Harry Potter - plots after book 4? - Page 3

[SAHDS]

Originally Posted by alaskanteach

Yeah, but by 7 few of them are really "kids" anymore.. How old are they supposed to be?

I was speaking in general, not just well-known characters.

Oh, and journeymom, I'm looking forward to that part because I'm a die-hard Harmonian and it's in my delusional nature, LOL.

[journeymom]

Harmonian

[Ruthla]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

I have a lot of issues with Rowling's writing, but I think she did a great job of handling the deaths in the books. She did stick with the literary convention of not killing off any of the three main characters, and was a little gentle in some of those who lived, any of which could have easily died, but would have been...really ugly:

Warning :: Spoiler Ahead! Highlight to read message!

---

For example, killing either of the Weasley parents, or Hagrid, or Neville, or even Professor McGonagal (I know I didn't spell that right) would have been almost as harsh as killing one of the trio, imo.

---

According to an interview I read, she almost killed off

Warning :: Spoiler Ahead! Highlight to read message!

---

Mr Weasley in OoTP- apparently in earlier drafts (or at least her outline) he didn't survive the snake bite.

But I don't see how it's any "less harsh" that Dumbledore died and McGonnigal didn't?

---

[journeymom]

Ruthla,

Warning :: Spoiler Ahead! Highlight to read message!

---

Dumbledore was going to die anyway, that was a major part of the plot. My guess is that JKR had a number of secondary characters to consider killing for tragic affect, various students, friends and teachers. "Hmmm. Kill McGonagall? Or kill Fred? Which will cause the most tears?"

---

[Storm Bride]

Ruthla,

Warning :: Spoiler Ahead! Highlight to read message!

---

Dumbledore dying was harsh, but it was also an important plot point adn helped spur Harry's character development. He had to die, because the task of finding the Horcruxes needed to be left with Harry. It was an important plot point. I think McGonagall would have been really harsh, because she was the one of the few important adults left in Harry's life (aside from the Weasleys and Hagrid, of course). The scene in the Ravenclaw common room was the first time Rowling really showed how important she was to Harry, so I think having her die during the battle would have been a little too harsh - especially in light of him already having lost his parents and their only two remaining friends (Sirius and Lupin) and Hedwig (a loss I think was very major to Harry, as she'd been his one constant companion through all his trials in the magic world and the Dursley's house).

It's not that the death of McGonagall would have been more harsh than the death of Dumbledore - just that it would have been very harsh, on top of the loss of Dumbledore, and without the same dramatic necessity. Hagrid would have been just brutal. I don't think she could have killed off Mr. Weasley in OofP, without pretty much destroying Harry with guilt...maybe that's why she changed it?

---