No, The 'Hunger Games' Epilogue Doesn't 'Ruin' Katniss's Character

WARNING! SPOILERS for the Hunger Games trilogy, both books and films.

With the release of a second prequel novel, Sunrise on the Reaping, interest in the Hunger Games franchise has been revived. Some fans are rereading the original trilogy or rewatching the films, while others are reading or watching for the first time. This renewed interest has also resulted in a renewal of a problem that has plagued the series since the release of the third book, Mockingjay,was released in 2010:

A great many fans are misunderstanding the true meaning behind the series' epilogue.

Here, we'll try to correct some of those misunderstandings.

The Epilogue

Mockingjay ends with Katniss banished back to District 12 after her murder/execution of President Coin, and embracing a recovering Peeta as the one she truly loves when he eventually arrives to join her. While both are haunted by there time in the Games and the following war, they find comfort in each other, and various projects, including the creation of a book memorialising all the lives lost.

In the epilogue, set twenty years later, Katniss and Peeta live safe, relatively happy lives in the rebuilt District 12. They are parents to two young children, a daughter and a son. Katniss is pleased her children are growing up without the shadow of the Games, but slightly fears the day she will have to tell them about the role she and Peeta played in the Games and the rebellion.

A Happy Ending. So what's the problem?

The Children are the Problem

According to some fans, the fact that Katniss and Peeta had children is a problem, and ruins Katniss as a character. Why? Well, earlier in the books, Katniss does not want children. For this reason, a certain section of the fandom perceive the epilogue as ruining Katniss's character arc, as it goes against the freedom from control she had been fighting for. Instead, they claim, she gives up control to Peeta, having children only because he wants them.

A lot of this is due to a shift in the perception of Motherhood. That it is perfectly okay for a woman to not want children. She is not broken if she doesn't change her mind, and babies are not the only 'Happily Ever After' for female characters. However, while these things are true, they are not exactly applicable to Katniss's situation.

The above take ignores the reason why Katniss did not want children

Katniss is a strong female character, and very tomboyish at times. However, she is also quite maternal, as evidenced by her relationship with her younger sister, Prim, and her ill-fated ally Rue during the 74th Hunger Games. Neither of these character attributes cancel out the other.

Katniss has good reason for not wanting children in the earlier Hunger Games books, and it has nothing to do with actually not wanting children, or disliking the idea of being a Mother. In Catching Fire, Katniss points out that the children of past Victors are reaped for the Games more often than is statistically likely. She believes that the perceived act of rebellion in her own victory has almost certainly bought any child of hers a ticket to the Games.

The main reason she does not want children is to spare them the likely horror of the Hunger Games. She even admits that things would probably be different if the Games were not a factor. By the epilogue, they are not.

Katniss changing her mind about having children isn't a sign of weakness, or submission to Peeta. Katniss decides to have children because the world has changed, and they can now grow up without the threat of the Games. She has children because it is now safe to do so, and the only reason she makes that decision later than Peeta is that it takes her a little longer to truly feel that safety.

Katniss and Peeta's children are symbolic of their world having changed for the better. Hopefully, fans who have struggled with the Hunger Games epilogue can learn to view it as intended.