Happy endings? A good thing?

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 46216

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Melody" <Malady579 at h...> wrote:
> 
> I don't see the virtue of "protecting" a character just because the
> reader likes them.  It creates a false pretense to be wrongly
> paralleled to reality.  Besides, sometimes the hero wins in death.
> There is more to a hero than just surviving.  A martyr is a hero.
> Valiant, brave, idealistic.  While, yes, you want them to live,
> quietly you know that this ending is somehow resonating deeper with
> such accord that it was truly the only way.
> 
> Somehow, no matter who dies in the end, I have a feeling Rowling 
will
> manage to create that ending, and we all will be in awe.
> 
> 
> Melody

Yes, I think I will be in awe of any ending Rowling will create. But 
it does not stop me from hoping that my favourite characters will 
survive the ending of the books. I don't want the end to parallel 
reality. I want to see the good guys winning with as less losses as 
possible. I think Rowling can achieve this too and still make book 7 
a great read. Tragic ending is not necessarily a best one.

I also think that if the hero fo these series would not have been a 
child, his "permanent death" would be more likely to happen. I don't 
know it is just seems way too cruel for fictional reality to put on 
the shoulders of the child the fate of the wizarding world and then 
not to let this child somehow enjoy the fruits of his labor. 

By the way, even though I am not a child (I am in my late 
twenties :o)), I see nothing wrong if Rowling decides to protect the 
character because I like him or her. As long as those characters 
manage to survive the war realistically, I will be a very happy 
camper.

Alla