Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

Harry Potter. Book 7 very weird choices in it


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

which questions haven't been answered Fish?

 

Well, for me, just ONE would be: Why did the arthur swear on her life to all her fans that under no circumstances would she make Harry a Horcrux - then went out and did just that??

 

 

Fish

Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is "If Harry was a horcrux, and horcruxes could be destroyed by the basilik fang, then why didn't the horcrux inside Harry get destroyed in Book 1 when the basilik bit him?"

 

I have read that it didn't because Harry was saved by Fawkes before he was "beyond repair" but in the Book 7 where Voldemort did the AK spell, Harry came back to life for some unexplained reason. WOUldn't that have meant that Harry was't "beyond repair" then too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

thats a good question FIsh, and one all of us are wondering. another point is that the "protection" shouldn't have held like it did because Potter didn't die, but people argue this poitn by saying it was the intention not the death that binds that particular protection

 

 

even on my numerous re-reads of the series, i still maintain she had to original intention of killing him at the end, or rather keeping him dead.

 

 

for me, i think it boils down to two things. before tDH's came out, JKR joked about pulling a "Sir Conan Doyle" with Potter by throwing him off the proverbial cliff. in otherwords, she was lightly joking abotu kiling off the character. She recieved death threats from this comment. that and i think there was probably pressure from Warner Bros to keep Potter alive as well.

 

 

of course, Warner Bros had no qualms abotu changing alot of things in the movie :dry: so even if she had killed off Potter, hey probably would have changed it in the movie

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@red. I thought it was obvious from the beginning that harry had a piece of voldys soul in him. So of course hes a hourcrux.

 

I agree about the hallows they seemed dumb. And the ring was a stupid one at that.

 

Second the last battle with voldemort was pathetic. He died from expelliarmus. He should be able to survive that.

 

third. Harry was a pathetic wizard overall. How did they expect him to fight anyone if he's stuck using stunning spells and expell is his sig move. He should have learned spells like DD.

 

Fourth: this is a question to you all what would happen if Tom riddle had became whole from the diary. Would he just merge with that baby form? also exactly what was that thing that was left after the AK curse backfired?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you may have missed the point of some of the deaths. The Sirius death, and the Lupin deaths were because of the connection that they had to Harry and his father. The 4 best friends growing up (Remus, Sirius, James, and Peter) all died because of their connection to each other, and because of their connection to Harry as father figures (minus Peter of course, and including Dumbledore). Tonks died for semetry to death's of Harry's parents: Sirius becomes God Father to Harry, both Harry's parent's are murdered. Harry becomes God Father to Teddy, and thus Teddy's parent's are both killed. I don't recall if it is mentioned specifically in the book, but before Harry walks to his death in the woods he is looking for motivation to do what he does, and one of the things that motivates him is trying to make the world better and to give meaning to the deaths of Fred, Tonks, and Lupin, and make it a better world for Teddy.

 

All of these deaths come back to his motivation for those final scenes. Revenge for the deaths of his parents, and father figures. Revenge for the death of friends. Revenge for the families of those who were hurt. It does seem like that at this point in the series that he would have plenty of fuel for the fire by now, but I suppose J.K. felt that he needed more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ exactly!!

 

Harry needed to go it alone, so all of his protectors needed to be killed of or nuetured. Fans expected Lupin to die, but not Tonks. nor did we expect Fred to die, though all of us thought the Weasleys would be taking the most deaths in the series due to their friendship with Harry. infact, Author is the character who got the reprieve, which then led to Tonks and Fred being killed off. as JKR put it, there are causlties in war, and thus she wanted to write the book as so.

 

for Teddy, i feel it was more of a circle thing than giving Harry motivation. it began anew the storyline which started the series and brought it full circle; the abandoned child whose parents were killed because of Voldemort.

