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

[Alatar]

Well, looks like my whole "Dumbledore is not dead" theory is washed up...

Spoilers, after a fashion....

During tonight's RCMH reading, JK Rowling said that Dumbledore is definitely dead, and that we all need to start moving through the five stages of grief. She needs to help us get past denial, she said, and thinks the next stage might be anger and we shouldn't go there right now. She specifically referenced Dumbledoreisnotdead.com, and said that Dumbleore will not "pull a Gandalf."

(The Web site in question has responded that "we don't think this really means anything!" and "Her declaration that Dumbledore is really dead is most likely one of those red-herrings that J.K. likes to throw us off the track with....But what if Dumbledore is really dead, but has arranged it so that he can come back? That would still fit with what she said tonight but still not discount any of what's outlined on this site!") (This has since been changed, but was copied directly at the time.)

J.K. Rowling also said that she had rethought the title of book seven while in the shower before coming out for the event (something like, "Oh, that would be better, wouldn't it?" popped into her mind), but that she wouldn't be sharing either of the titles.

Most of the response about Dumbledore followed a question by famous author Salman Rushdie, who stepped forward to the audience microphone with his son and introduced himself like any other fan. JKR said, "I don't feel this is quite fair," amusedly. "You're better at figuring out plots than most." (That might be a paraphrase.) Rushdie flat-out asked (along with whether Dumbledore was alive) whether Snape was "good" or bad." She did not answer, but said that "your opinion is correct," possibly to his assertion that Snape was intrinsically good (though it was unclear).

Other topics included Aunt Petunia, to whom JKR said there was more than meets the eye (and of course that we'd find out what in book seven).

She also said:

From the Mugglenet Summary of the events:

"While Jo is listing the characters who she'd invite to dinner, she names the trio but then pauses. The crowd begins to shout out other characters, but Jo responds, "I'm the only one who knows who lives through the series," accidentally implying that she could only list characters who make it through the final book. Her final two choices (after realizing what she said) were Dumbledore and Hagrid."

Unfortunately, it seems very, very much like Jo really did slip here. Apparantly the trio all live. Spoiled much?

[superwizard]

Well I had come to the conclusion that Dumbledore was dead, with all that "death is not the worst thing" kind of stuff he said it seemed to make sense. I don't care much about who she's going to kill in book 7. She's already killed off two of my three favorite characters (will not name last one in fear of her finding out and killing em). Also I read somewhere that Stephen King actually asked Rowling not to kill off Harry please. I don't think she will but that she isn't saying mainly for marketing strategies (hey we're talking about it right?)

[Primula Baggins]

She can't possibly tell us whether Harry survives. I'm darn sure he does, but she really can't afford to give away the outcome of the climactic confrontation capping a seven-book series. This coyness will go on until the book comes out.

[nerdanel]

I respect Rowling keeping Dumbledore dead. As much as it's really difficult for the mentor-wizard character to die, I think it's important for her not to bring back those who are dead. There are too many kids who want "happily ever after" endings here, and that's not how things work. She's done really well, to date, at recognizing the finality of death while emphasizing that people live on in hearts and memories, and I wouldn't want for that to change.

Actually, Sirius was a harder death for me to take, perhaps because it was harder for me to foresee. With all Sirius had been through, I thought she would let him live. I think that I might still be in the "denial" stage on that one. But I have a theme song for him - 3 Doors Down's "When I'm Gone," and I'm sure I'll make it through life in a Sirius-less world, somehow.

[Frelga]

Also I read somewhere that Stephen King actually asked Rowling not to kill off Harry please. I don't think she will but that she isn't saying mainly for marketing strategies (hey we're talking about it right?)

Authors to Rowling: Don't kill Harry Potter

"I understand why an author would kill a character from the point of view of not allowing others to continue writing after the original author is dead," [Rowling] added, leaving the door open to the worst fears of some fans -- that Harry could die.
<...>
Rowling noted that Irving had killed off many more characters than she had. (Irving said he makes up a "casualty list" before he starts his novels, and therefore death scenes seem like they've "already happened.")

"When fans accuse me of sadism, which doesn't happen that often, I feel I'm toughening them up to go on and read John and Stephen's books," she said. "I think they've got to be toughened up somehow. It's a cruel literary world out there."

