination: a nation must differentiate between legitimate targets (enemy combatants, equipment) and civilians/civilian objects (homes, hospitals). consider the doctrine of double-effect: “sometimes it is permissible to cause a harm as an unintended and merely foreseen side effect… of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end” (stanford encyclopedia of philosophy).
proportionality (of damage): the collateral damage from war — to people, infrastructure, environment — must be proportionate to the military advantage expected from the attack. but how can you be certain of that you will have an advantage?
necessary action: force can only be used to achieve a legitimate military objective, and only the minimum force necessary is allowed. so, is each and every action necessary?
4. technically, as gale’s direct intention isn’t to harm civilians to invoke terror, he meets the standard of “legitimate targets,” even if he tells katniss in the mockingjay pt.2 movie, “even if those civilians are just mopping floors, they’re helping the enemy. and if they have to die, i can live with that. no one who supports the capitol is innocent.”
5. states serious harm can be caused only if it’s a side effect of your attempt to do good.
Here's some of the best articles I've read as I've been researching my thesis (MLA format):
Demerjian, Louisa MacKay. “The Age of Dystopia.” Camebridgescholars.Com, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016, www.cambridgescholars.com/resources/pdfs/978-1-4438-8694-9-sample.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug. 2025.
In this critical analysis, professor at Quincy College and author Louisa MacKay Demerjian compares and contrasts popular dystopian fiction with older original inspirations like the myth of Artemis. While drawing comparisons based on historical literature and likening sources such as The Hunger Games and Divergent, this analysis also allows readers to understand the roots of young female protagonists. The comparisons drawn here also point to thematic similarities common to the coming-of-age genre.
Lutchman, Lydia. “Dystopia as Entertainment: When Fiction Mirrors Others’ Reality.” The Pace Press, 16 Apr. 2025, thepacepress.org/12960/opinion/dystopia-as-entertainment-when-fiction-mirrors-others-reality/. Accessed 28 Aug. 2025.
In this article, treasurer and writer for The Pace Press, Lydia Lutchman, discusses the need for and pitfalls of dystopian fiction grounded in real-world issues. Lutchman argues that such stories can put readers in the shoes of people like refugees in Gaza and can foster empathy, understanding, awareness, and discussion. The unfortunate side effect of popular dystopian fiction is that it can lead to a romanticization and sometimes an ignorant or apathetic response to real-world issues. She ponders about where to draw the line in dystopian fiction when discussing topics such as poverty.
Wilson, Natalie. “Pop Goes Feminism: What Happened to the Hunger in the Hunger Games?” The Society Pages, 23 Mar. 2012, thesocietypages.org/girlwpen/2012/03/23/pop-goes-feminism-what-happened-to-the-hunger-in-the-hunger-games/. Accessed 03 Oct. 2025.
In this article, Natalie Wilson, a doctor of literature and women’s studies and author of critical essays and books, breaks down the cheapening of The Hunger Games in adaptation from book to film. She specifically references the much more prevalent and centric love triangle and the lack of hunger-driven narratives and food-based political commentary. She argues that this erasure from the movies slips away quietly but it leaves a mark in the understanding of the impoverished districts and how they relate to real world issues.
Was researching the origin for some of the names of the Hunger Games characters, and came across this for Gale:
The connection to “mad” and “furious” I found made sense, considering his deep seated anger at the Capitol (even more so than Katniss herself), but the connection to singing is what I found the most interesting, since we all know that music is majorly important to Katniss (mainly in connection to her father and childhood). And what I already knew is that his surname, Hawthorne is a tree that is associated with springtime and hope (ironic, especially considering these are associated with Peeta in the trilogy) but also heavily with the month of May, Katniss’s birth month.
Even though Gale is in no way right for Katniss (not even as a friend, in my opinion) I find it so interesting how there seems to have been so much effort put into making Gale’s overall symbolism make sense for a potential love-interest of our girl swamp potato. I also just find it a bit strange, too, since Gale’s feelings for Katniss seem to stem from her no-nonsense personality rather than anything like her singing, which is why Peeta fell for her.
I’m kind of failing to make a connection to all this symbolism and Gale as a character (except for his name meaning wind, which makes sense) so if anyone has read this and has any thoughts on it, please please please comment or reblog them. I’d really love to hear them.