 

for the Deathly Hallows, i still feel this idea was added in at the last minute, as there is a lack of foreshadowing in the previous books to prove otherwise. JKR was masterful at using foreshadowing, somethign you don't really realize until you finish the series.

 

 

@red. I thought it was obvious from the beginning that harry had a piece of voldys soul in him. So of course hes a hourcrux.

 

i can see why you would say it was obvious from teh start, with the whole "Voldemort Early Detection System (VEDS)" harry's scar seemed to have. but this was really left open ended from the magic that was used. i mean, that could easily be explained without making Harry a Horocruxe.

 

Lily's protection served to not only prevent Voldy from touchign the boy, but would also warn Harry of Voldemort being around; hence the painful reaction his scar had. a Horocruxe doesn't explain this, as no Horocruxe reacted to Voldemort pressence. infact. Lily's protection shoudl have prevented part of Voldemorts soul from merging with Harry's if you think about it.

 

and for Harry getting into Voldy's thoughts, well Voldemort used Harry's blood in his resurection, thereby allowing the connection between them to form and allowing Harry to bypass Voldy's Occlumens ability.

 

 

the only bit i can't explain right now is Harry being a Parsletounge.

 

 

even still, us fans have a right to be miffed about this. i don't care if she was tryign to make it a red herring by denying it all these years; the fact is, she lied point blank about it. this would be like if Taim did turn out to be Demandred, after all of RJ's strict denial about that. you just don't lie to your fans like that.

 

 

which makes me poitn out somethign i just thought of. If the reason Harry had a VEDS in his scar was because of the bit of Voldys soul, then ofcourse his scar wouldn't be a VEDS anymore since that bit of Voldy's soul was killed. which negates the last sentence and theoretically leaves the opportunity for Voldy to not be dead. hmmmm perfhaps JKR has a sequel planned :baalzamon:

 

 

I agree about the hallows they seemed dumb. And the ring was a stupid one at that.

 

agreed, though no matter how many times i read the part where Harry has the ghosts follow him i still cry liek a baby, and i sobbed during that part in the movie. it was a good scene and a very touching inclusion.

 

i think the only reason she included the Hallows was to cement another reason why Harry didn't die; even as a vassel for a Horcruxe, you have to kill the thing holding the horocruxe inorder for the bit of soul to die; so the killing curse should have still killed Harry in the Forest.

 

 

Second the last battle with voldemort was pathetic. He died from expelliarmus. He should be able to survive that.

 

no, he didn't die from expelliarmus, though i do agree the last battle was eak and Voldy's death could have been better if he had recieved the Dementor's Kiss (whcih i think was the original plan before JKR decided to give Harry a reprive).

 

Voldy's death comes more from the properties surrounding wand alliegence than any spell. The elder wand was Harry's, a wand will not be used to harm it's own master and will bend to the will of it's true master. This made the wand's power weaker than harry's own, which allowed Harry's spell to over power Voldy's and rebounded the AK curse. Voldy was killed by the rebounded AK curse, not by the Expelliarmus.

 

again this doesn't mesh up with why the killing curse worked in the forest, more proof that the idea of the hallows was added in at the last minute and not fleshed out well enough in comparision to the other twists and plot point provided by JKR in the series. not to mention that when Voldy did AK harry in the forest, technically the Elder Wands alliegence shoudl have transferred to Voldy imo.

 

 

third. Harry was a pathetic wizard overall. How did they expect him to fight anyone if he's stuck using stunning spells and expell is his sig move. He should have learned spells like DD.

 

agreed, and agreed more. he was meant as a sacrafical lamb, he was meant to sacrifice himself to afford others the same protection Lily gave him and lead to Voldy's true defeat. another point i disagree with is that because Harry didn't die, i mean really die, his "protection" shouldn't have held. Voldy's curses still woudl have been weak becuase Harry still held the wands alleigence, but the Lily ike protection shoudl not have held.