[superwizard]

Well she's made it quite obvious that at least someone will die and (more likely) maybe a couple or even more. The real question is how important of characters will they be? So far the trend does not bode well for poor Harry and his friends.
Book 4: Realtively minor character dies we don't know too much about him his death doesn't really upset us much.
Book 5: A pretty important character dies we are saddened by the loss and its the first time someone really important dies
Book 6: A really important character dies leaving us devastated and crying for days
Book 7:???
Does not seem well for our heroes does it?

[Primula Baggins]

To make us eager to read the book, though, she doesn't have to actually kill Harry or Ron or Hermione. She just has to make us believe that she might, right up until the thrilling conclusion.

The deaths up until now have all served a purpose—to raise the stakes for the next book. Harry's death (or Ron's, or Hermione's) would serve no such purpose. And any of those three dying would cast a pall over the whole series. Even aside from the esthetics of it, it's a bad business decision: it would hurt future sales. "Oh, don't even start that series, it's soooo depressing. . . ."

And I get the impression that J. K. Rowling is one smart cookie.

[elfshadow]

I never really thought that Dumbledore was actually alive somehow, or that he would come back to life in any form. One of JKR's themes that comes across really strongly to me is that what has happened, has happened. That was huge in PoA, which remains my favorite of the HP books, and I believe that it is her best work. Yes, Harry and Hermione do go back in time, but do they alter that which already is? No, they simply make it happen. For example, Harry survives the near dementor attack because he scared them off with a Patronus. The final outcome in PoA was already a reality, and by using the Time Turner Harry and Hermione only make that reality known to others. They don't truly change anything.

This theme is interwined throughout the rest of the books as well. When Harry sees the shadow-figures of his parents in GoF, that doesn't mean that he's brought them back from the dead, he's simply seeing a shadowy vapor or their memory. Similarly, in P/SS, when he sees his family in the mirror he's only viewing a reflection of his own desires. They are gone in body, and will not come back. I would be very disappointed indeed if JKR decided to "revive" either Sirius or Dumbledore in any way, because to me it would contradict one of her strongest messages. Your past may come back to haunt you, but you cannot alter it. You must live with what has happened.

[superwizard]

Good point Prim, I've never thought about it that way, when I think about writing novels I never think about the business of it.
elfshadow I agree Rowling has been so far very firm in the 'no one comes back from the dead' and I doubt she'd change it.

[Frelga]

Good point, Prim. She might kill Ginny and Ron, though, and make H&H a consolation prize for each other. If she does, I'll go on a barfing rampage, as a pregnant co-worker said today.

[MithLuin]

Oh, no, that won't happen, don't worry! She said that the Harry-Hermione shippers were 'delusional', so there's no way she'd concede to them. Though she did throw some teasers into HBP (Hermione listing why Harry was fanciable, for instance) to bait them .

Someone in the Weasley family will die, I think. I know it is Mrs. Weasley's worst fear, but we've been told that for 2 books now. Time for the reality to kick in.... But it won't be Ron, and it probably won't be Ginny. I am thinking Charlie, one of the twins, or Mr. Weasley. I don't think Percy will die, but then, he might. Something has to happen to him, though death is a bit dramatic!

[Alatar]

Still, that whole "fell behind a veil" thing was seriously dodgy.

[elfshadow]

Still, that whole "fell behind a veil" thing was seriously dodgy.

I suppose it was, but I'd still be disappointed if JKR decided to say, "Oh just kidding! Sirius isn't really dead. Fooled you!" in the seventh book. If those behind the veil were the voices of the dead, and Sirius went there, then by joining their ranks he would also be among the dead. If he could come back, then so also could everyone else who had ever died, theoretically. Although that's just my own interpretation of the Veil as JKR described it, she never makes it perfectly clear, as I recall.

[nerdanel]

Hey, can I go on a bit of a rant?

I like Harry and Hermione together! I don't like Ron and Hermione, although, not being "delusional," I can tell that R and Hr are going to be together (and could tell from movie 2/books 3 and 4, as I am not entirely stupid), and I am perfectly capable of dealing with this. I didn't even need to go through a five-stage grieving process, and I actually don't care all that much, and I don't hate Ron and wish he would die in a tragic explosion so that Harry and Hermione will be together.

