Maybe the whole 'Harry Potter may die in the last book' is just an authorial display of control. I agree with what this article has to say on the topic.
Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry may have prepared Harry Potter to duke it out with Lord Voldemort, but the real test of his survival will be the battle over who actually “owns” Harry – author J.K. Rowling or her fans. According to a British Victorian literature expert, Rowling’s threat to kill at least two main characters in her final book is her way of taking control and is not unlike actions taken by other authors whose books have become extremely popular with readers.In the end, however, Harry will survive, says James Krasner, professor of English and British Victorian literature at the University of New Hampshire. “There's no way Harry will die,” he says. “Harry won't die largely because these are comic stories, like Dickens' novels, in which good has to win."
Whenever an author's books become very popular in his or her lifetime, as is the case with Rowling, a tug of war starts between the author and the fans about who the characters really belong to. Rowling, like Conan Doyle (creator of Sherlock Holmes), is trying to assert her control. She’s reminding us that Harry is her character, not ours; she can kill him if she wants to. Doyle actually did kill off Sherlock Holmes, but Rowling won’t go that far because she cares about Harry. Conan Doyle was really sick of Holmes,” Krasner says.
***
"Rowling's books are very well written, and we're lucky to be around to see them created. Her particular talent is plotting and comic characterization. She's a lot like Dickens in that she does such a good job with comedy, and with predictable plotlines, that she can move into tragedy, and complexity, rather than starting with a tragic mode,” Krasner says.So if Harry Potter doesn’t die in the final book, who does?
According to Krasner, “Lord Voldemort has to die. And Snape, who is really fighting for good despite all appearances, will likely die. Neville Longbottom is really the chosen one, so I suspect he'll die,” he says.
i a recent interview, rowling has admitted that she is tempted to kill harry to assert her control over him. does that mean she wont then? i guess when u say u are tempted, then it means that u didnt. but that is a very warped way of seeing it.
Posted by
Nandhu |
1:30 AM, July 21, 2006
@phoenix: Here is what I said at Krithiga's post on the same topic:
Here are my theories:
a) I think your Harry is a Horcrux idea is very credible. I am quite convinced that that might be the way Rowling will go.
Assuming Harry is a Horcrux, he will have to destroy himself in order to destroy Voldemort. However I think Rowling will finish the story with a subtle indication that a Horcrux (living) that is destroyed with the aim of destroying the soul that is stored in it may return to its original good form if all parts of that soul are destoryed. This will leave the room open for any Harry Potter revival in the future.
b) About the two other characters that may die in book 7, I think it will be Hagrid and Snape. With all his bitterness, Snape, as you rightly said, will be the good guy who will have to die. He is too deeply tied to both the Order and the Dark Mark to remain alive. Do double crossers ever survive in a book btw?
c) Maybe we will have a near death scare for Hermione or Ron but I guess they will survive like earlier.
Posted by
Echo/Lavanya |
1:52 PM, July 21, 2006
Erm, Sherlock died, came back, died, came back. Professor Moriarty didn't die though. That should say something?
Posted by
Ravages |
8:27 PM, July 23, 2006