 

as for Harry learning spells like DD, first he never had time, the only one who coudl teach him was dead by then, as learning more about Voldemort and Horocruxes was more important than defensive and offensive spell casting. 2nd, while Harry was supposedly a powerful wizard (most of that power arguably came from the bit of Voldy's soul honestly) he's still only 17. i'm sure most of the spells DD knew that made Voldy sweat woudl take year to learn, not weeks or months.

 

 

Fourth: this is a question to you all what would happen if Tom riddle had became whole from the diary. Would he just merge with that baby form? also exactly what was that thing that was left after the AK curse backfired?

 

if Tom had become whole fromt eh diary and Ginny's soul, he woudl have emerged just as you saw him. a 17 year old Voldemort. so in essence, there would have then been two voldemorts in the story, with the younger being a living Horocruxe (liek Nagini or Harry).

 

to answer your question of what would happen, lets say Nagini had lived, but Voldemort had been killed. In this case, Voldemrot woudl have been reduced to the same "less than human" creature he was before GoF and woudl have attached parasite like to Nagini. apply this to the Diary Riddle becomming whole, and i believe you have your answer. but unlike quirrel, both Nagini and the Diary have Voldemorts soul; so imo, there probably woudl have been a battle for dominance in the Diary Riddle over who gained control over the body (kinda liek Multiple Personality Disorder). with Nagini, she probably woudl have submitted to him until he could secure a new body.

 

 

as for the baby thing left in Kings Cross Station in pergatory, it's exactly what DD said. the bit of soul that attahed itself to Harry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

which questions haven't been answered Fish?

 

Well, for me, just ONE would be: Why did the arthur swear on her life to all her fans that under no circumstances would she make Harry a Horcrux - then went out and did just that??

 

 

Fish

to throw people off the trail. Do you think any author out there would deliberatly reveal their big plot twist at the end of their series?

My question is "If Harry was a horcrux' date=' and horcruxes could be destroyed by the basilik fang, then why didn't the horcrux inside Harry get destroyed in Book 1 when the basilik bit him?"

 

I have read that it didn't because Harry was saved by Fawkes before he was "beyond repair" but in the Book 7 where Voldemort did the AK spell, Harry came back to life for some unexplained reason. WOUldn't that have meant that Harry was't "beyond repair" then too?[/quote']Voldemorts sould didn't die because its container (Harry) didn't die, the other containers were destroyed, so the souls were destroyed. As for the second question, that is unclear, obviously, but I think the easiest explanation would be that Harry and Voldemort had tied themselves together so tightly magically that AK couldn't kill Harry, but it did dislodge Voldemort's sould from Harry, thus breaking part of their magical bond, which then later allowed Voldemort's AK curse to backfire on him and kill him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

I got nothing to complain about loved every moment and I didn't feel like I should have observed Remus & Tonks die, the way she did it worked just fine for me

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was very disappointed with book 7 - and it's the principle reason I haven't bothered re-reading the series (the rest of which, with a few weaknesses - hey no-one's perfect) was excellent. But for most of book 7 - I was simply bored and felt like I was reading an average, mundane D&D storyline of 'Find the magic McGuffin'. Much of it was either predictable or pointless flapping about to use up the year before the big battle at the end.

 

Hedwig was a huge tragedy, because had she not been caged up, she would probably have survived. I thought that a profound point, and it also sent a message to the reader: "Seriously - nobody is safe." That was one death that I felt was handled very well. (I was also glad to see the back of Dobby because he irritated me). But other deaths were dealt with in a very dismissive and sloppy manner. I don't demand a blow-by-blow, but how these characters met their end would have been far better.

 

There were some excellent ideas in Book 7: Snape's storyline, Malfoy getting in too deep, and others, and none of them seemed to get the attention they deserved. While I don't feel the 150-page edit was necessarily to blame, I do feel that perhaps JK couldn't be bothered writing the Harry Potter series anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

1. In book 6 She kills off Sirius Black. Ok, Harry's Godfather and a really decent bloke. That felt unnecessary - there must be other ways to incapacitate a literary character besides killing it! Bereave it from magical abilities, imprison it, put it into a coma...

