Watching The Movie Has Really Brought To My Attention That What Katniss Did With Rue Was Not New.

watching the movie has really brought to my attention that what katniss did with rue was not new.

like watching reaper make a mass grave of the children, covering them with the symbol of a government whose job it was to protect them. or lamina giving a mercy blow to marcus, putting him out of his misery.

and then thinking about haymitch and maysilee. the way he ran when he heard her screaming. and stayed with her until she died.

memorializing the other children in the games might have been less common, but it was not new. because, as it turns out, children do not like to see their friends, their peers die in front of them.

and so, it makes me feel a little more dubious when people say that katniss's memorialization of rue in the first book was *the* catalyst for the revolution. and that is not to say that it was not part of the reason, but it just wasn't the most revolutionary thing that happened.

because while the movie directly connects that incident with the first protest in district eleven, that is not what we get in the book. in the book, all we get is a little gift of gratitude from district eleven to the girl who protected a child.

so, what was so revolutionary?

i think it all revolves around katniss's actions that put aside her will to survive to protect the people she loves. because when push comes to shove, she will not become the monster that is set solely on self-preservation. one that is only focused on her survival.

and for some reason, in my head, katniss's actions with peeta are a little more important than her volunteering for prim.

because while she did volunteer to enter an arena that almost guaranteed her death, it was for her sister. a perfectly healthy girl with a future ahead of her.

but when peeta was dying, it was a little different. she didn't need to do anything and she would be guaranteed safety. he would just die and she would be crowned victor.

even if she could save him, who knows if he would even survive when the capitol picked him up. (i mean... he almost didn't). so, it literally does not make any practical sense why she would sacrifice her life for a dying boy.

but she couldn't let him die. so if that meant that if she had to gamble her life to possibly get him to safety, she would do it. because she had no choice. because she loved him, she gambled her life to call the capitol's bluff.

and that was revolutionary.