I just don't like Ron and Hermione together. It goes back to Ron being the loyal friend who just isn't quite as capable as Harry or as brilliant as Hermione. I just feel that if those two were dating or married, she would constantly be impatient with Ron, who quite frankly can't keep up with her intellectually. Although Harry's not as smart as Hermione either, he makes up for it by being at the top of his game in other ways, and Ron...just doesn't. He's a good guy, but he's the sidekick, and JKR belatedly trying to fix that six books in just didn't come off as compelling to me. Ron reminds me of Xander in the Buffy series - good guy, loyal friend, but just not compelling beyond that. I remember, at one point in Buffy, it's pointed out to Xander that he's the only ordinary guy hanging out with a Vampire Slayer (or two, at one point), two powerful Wiccas, a vengeance demon, a Key...and he's average Joe. Ron comes off the same way to me. Yes, the average Joes - Ron and Xander - are often given moments to shine by the writers - there are times where their loyalty and friendship saves the world, and we're supposed to feel vindicated by the importance of "even" the ordinary people. To some extent, I guess I do, but it feels a bit artificial to me. I'd rather look up to the people who are special, whether by birth like Harry, or sheer potential and hard work, like Hermione. Characters like Ron and Xander seem inserted, IMO, as a pat on the back to all of us - "You too can be important even if you don't have outstanding talents!" - and so they come off as patronizing to me.

I just picture Hermione as the kind of young adult who would want to be with someone with whom she could have long conversations at her mental level...with whom she could be geeky and they could just *get it*. I feel like she'd just get repeatedly frustrated with Ron, because he'd stare at her with this bemused look. And then ask to copy her homework.

So maybe, the solution wouldn't even be for Hermione to be with Harry. I think I'm conflating two concepts here - my impatience with the "average Joe" concept (which just causes me to like both Hermione and Harry way more than Ron), and my assumption that Hermione would need a relationship that was very mentally stimulating (which, sorry, she ain't ever gonna have with Ron.) But FWIW, I'd prefer Harry and Hermione in a major way, and I've been a bit annoyed with JKR's rudeness to those of us who, y'know, like two of her characters together, and more annoyed with how insulting people who like R/Hr have been to everyone who dares to disagree with them. (note: I don't mean insulting the idea of H/Hr, obviously, as I just insulted the idea of R/Hr. That's just opinion. I mean, insulting people who happen to like a different fictional pairing. Seems a bit juvenile to me. And I've seen it a lot.)

But then, I'm not in HP fandom, and this is probably the longest post on HP I have ever made in my life. Just a few thoughts I've had. It's not a big deal.

I'm not unaware of the irony of a Tolkien fan, even a rather ignorant Tolkien fan like me, saying what I just did. After all, LOTR really does advance the idea, "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future." However, that's not an idea that normally resonates with me at all - Tolkien, being who he is, can make me embrace the concept as regards Middle-Earth, but I don't really relate to it otherwise.

[Primula Baggins]

Well, duh, Nel—that's because you're the Slayer yourself.

I guess I don't think of these stories as saying "even ordinary people can achieve great things." I think of them as saying "many people who look ordinary aren't." I think Rowling is going for the former, and it probably does fit Ron better. But there is nothing ordinary about Frodo, or Sam. When I reread LotR now I get a little impatient with the elves and their patronizing laughter and "You guys are so small and weak and ephemeral." I don't buy into this; I am not sure that Tolkien meant for us to buy into it.

This may be one reason I'm put off by some derivative fantasy novels—the ones about the stable boy who looks ordinary but turns out to have magic powers and is swept off on a quest to recover his rightful throne. There's no challenge there. We all know we don't have magic powers. We can read along and indulge a fantasy without feeling any call to be more than we are ourselves.

Frodo, though—he did what he did with no more of magic than we have ourselves. He is an extraordinary character with no extraordinary gifts; he did what he did with no more than we have.

We tend to write off "ordinary" people, particularly if we consider ourselves ordinary. But there's no telling what any ordinary person can do or become, until the moment of the test arrives.

(Ooo, sorry, Nel, I said "test," didn't I? )

[Frelga]

Bravo, Prim! That was the post I have restrained myself from writing, only you worded it infinitely better than I ever could.