 

 

 

Ahem, book 5. Order of the Phoenix, chapter 35 page 805-806, American version. :p

 

The reason why she got rid of Black (and Dumbledore, who, coincendentally WAS actually killed off in the 6th book (chapter 27 pg. 596 american version,) for that matter) is because she didn't wan't Harry to feel like he had any other "father" or "parental figures" to turn to.

Edited by DeviantDemon
Link to post
Share on other sites

The first three books were entertaining, but the subsequent books got to have the usual "whitewashing", thats goes on now with anything that become famous. It is clearly evident in the later books, the propaganda, I am sure some shrewd person who is now aware of the worlds biggest crisis will understand what I am talking about.

 

The worst boot-licking propaganda in the history of literature is "Twilight" series. Next comes the later books from harry poter.

 

If you want fact, read this books:

http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/0312285485

 

oh, by the way, I don't live in USA.So there is nothing to be gained by me. I just hate sexual infedility, and promiscuity with a passion. Curdles me inside. God knows why. I believe, western culture is the only culture that can prevent such mindless sex all around. Really quite pathetic.

 

It is Grace and intelligent that separate us from animal, it is grace and creativity that makes life interesting.

 

Sex is completely natural. Human beings are unique in the animal kingdom in feeling this sort of shame when it comes to sexual desires/promiscutiy. I feel it is mainly due to religions influence upon our culture, but that is for another discussion board.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I would have to disagree with that. There are animals that mate for life and with STDs and the fact that children that grow up with single parents don't do as well as those that do, promiscuity would still be looked down upon even without religion's influence. (Hopefully I don't get into trouble for extending that discussion)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

So I had seven quotes here but decided I didn't quite feel like sifting through them all.

 

On the books being for kids, I seem to recall JK herself speaking of people growing up with the book. So the book started for kids then proceeded over to teens. To say that she slacked on the final battle for the kids doesn't quite work for me.

 

Book 5, Sirius Black dying? I was so mad I almost threw the book across the room. He deserved better than that. And to see it in the movie only made me that much more annoyed.

 

That '10 Years Later' ending? My gosh, that was downright painful. I'm sure there are fanfics written that are better than that. And the names, what was she thinking naming the kids that? Speaking of fanfiction, http://www.jamespotterseries.com/ , anyone ever hear of the James Potter series?

 

I believe the horcruxes to be a complete and utter cop-out. I'll admit I have yet to read all seven in a row but one thing that annoyed me is that this invisiblity cloak that was once his fathers turned out to be a horcrux. This made no sense to me. Throughout all seven books I don't recall mention of a horcrux. A friend told me it was brought up in book 6 but I stopped at 5 and read pieces of 7. If this cloak is something that serious how did Harry get it so easily? Why weren't the Death Eaters after it all along? Why were horcruxes not even mentioned until book 6? That's why I think it's a cop-out.

 

I've read many people say that book 7 is actually much longer than it needs to be, so to read people saying it isn't really surprises me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The cloak is not a horcrux. It is one of the three deathly hallows. And yes the horcruxes were first mentioned specifically in #6 but they play a role as early as #2(the diary).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the horcruxes to be a complete and utter cop-out. I'll admit I have yet to read all seven in a row but one thing that annoyed me is that this invisiblity cloak that was once his fathers turned out to be a horcrux. This made no sense to me. Throughout all seven books I don't recall mention of a horcrux. A friend told me it was brought up in book 6 but I stopped at 5 and read pieces of 7. If this cloak is something that serious how did Harry get it so easily? Why weren't the Death Eaters after it all along? Why were horcruxes not even mentioned until book 6? That's why I think it's a cop-out.

 

i think your mixing up Horocruxes and the Deathly Hallows Vash.

