Just wondering...

[jeanas33]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "jeanico2000" <jheiler at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Am I one of the only adult HP readers who would be deeply troubled 
if 
> JK kills Harry off in book 7? I keep reading these recent news items 
> about family groups and religious groups claiming that Harry's death 
> would be a good thing... that Harry must die, must sacrifice 
himself. 
> Apparently, even some child psychologists are saying this would be a 
> good learning tool for kids. I even read a comment in a 
> newspaper/magazine stating that Harry has to die while he is 'young 
> and vibrant' because no one wants to imagine an aging Harry Potter. 
> Any thoughts here? I know that Harry's only fiction, but I'm 
starting 
> to get anxious! LOL!
>
First I´new here 
I would quite dissapointed if JK decided to kill Harry off. To tell 
the truth I had read some of those interviews and was astounished like 
you at the ferocity of asking to kill Harry. 
I got the feeling that the religious hippie and some others are 
delighted to see Harry death because it would close the series. And 
for them it would be a kind of deliverance because in their mind this 
serie is the worst that had been written since years because it had 
this satanic touch.rooling my eyes at them all. As if the world had 
not other more important problem like violence or children abuse. 
But you cannot  denied that Harry Potter and his Potterverse did 
become another world which is discussed by millions like the events of 
the day. It may be a fiction work but it is staying alive because we 
are discussing about it. And that is what the catholic hippie are 
afraid of: that even after the end of the series the pottermania would 
be still there because people want to discuss it with. So for them 
killing Harry meant that everyone would forgot about this quickly. 

And the comment about the psychologist is really hilarious. The kids 
wouldnt  learn anything about it.
Harry is first a fictional character: he didnt exist at all. Of we got 
Daniel and Emma but they are the actors. 
What would better teach the cycle of live to a kid? the fact that a 
fictional character did died or the fact that his cat Glienn had died. 
The kids would perhaps remenbered about Harry but he would be more 
troubled about the death of his pet, because it was his pet a member 
of his family. 
And IMO I dont believe that Rowling would kill Harry off. She would 
had to kill others characters like  some of the Weasleys, Aurors, 
members of the Ministery etc to make the war believable. 
The curious thing about this discussion how would be killed in the 
Potterverse is showing that everyone had a different opinion. We are 
sure that Voldy would had to be kill but our mind differ from there. 
Some want to kill Harry off and to spare Ron, other prefers Ron death, 
some other agreed that Ginny could died or even Hermione. 
In short the character you dislike the most had to die and the 
character you like or identify himself had to stay alive.
Had anyone of you realized that some are reading the books like the 
Adventures of the Weasley Clan?  
Personnaly I asked myself if Rowling hadnt start this to see where we 
would tend the most:Kill one of the Trio or someone else ?Perhaps it 
only a kind a unkown pool that Rowling want to have. 
Cheers 
Jeanas