Who do you think will die in the last Harry Potter book?

[MithLuin]

Psst - he won't die. It's all hype .

JKR doesn't want her fans to be too comfortable with Harry's fate. She wants us to be worried about whether or not he's going to make it through the last book. The fact that so many people take her warnings seriously suggests that she's done her job well.

But that does not change the fact that neither Harry nor Hermione nor Ron will die in this last book. The book will end with Harry and Ginny (and Ron and Hermione) happily married off and starting their adult lives.

She specifically wrote a prophecy that says either/or. One of them has to cop it. Hmmm, I'm betting...the villain! The whole point is that if Harry defeats Voldemort, he can get on with his life.

Most of the deaths in the final book will be bad guys, since none of them have been killed yet (except Quirrell). Bellatrix LeStrange, Peter Pettigrew and Fenrir Greyback are all the sort of nasty characters you can't leave laying around - they have to be killed or finished off in a very final way, because they are nasty on their own, with or without Voldemort in the picture. Lucius Malfoy, Draco Malfoy, and Delores Umbridge have fates that need tying up; death is certainly one option. The Dursleys are about to lose their magical protection and become Death Eater targets.

Still, one of the death scenes she shared with her husband, and it really gutted him, so that suggests some good guy deaths as well. I suspect that we'll see a Weasley not make it. Perhaps one or both of the twins. Other possibilities are teachers, students (Neville or Luna are popular bets) or Order members (Kingsley Shacklebolt, perhaps). I think Hagrid is safe. I think Snape is a good guy, and that he is sooooooo dead. He has nothing left to live for, anyway.

My hypothesis is that romantic relationships will be protection from death - those characters who are paired up are safe, whereas those who are not are doomed. So, Harry/Ginny, Ron/Hermione - safe. Luna and Neville? The bell tolls.... Bill/Fleur, Lupin/Tonks? Safe. Fred, George, Charlie, Kingsley, McGonagall, etc? Less safe. Hagrid's friendship with Madame Maxine counts, while Draco's relationship with Pansy does not. There are bound to be exceptions, but the books do have a "love conquers all" theme, so I thought that this would be an appropriate framework.

[Crucifer]

Snape will perhaps die in a tragic 'I'm good really' scene?
She's put it out that H might die? News to me...

[elfshadow]

for Prim and Mith for saying what I mean far better than I ever could. I agree completely about Harry's death. I just can't see that JKR would, in the end, do that to her fans. Being ambiguous about the ending is an excellent marketing strategy, but I don't think the ambiguity means that she's going to kill Harry.

TheWagner, thank you for clearing that up. I had never actually read what she said about it, and don't spend much time on fan websites or anything, so I had only heard that she said that two major characters died. But it makes sense that there would be many more.

[TheWagner]

I agree, Tyrhael, that Harry will die.I have a niggling feeling that a certain Padfoot is going to visit... After all, he didn't die, he just went through the veil.

Sirius is quite dead: the veil through which he passed was a physical manifestation of the metaphor.

The number of serious fans predicting Harry's death does not make me hopeful, though. Too bad; this could have been a classic, still widely enjoyed fifty or a hundred years from now, but if Harry dies I really don't see that happening.

Actually, I think that the opposite is more apt to be true. Having Harry die could be a much more powerful ending (depending, of course, how Rowling does it). It will be the power of the ending, not the happiness, that will determine its long term fate of the series. There are gazillions of happy endings that have faded into oblivion, after all.

She specifically wrote a prophecy that says either/or. One of them has to cop it. Hmmm, I'm betting...the villain! The whole point is that if Harry defeats Voldemort, he can get on with his life.

Actually, the Prophecy is not either/or. It is "either must die at the hands of the other, for neither can live while the other survives." In this case, it could be a hard or soft "or." One of the strong recurring themes of the stories is that good people will die to save the lives of others. (It started with Ron's gambit and has continued through Dumbledore sacrificing himself to make sure that Harry was safe in Prince.)

I just can't see that JKR would, in the end, do that to her fans.

Well, this is Schrödinger's Cat in a sense: Rowling plotted this long before she had any "fans." Our cat Harry has been dead or alive in the box for 10 years: but unlike Schrödinger's beast, our attempts to discern its condition (hopefully!) have not altered its condition. We (or at least I) can only hope that Rowling stuck to her original plan, one way or the other.

TheWagner, thank you for clearing that up.