 

the Deathly Hallows were semi hinted at in book 6, with DD's infatuation with the ring, and some people might say as early as book (2 i think) where Ron mentions off handedly about Hermonies lack of knowledge of the wizarding child hood stories.

 

 

the horocruxes however, are hinted at as early as the first book. DD mentions that the Stone would have only been a means for Voldy to get his body back and sustain him and that he believed Voldy had another source that he relied on for immortality. that Voldy wouldn't want to rely on a stone that could either be destroyed, stolen or eventually run out.

 

needless to say, the eveidence of Horocruxes is heavy throughout the series from beginning to end.

 

 

edit - the only horocruxe that is also a Deathly Hallow is the "Ring" which DD destroyed in the summer between OoTP and HBP.

 

as to the underlined, since you read up to book 5, then you should know the answer to this, as to why the DE's weren't after protecting Voldy's Horocruxes. this answer is given mainly in HBP, upon re-examining Malfoys treatement of the Diary and gone over in detail, but you can tell from the callous and off handed way Lucius just hands over soemthign so precious as the diary to Harry and how he is not mortified that it was destroyed nor comprehended the true meaning of his actions (whcih resulted in very harsh punishment from Voldy once it was discovered)

 

also, you shoudl be able to put together that the DE's were not told of the Horcruxes from Voldy's own speech in the graveyard

Edited by Red2111
Link to post
Share on other sites

Red, Was the ring(the stone) a deathly Hallow. There were three. The cloak, the wand and the stone. We see the cloak early in book one. The wand belongs to DD from the beginning, though we don't know that till book 7 and the stone does not appear until book seven even though there is set up for it's discovery in book one(the snitch nearly swallowed by Harry). Unless the stone was on the ring. I can't remember now. I guess that's possible in which case you are correct it appears in a flashback in book 6 where DD discovers it in the riddle house (?). Funy how details from the books get cloudy after watching the movies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Harry Potter series are wonderful mid-grade and young adult books. While there's some world-building inconsistencies across the whole series, each individual book handles itself really well and is expertly crafted with good prose. Re-reading the series as an adult I thought I'd find myself less impressed. The opposite was true. Re-reading the series I could appreciate all the details and foreshadowing that Rowling included. Philosopher's Stone was a good book, but Rowling hit her stride in Chamber of Secrets (I was almost beside myself with giddiness at how great of a book that was on my "adult re-read") The others mostly followed suit. Don't compare it with ASoIaF, Malazan, or WoT. They're different genres and for different audiences. They are still wonderful books though.

 

Except for Deathly Hallow. I don't mind the deaths, I just think Rowling really failed in her execution on that book. If there was one major failure it was that she limited herself strictly to Harry's POV. That worked fine for the first six books, but there was just too much happening for that to work in DH. This is one of the reasons why the character deaths were not given the justice they deserved. But I also feel like Rowling could have improved the pacing and provided a more interesting story with more POVs.

 

Red is right that the horcruxes were built in from the beginning. I don't know if Rowling had every detail planned, but that plot line was there from the start. From the somewhat cryptic comments that Dumbledore leaves Harry with at the end of Philosopher's Stone and especially with the diary in Chamber of Secrets to speaking parseltongue and to the similarity in the wands between Harry and Voldy, etc... The Deathly Hallows just felt contrived, though.

Edited by Agitel
Link to post
Share on other sites

Red, Was the ring(the stone) a deathly Hallow.

 

yes

 

 

There were three. The cloak, the wand and the stone.

 

correct, but the fact that their "Deathly Hallows" or even the fable about this is not revealed until Book 7. there is absolutely no foreshadowing on any of these objects being anything more than ordinary objects (excluding the Ring being a Horocruxe). no referance to the cloak being more than an average invisibility cloak, nor to the wand DD has as being special.

 

 

We see the cloak early in book one.

