[HPforGrownups] Why Hagrid's going to die

[GulPlum]

No: HPFGUIDX 53649

Grace Saalsaa wrote:

>Yes, we do know quite a bit about Hagrid's history - more so than many of 
>the other characters.  But because JKR has painted him with a child-like 
>persona, I just can't see her killing off Hagrid.  It would be like 
>killing a naive child; one that should be protected rather than 
>killed.  OK, JKR killed off Cedric - but he never came across as an innocent.

So how *did* he come across? :-) Which bit of Dumbledore's eulogy made 
Cedric out to be anything else, and what do we know of him that makes him 
anything but an innocent? Not to mention that he was killed as an innocent: 
everything that was going on had nothing to do with him. He was an 
"innocent" bystander.

All in all,  I don't think any word describes him better, and conversely, I 
don't think the word "innocent" applies to anyone else in the books better 
than it does him. I'd certainly not call Hagrid "an innocent", for 
starters. :-)

>The thing about Hagrid's role that might overlooked is his adult 
>nature.  This one, is partically hidden from Harry but is evident to 
>Dumbledore, who puts a great deal of trust in Hagrid.

Oh, I agree. Wholeheartedly. Which is just one more reason why his death 
would have narrative as well as symbolic importance. He is *extremely* 
close to Dumbledore and his plans, but unlike the other folk in 
Dumbledore's inner circle, he doesn't have the apparent talent or certainly 
the knowledge to understand when he's being manipulated (e.g. the 
circumstances in which he got Norbert's egg in PS/SS). In other words, if 
anyone from Dumbledore's close circle has to buy the farm, Hagrid's the 
most likely candidate. This book is the logical place for Voldemort to 
attack Dumbledore's close circle. He has to show, apart from anything, that 
he can do it. This ups the stakes for Book Six, where all bets are off (and 
I expect to end in all-but disaster for Dumbledore's team); Book Seven, of 
course, has to end with Voldemort permanently vanquished. Anything else is 
quite simply not acceptable.

>I think Hagrid doesn't die.  Instead his role/function changes.  JKR has 
>already given this bit of foreshadowing.  He has a job to talk to the 
>giants.  He becomes something of an ambassador.

His job is persuade the Giants to join Dumbledore rather than Voldemort. 
Once he's persuaded them (which I don't doubt he will do), that function is 
over. Which comes back to my original point: he's lost his function 
vis-a-vis Harry, he's lost his function vis-a-vis the Giants. He has no 
further role to play in the war.

The one thing I don't know is who's got it in for Hagrid: the DEs who make 
contact with the Giants only to find that Hagrid got there first, some 
element with the Giant community which disagrees with putting their fate in 
with Dumbledore, or some non-DE element in wizarding society which is 
simply scared of the Giants.

>And as far as his relationship with Harry, I see Harry becoming the one 
>who saves Hagrid from some calamity. It would be Harry's first time being 
>the hero and saving someone other than himself or another child.  As he 
>enters this adult world, its logical to expect that he saves an adult this 
>time, and who better than his good friend Hagrid?  Therein lies Hagrid new 
>function in the story's future.

I don't disagree with the reasoning, but I do disagree with the outcome. To 
date, everyone Harry has quested to save (a group which, incidentally, 
includes Sirius and Pettigrew, who are hardly children) has survived. 
Cedric didn't survive, but Harry wasn't on a quest to save him; however, 
Harry's quest to bring his body back was successful. I expect you can 
imagine where I'm going with this: the person who rescued Harry in the 
first place is the first person Harry fails to rescue. Incredibly strong 
narrative and symbolic importance.

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, getting weepy for Hagrid and looking for his large 
polka-dot hankie