It is the classic transformation of information, isn't it?

[Crucifer]

Sirius is quite dead: the veil through which he passed was a physical manifestation of the metaphor.

Hmmm... and yet, to quote the Goddess calypso,

him was taken, body and soul

So maybe they just need to go to some locker or other to get him back...

Seriously though, I don't think he's dead. He 'passed over' in body as well as soul (if you believe in such things), so his immortal soul has not left his mortal bady. It is still trapped in his body, therefore he is still alive.

Hmmm... not very clear. Then again, I just woke up an hour ago, and I haven't had any tea yet.

[Inanna]

Well, this is Schrödinger's Cat in a sense: Rowling plotted this long before she had any "fans." Our cat Harry has been dead or alive in the box for 10 years: but unlike Schrödinger's beast, our attempts to discern its condition (hopefully!) have not altered its condition. We (or at least I) can only hope that Rowling stuck to her original plan, one way or the other.

ooooh... what an utterly fantastic way to put it. I love Schrödinger's Cat.

[TheWagner]

Sirius is quite dead: the veil through which he passed was a physical manifestation of the metaphor.

Hmmm... and yet, to quote the Goddess calypso,

him was taken, body and soul

So maybe they just need to go to some locker or other to get him back...

Rowling has stated a few times that there is no coming back from the dead. Yes, there is in Pirates of the Caribbean: but, that is a very different series of stories!

Seriously though, I don't think he's dead. He 'passed over' in body as well as soul (if you believe in such things), so his immortal soul has not left his mortal bady. It is still trapped in his body, therefore he is still alive.

Rowling has stated that Sirius, like Dumbledore, is quite dead. She also says it through Dumbledore, who is her character for informing us about Potterverse theory.

ooooh... what an utterly fantastic way to put it. I love Schrödinger's Cat.

Well, it's been 70 years now: that cat is dead!

[Crucifer]

Rowling has stated a few times that there is no coming back from the dead

Oh. I thought she had said that someone was going to come back. My info must be a little hazy...

[TheWagner]

Rowling has stated a few times that there is no coming back from the dead

Oh. I thought she had said that someone was going to come back. My info must be a little hazy...

I think that it is just Grimmsian evolution:

1. Rowling saying that nobody can come back from the dead, turns into:
2. Rowling talking about whether characters can come back from the dead, turns into:
3. Rowling talking about characters coming back from the dead, turns into:
4. Rowling saying that characters would come back from the dead.

Only five weeks.......

[Athrabeth]

Here's the internet version of an article I just read in one of our national magazines. I thought it was well worth sharing:

http://www.macleans.ca/homepage/magazin ... 109_107109

Twelve more days to go!

[Alatar]

Now is a good time for me to reaffirm my belief that there was something seriously "dodgy" about Dumbledore's death. Occulomency, unspoken spells, "You have to mean an unforgiveable curse", Dumbledore's body being blown out of sight instead of just crumpling, healing tears of a phoenix, they all add up to a "sleight of hand".

Mark my words!

[Teremia]

Hm! I've always sternly insisted Dumbledore is dead, dead, dead, but Alatar's "You have to mean an unforgivable curse" has just opened the tiniest window of doubt.



My bet is Harry doesn't die, and I just so hope JKR doesn't kill off people or make people go to the Dark Side just to surprise us. That would hollow out the sense of the whole thing.

In particular, Hermione must stay Good and also alive. Otherwise I throw the book across the room, as I've already warned the children. If they come home from camp, and Harry Potter has dents in its corners and scuff marks across the spine -- they'll know why!

[Primula Baggins]

I have no idea what's going to happen. But that was a fantastic article, Ath. Thanks for posting the link!

I'm glad there's a movie coming out this week to help pass the time.

[Erunáme]

I'm glad there's a movie coming out this week to help pass the time.

Whilst it's exciting, it's really too much HP fandom at once. Considering this will all be over at some point (or soon in regards to the books), they really ought to space the fun out.

As for the article, I've never gotten why authors say the story went in a way they didn't intend, like Rowling saying she didn't intend to kill off two people but she did. Uh, it's your story and you're the boss. So I don't understand how something can take place that you didn't intend. I guess that shows how I'm not a writer.

[elfshadow]

Hm! I've always sternly insisted Dumbledore is dead, dead, dead, but Alatar's "You have to mean an unforgivable curse" has just opened the tiniest window of doubt.