 

and its passed off as just a cloak which was meant to be an herloom passed onto Harry that was in DD's safe keeping. not mention of it being special in any way except that it had't faded for being so old and was in good condition. but the cloak had been in DD's possession for 13 years, whcih can explain why it was in such good condition; espeically since DD rarely used it due to his dissalusement charm.

 

infact, if memory serves, its not questioned as to why DD had the cloak until book 7 as well.

 

 

The wand belongs to DD from the beginning, though we don't know that till book 7

 

DD's wand has no bearing in the story line until Book 7, whent he Deathly Hallows are introduced. until then, its just a wand that is not important. DD's magical pressance is attributed to himself and his own knowledge throughout the entire series.

 

 

and the stone does not appear until book seven

 

wrong. the stone appears at the beginning of Book 6 on DD's blackened hand. Voldy unwittingly made it into a Horocruxe because his mothers side of the blood line changed the stone into a ring to showcase the pureness of their lineage and trace their roots. in Book 6, DD and Harry visit a borrowed memory which expounds on the Marvolo and the rings origin.

 

 

 

even though there is set up for it's discovery in book one(the snitch nearly swallowed by Harry).

 

i dont recall the book mentioning DD keeping the 1st snitch harry caught. upon re-listening to the end chapter of book 1, in the hospital wing, the only mention of the Snitch is that harry saw it hovering in front of him out of reach cause his arms were heavy from how weak he was after right fight with Voldy/Quirrel.

 

 

Unless the stone was on the ring. I can't remember now. I guess that's possible in which case you are correct it appears in a flashback in book 6 where DD discovers it in the riddle house (?). Funy how details from the books get cloudy after watching the movies.

 

lol, yeah, the movies get so much wrong. its not really a flashback, but a memory DD was able to get from the ministry man that visited Marvolo about the brothers treatment of muggles, where Marvolo waves teh ring right in the Ministry Mans face. its the first memory DD and Harry visit in tHBP. this is where DD discovered the location of the ring, adn his reasoning for goign after it was told to us at the time that DD concluded Voldy's fascination for Hogwarts and the schools founders lead him to believe that Voldy would search out objects of power to make horocruxes out of that are related to the founders. (hence the Diadem, the Sword, the Cup, the Ring, the Locket) DD was able to stop him from getting the sword when Voldy went to request the DADA job but achieved the others.

 

what lead him to search Marvolo's house for the ring was the Riddles being killed and Voldy's love for trophies; that he want to hide his Horocruxes in places where he did really good bits of magic or where he had memerable kills. very Serieal Killer like if you think about it; typical narcassitic behavior.

 

 

 

JKR uses previous mentions in the book to somewhat explain the Hallows, but in comparision to her other intentions of Foreshadowing, its very weak and non-existant tbh. she uses DD having the cloak, but not needing it, to site a slight foreshadowing to the cloak being soemthing more; and DD wearing the ring after destroying the Horocruxe within it as more foreshadowing to the Hallows. but even these can be explained outside of the Hallows.

 

Cloak - DD barrowed it for another Order Member for a mission and was unable to return it before Voldy attacked the Potters.

 

Ring - a Horocruxe, even destroyed was too important to leave laying around. not to mention the nasty curse attached ot it. the ring was likely needed to help cure or slow down the curse.

 

 

theres no blatant small mention of such an important plot point. there was of the Horocruxes, of DD's death, of Voldy's mistake, of Harry havign to sacrfice himself, of Snape being good ... pretty much all the big plot points theres heavy foreshadowing and a blunt yet small referance to them in previous books. in 7 reads of the entire seires, i've come across none for the Deathly Hallows. i'm due for another re-read for the series, so again i'll keep an eye out for them.

Edited by Red2111
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Remus and Tonks get killed without the reader ever getting to follow it and thus taking away the decency of their passing. Remus having been in many of the books, and also a first time daddy who just had named Harry GodFather to his son, just dies without the reader getting to know the story. Tonks was never a major character in any way but still killed off too offhandishly."