Regarding Nel's point, however. Ron does have magical powers, you know. And he has some great qualities. He's not the hero that Harry is, but he does stand by him to the end, no less so than Hermione. They are both sidekicks in that way, which perhaps is the one bond they share - being the two who take care of Harry. Ron's funny, loyal, he's as bright as Harry in their studies, the point Rowling makes repeatedly, and better than Harry in chess. And a girl who had to choose between a moody, angsty hero and a normal, cheerful guy and goes for the normal guy shows more than a regular teenage amount of sense, IMO. Hard to live with, your angsty heroes.

And yet I don't like H&R match either. There doesn't seem much respect between those two, with Ron's barbs at Hermione's studiousness and her condescension to him. In my experience, if there is one thing that will wreak any relationship, it's lack of respect between the partners. I can identify with being a brainy girl who's brighter than most of her peers, with the added twist of being different by birth. And if any boy pulled the Lavender trick on me, I don't believe there's any way in the multiverse that I would ever speak to him again. Krum seemed a more appropriate match for Hermione than Ronnikins is.

Ahem. Yes. Right. So if Ron dies, I'll survive. If Rowling kills Harry, I will not even bother reading the last book.

[Primula Baggins]

Ooo, that stings! Yes—I kind of lost track of the fact that, gee, if he's at Hogwarts, he's a wizard. In that context he's ordinary, but nowhere else.

And that's an excellent point about the relative merits of brooding heroes vs. normal, cheerful guys. I guess we enjoy in books exactly the kind of angst and despair and dramatics that we would deeply resent if they were imposed on us in real life. It's hard to tell interesting stories about happy people having a good time and being nice to each other.

There is NO WAY Rowling will kill Harry. She's too smart.

But there is also NO WAY she will let us off the hook about whether Harry might die in Book Seven. She's too smart for that, either.

[superwizard]

I just don't like Ron and Hermione together. It goes back to Ron being the loyal friend who just isn't quite as capable as Harry or as brilliant as Hermione. I just feel that if those two were dating or married, she would constantly be impatient with Ron, who quite frankly can't keep up with her intellectually.

Actually I don't like Ron and Hermione together mainly because of their differences (which means I do agree with what you said). Its just that I can't really see how ten years down the line Ron and Hermione having a relaxing converstation about stuff that they both like. Their tastes are so different that it pains me to think of all the akward silences they'd have to face. Don't get me wrong I like both of them and think they're great as friends but as a couple? I don't think so.
(Also for similar reasons I don't like the Harry/Hermione match either)

On another note, what I find amazing about The Lord of the Rings is that two ordinary hobbits (yes they did start out as ordinary IMHO) accomplished such extraordinary things that even great wizards and elves couldn't do. Frodo and Sam don't only level up to the great they become even better. (The King of Gondor and Anor bow to them for crying out loud!)

[Amrunelen]

I really can't think of anything to add at the moment, but have been absorbing a number or your posts into my mind and doing a bit of pondering. I've had a habit of making a list of mental predictions for the past couple of books (since I read Sorcerer's Stone through Goblet of Fire at once) and seeing if any came to be.

If I come up with anything good, I'll be sure to come back.

As for the quick answer to who's going to die....someone mentioned one of the Weasley's? That sounds like a pretty likely guess to me. Arthur, perhaps.

[elfshadow]

I really, really like the idea of Ron and Hermione together. Their situation is rather typical of teenagers; what they say to each other and to Harry is not what they actually believe. I don't think that they have a complete lack of respect towards each other, nor do I believe that Ron is intellectually inferior to Hermione. Ron does respect Hermione's intelligence and work ethic, and Hermione respects Ron's loyalty and relative patience at constantly being in the shadow of others. They are different but complementary. But like most teenagers, it's not easy for them to express what's actually on their mind. So instead they bicker, Ron teases and Hermione rolls her eyes, Ron complains and Hermione needles. It's the sort of relationship that you can feel will work, even if you can't see it working. All the two needed was time and maturity, and by the seventh book they will have already gotten both those two things. Even at Dumbledore's funeral you could see their true feelings poke through their outward animosity. They've realized that they can no longer play adolescent games, not with Dumbledore gone and their world in peril.