Maybe, but I think that Snape did mean the Avada Kedavra he used on Dumbledore. He knew Dumbledore wanted him to use the curse. And he was probably the most loyal friend Dumbledore had.

I still believe Dumbledore is absolutely dead. After all, Dumbledore's portrait showed up on the wall of the Headmaster's Offices at Hogwarts. And I will have to reread the books to check this, but I believe that this only happens when old headmasters die--not when they simply retire. I think that part of the message HP sends about life in general is that death is death, magic or not. Whose was the famous quote, "Death is the great equalizer?" Even wizards, I think, cannot bring people back from beyond the veil. Frank Bryce, Cedric Diggory, and Harry's parents all showed up in equal form in GoF when Harry's and Voldemort's wands connected. Yet Frank was a muggle, the other three wizards. I think this partially shows that we are all the same, really, after death.

Who knows, maybe that's not a message JKR is trying to send. But it's a message I have noticed, and one I hope stays consistent until the end of the seventh series.

[Primula Baggins]

Well, here's my theory, Eru. Seven long books is a big arc of story, and all through that I'm sure Rowling has been having ideas occur to her that weren't part of the original plan. That can make some pretty big changes necessary by the end, when you realize that Character B who was supposed to do plot function X is no longer the right kind of person for the job—so you either force the character into the old slot, or you change the plan and have someone else do X. I think it's a sign of a good writer to change the plan.

As for the movie, I'll bet anything they would really rather have had it come out last Christmas, if they could. Box office nuts point out that the movie's going to take a huge hit on its third weekend, when most big movies are still making a lot of money, because so many people will be home reading.

[MithLuin]

I've never gotten why authors say the story went in a way they didn't intend, like Rowling saying she didn't intend to kill off two people but she did. Uh, it's your story and you're the boss. So I don't understand how something can take place that you didn't intend. I guess that shows how I'm not a writer.

Well, I am no more of an author than you, but I have seen that happen in my own story. It probably depends on how a story grows. For me, I started with a premise/idea that seemed false or contrived as I went on. So, I had to make a decision - abandon my initial idea, or change the story I am telling. I opted to change it.

It was my Snape back story. I had decided that he would not directly murder anyone, but would become more and more involved in tangled plots that resulted in people's deaths - he'd get lots of assists and culpability, but never be the murderer himself. I thought that would be a good dynamic to result in the strange combination of guilt, denial and integrity that is Snape.

But as it went on...I realized that his time as a Death Eater would not allow for such innocence. He gets a few near misses, but eventually he gets his hands dirty, so to speak. But I do avoid ever putting the Avada Kedavra curse in his mouth. So, he does not use an Unforgiveable Curse in my story, but he does kill. I came up with 'alternatives' to the Unforgivables that were just as nasty - I never used the one for Imperius, but I did let Voldemort show off his unique methods of death-dealing. So, I kept part of my idea for keeping Snape set apart, but I did not keep his soul intact, like I originally thought I would.

I sometimes write scenes that don't fit into the story I wrote them for. I described Lucius' grandmother at one point, as a frail woman in a wheel-chair with papery skin. But...there was never any cause to introduce her, and so I did not use that. I came up with names that I never used, and backstory that I never elaborated....writing is all about making choices, and final choices often do not fit with earlier ideas.

So, it depends on how you plan out your stories, I guess. Some people write an outline, and then stick to it, writing in chronological order. The decisions of what fits or not are made at the outline stage, so there are fewer 'surprises' when writing. I use outlines to keep track of chronology, but the story itself is much more...organic.

[Inanna]

MITH!!! You ARE JK Rowling!!!

[Crucifer]

I has a theory!!!

Harry will face Snape, and Snape (because there are Death Eaters about) will say how Dumbledore was a weak fool etc. etc. etc.
Harry will kill him...
Snape has left a message, proving his innocence...



It was much clearer at 2.30 in the morning...

[Tyrhael]

A note? I hardly think that'll convince Harry. Maybe Aberforth will give Harry some of Albus' memories in the Pensieve that exonerate Snape?

But no, we have to have Harry forgive/understand Snape _later_ in Book 7. Perhaps Snape dies trying to show his true colors, i.e. to redeem himself, and then _after_ that Harry receives Albus' memories and sees how mistaken about Snape he was? After all, JKR didn't set up Harry to have the same prejudices against Snape as his dad did for nothing.