 

I have to disagree. What you forget, what everyone who thought there was a chance of Harry dying forgot, was that except for a bit in the first book, the entire story was from Harry's point of view. There's no way Harry could have been at every place at once in Hogwarts during the first six books so there certainly wasn't any chance of him doing that in the seventh, so we could not see all these characters beloved, behated, or minor unless they were in Harry's view. I hated the deaths of these characters as well, including Sirius, but if the P.O.V. changed, then the was a chance in hell of Harry actually being killed. Despite my logic that he was indeed unkillable, I was very worried (though not as worried as many others I daresay) that she might kill him, pull some half-bass literary stunt, and ruin what was hitherto a masterpiece. (Question: since J.K.Rowling is a woman, would it be "mistresspiece"?)

 

The other thing we must realize, her careful approach to death must us truly, truly, truly the enemies of Voldemort. People try to empathize with the bad guy way too much in my opinion, but I my experience we all (generally) hate T.M.R. No other author I've read has made the antagonist so thoroughly pleasing to see die.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Remus and Tonks get killed without the reader ever getting to follow it and thus taking away the decency of their passing. Remus having been in many of the books, and also a first time daddy who just had named Harry GodFather to his son, just dies without the reader getting to know the story. Tonks was never a major character in any way but still killed off too offhandishly."

 

I have to disagree. What you forget, what everyone who thought there was a chance of Harry dying forgot, was that except for a bit in the first book, the entire story was from Harry's point of view. There's no way Harry could have been at every place at once in Hogwarts during the first six books so there certainly wasn't any chance of him doing that in the seventh, so we could not see all these characters beloved, behated, or minor unless they were in Harry's view. I hated the deaths of these characters as well, including Sirius, but if the P.O.V. changed, then the was a chance in hell of Harry actually being killed. Despite my logic that he was indeed unkillable, I was very worried (though not as worried as many others I daresay) that she might kill him, pull some half-bass literary stunt, and ruin what was hitherto a masterpiece. (Question: since J.K.Rowling is a woman, would it be "mistresspiece"?)

 

The other thing we must realize, her careful approach to death must us truly, truly, truly the enemies of Voldemort. People try to empathize with the bad guy way too much in my opinion, but I my experience we all (generally) hate T.M.R. No other author I've read has made the antagonist so thoroughly pleasing to see die.

 

Constraining Deathly Hallows to Harry's POV was a major fault of the book. Yes, it would have been absurd for Harry to be everywhere. It would have been a break from the form of the first six books to include more POVs. But the story of Deathly Hallows was too big for Harry's POV to do the story justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree. What you forget, what everyone who thought there was a chance of Harry dying forgot, was that except for a bit in the first book, the entire story was from Harry's point of view. There's no way Harry could have been at every place at once in Hogwarts during the first six books so there certainly wasn't any chance of him doing that in the seventh, so we could not see all these characters beloved, behated, or minor unless they were in Harry's view. I hated the deaths of these characters as well, including Sirius, but if the P.O.V. changed, then the was a chance in hell of Harry actually being killed. Despite my logic that he was indeed unkillable, I was very worried (though not as worried as many others I daresay) that she might kill him, pull some half-bass literary stunt, and ruin what was hitherto a masterpiece. (Question: since J.K.Rowling is a woman, would it be "mistresspiece"?)

 

look, the main issue most of us take here is not Remus's death, but Tonks. there was absolutley no reason for her to die other than "to show that no one is safe" and to beef up the death count and give rise to that absurd epilogue.

 

Remus's death was expected, as was Sirius's, Womrtail's and DD's. we all expected Remus to die, it was Tonks that we all felt slighted by. Same as when Fred was killed and Hedwig. your also forgetting to take into account JKR told us there was gogin to be alot of deaths in this book. we just disliked how callously they were treated and how they were killed.

