Cinematical

Rule #1. If you live long enough, something will kill you.

So what if he (Harry) dies? It could be a Glorious Death, saving the world from the big V, or telling the story of how he saved the world "way back when" he was young.

So maybe book seven will be told from the point of view of a 98 year old Harry, to his adult grandchildren.

Or saving the life of Ginny? Or getting hit by a bus?

Reply

I think King's a bit off here...JK said she could sympathize with an author killing off their main characters so that no non-author-written sequels could be written after their death...I don't think she's confirmed she's killing off anyone for this reason though, let alone to keep herself from being seen as a one-trick pony...

I have complete faith in JK - I don't think she'd sacrifice what's best for the story, for the sake of how she's percieved by the public. If Harry dies, I think it will be because it's what she thinks serves the story best...(and since the fifth book, I've thought it would be pretty cool if Harry had to sacrifice himself to destroy Voldemort. But that's theorectical - in reality I'd probably still be sobbing like a five year old. That woman has me in her clutches - blast her!)

Reply

Let's just hope that when Rowling does get around to killing off a character or two, Annie Wilkes never finds out about it...

Reply

I'm a big Harry Potter fan, and I completely trust Jo Rowling. I don't think Jo would do that kind of thing. It would be exciting,however, if Voldemort actually died.

Reply

I don't know, I frankly wish she wouldn't even announce that she's killing anyone off. I realize it's probably her publisher demanding it for the sake of publicity, but really I hated it last time.

I wasn't prepared for the death of Sirius Black, even despite it. Or rather I just didn't approve of it; it made very little sense and the way he died was rather random considering his name was never quite entirely cleared.

At this point, I would be ok with Harry dying, it would be a rather glorious and fitting death. Beyond that, I've noticed particularly in the last 2 books, Harry has really been on the edge of a sort of anguish-fueled madness. His arrogance and anger has grown beyond all proportion; I would like to see that dealt with somehow, preferably head on. When heroes start succumbing to their emotions, they tend to sway towards the...pardon the analogy...Dark Side.

Reply

Caedn: thanks for the spoiler. Now I don't have to read the book or see the movie when it's made.

Reply

come on!!!! u cant go and kill off harry potter until you are absolutely sure your done writing!!!!!

Reply

If they want Potter to stay alive they should shut up and license the property from Rowling and write their own story.

Reply

If she does kill off Harry, will he be the second literary character to get their obituary on the front page of the New York Times?

Reply

After hearing her words about the matter and how it's not really in her own hands, her words - "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two die that I didn't intend to die" I don't see how Rowlings is frustrated by the money tree she created but rather that she's batsh*t crazy and/or takes herself too seriously. If she didn't intend for characters to die then she might remember that she's the author. Very odd stuff. And the remark from King about Sherlock Holmes is the same one I used in a rather heated Gilmore Girls forum discussion recently. The point being that while it's her characters, like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, it's her audience that is the final judge. Audiences are fickle you know.

Reply

I think that J.K is out of ideas, so she is about starting to ruin the series.

Reply

Gilbert -

IMHO, I don't think JK's crazy or taking herself too seriously, based on the quote you mentioned... It's so easy when you're writing, and when you put the story above yourself (which is what it sounds like she's doing), to have things reveal themselves as necessary that you did not intend at the beginning. You're not really in control of it, if you have the story at heart - the story is in control. Something I'm writing right now, I got more attatched the main character than I expected, and when it came time to write a horrible scene for him, it was really painful to do. But I wasn't about to throw the scene out because I found it painful - if you're writing genuinely enough, it can effect you as well as it will the audience...

The worst I could see saying about her is that she's taking her story too seriously, she's too attached in it, has too big of an imagination - and I don't really see anything wrong with any of that. Just the way most artists are...

And as long as she keeps writing from the right place, I think (at least in the long term) audiences will be fine with whatever she does...As long as there's a sense of poetic justice, or some point, in what ends up happening, they'll be able to handle it. Audiences are indeed VERY frustratingly fickle, but I think they could eventually handle Harry dying, as long as they felt it had to happen...

Cheers,
Amanda

Reply

Thanks Amanda,

Thank you for an authors perspective on this. I've read how for some authors, the story and the characters will in some way lead the author instead of the other way around. Other authors will rigidly storyboard/outline the whole thing and not deviate and still others will write the ending and work backwards. I'm again thinking of the Gilmore Girls story where the creator of that said she had the ending in her head from the start.

As for Rowlings, she herself has gone through epic life changes and it's no wonder she takes herself more seriously now. People care what she thinks and await her every word as to the fate of her characters. Perhaps she's gone from writing children's stories to writing great literature in her mind. Hence the character deaths. Or perhaps it's just the hype machine taking the words of an author and cranking them up. I've heard Robert Jordan at a book signing saying many of the same things about his characters while his fans sat at the edge of their seats listening to every word.

As an audience member I know I sometimes have a low level of tolerance when some authors take the death route. I remember being 14 or 15 and reading through a series of David Edding books and coming to a point where he kills a horse who was a character of sorts which made me so angry that I ripped the book in half and never read another word from that author. On the other hand, I did see Titanic and DiCaprio dying in the end was very touching. Very well done, emotionally draining and I never bought the DVD and have never watched it again. The death of a main character isn't likely, no matter how well done, isn't likely to bring me to repeat viewings or purchasing of the material. Even when it's well done and achieves the emotional reaction it's looking for, deaths of main characters is rarely embraced by the paying public. The critics and english professors may love it but they don't buy that many books and dvds.

Whatever the answers are at least it's more fun discussing than arguing about war in the Middle East. Good luck with that book.

Reply

I'm starting to think that this whole thing is something conceived by the three authors. I could be wrong but I recall the three of them doing benefit readings together in NYC not too long ago. Obviously they got to talking, I'm sure they were mutual fans of each other long before they met (didn't King review one of the Potter books for EW?) and they probably decided that the best way to throw people off the scent of what she's really going to do in Potter 7 is to have two of the most popular novelists of our time publicly plea with her to not kill off the most popular childrens lit character since Frodo Baggins.

My guess is that Neville dies in book 7. Can't kill off Harry, Ron, or Hermione. That would be very Matrix Revolutions.

Reply