 

 

also, not a chance in hell Harry would be killed?! common, the Prophecy itself heavily pointed to the fact he had to die. not to mention the hints at him being a Horocruxe throughout the series and the fact he was one. he had to die to allow for Voldy to become mortal and killable. what was daft was the fact that she contrived, hald assedly i might add, a way fro him to come back from the dead. even after all her foreshadowing and blatant remarks of no way to revive the dead. it was apparent, from the start and blatantly so upon re-reads after the series completion that Harry was fated to die and that Voldy was fated for the Dementors kiss. POV or no.

 

 

The other thing we must realize, her careful approach to death must us truly, truly, truly the enemies of Voldemort. People try to empathize with the bad guy way too much in my opinion, but I my experience we all (generally) hate T.M.R. No other author I've read has made the antagonist so thoroughly pleasing to see die.

 

i don't hate Riddle, nor to a sympathize with him. he is my fav character int he series, but more so because of his complexity and layers. if anything, i pity Riddle; both for how he was raised and for what he became. but the good guy is only as good of a character as his villian, Voldy being such a great villian made Harry tolerable imo.

 

as to JKR's approach to death. she wasn't very good at killing characters. but approaching the effect of their deaths and describing and interpreting it through Harry she was brilliant at.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1. In book 6 She kills off Sirius Black. Ok, Harry's Godfather and a really decent bloke. That felt unnecessary - there must be other ways to incapacitate a literary character besides killing it! Bereave it from magical abilities, imprison it, put it into a coma...

2. In book 7 She kills off Fred, Tonks and Remus. The characters get killed but in a very very sloppy fashion, imo. Fred being one of the twins and has been part of the story since book 1 gets killed by a detonating wall!

 

I do not think the point was to get Sirius out of the story, the point was to show sacrifice and tragedy which his death do manage to portray. As for those other characters dying, I did not feel it was pointless, instead it gave the story a more feeling of danger as even long time characters could actually die, it stopped the story from just being another bad guy attack, good guy come in a save the day, everything is fine. In war there are casualties, even sometimes from rather random things like exploding walls.

 

I dislike the random death of a character scenario. Too much like real life and isn't reading fiction a doorway out of real life in a way?! If you invist time and effort into characters I really believe that you should let their story be told if you really must kill them off, if there is no way around it. I, the reader, feel cheated otherwise. And it feels like stupid writing to me.

 

Fiction is an escape from real life, but it have to feel real or at least for me the story do not capture me, if there is no real chance that a character may die then why should I become invested in their perils if there is not really any peril. I am not saying killing characters left and right is good, but a few important characters biting the dust I actually think add to the realism of a story.

 

Now I agree some of the deaths in Harry Potter where to random, but at the same time the books got rather gritty after a while and they did portray a war in the end and people, supernatural creatures and others do die in wars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think the point was to get Sirius out of the story, the point was to show sacrifice and tragedy which his death do manage to portray. As for those other characters dying, I did not feel it was pointless, instead it gave the story a more feeling of danger as even long time characters could actually die, it stopped the story from just being another bad guy attack, good guy come in a save the day, everything is fine. In war there are casualties, even sometimes from rather random things like exploding walls.

 

with Sirius, most of the disgruntlement comes from how he was killed. not that fact he was killed. the actual pont of Siriuses death was two fold. for Harry to experience an emotional death and character building on this angle of a parental figure; and becuase for Harry to succeed in sacrificing himself at the end all his protective figures must be gone. this is a main reason why DD not only died but stayed dead (instead of pulling a gandolf like alot in the fandom expected).

 

the main reason that Harry needed to expierence this sort of death is for JKR to use Harry as an outlet to write and express her feelings and thoughts abotu her own Mothers death; an event which actually started JKR onto writing this story. it was a way for JKR to sort of finish her grieving imo, and outlet if you will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...