Why Hagrid's going to die

[spikespiegelfletch]

No: HPFGUIDX 53665

GulPlum wrote:

>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.
 
Calliope wrote:

> And which would set up Harry for some serious angst/mental
> issues, 
> especially if
> he doesn't properly deal with the whole Cedric thing first.  I
> am 
> still waiting
> for the boy to break down in tears *just one good time*.
 
> He needs to have one good cathartic (sp?) cry and let it
> all out.  Even
> if no one sees him but us (but preferably on Hermione and
> Ron's 
> shoulders).
 
 
Ok, I'm just gonna jump into this conversation.  Before I address 
the most recent post, I do want to state that I agree with the 
importance of Hagrid being the one to die.  I've been thinking it
about it for awhile, and even if it isn't Hagrid, it will obviously
be someone major.  Hagrid is the only one that can die without
leaving a huge gaping hole in the plot: besides his mother's
whereabouts and his relationship with Maxime, we know everything 
about Hagrid.  The Weasleys not so much, and it won't be one of the 
trio.  Sirius and Lupin are way too important and Rowling has stated 
herself Lupin will appear in books six and seven.
 
Now that I've given my logic on why I think it may be Hagrid, I find 
the idea of Harry's success with saving those he is on a quest to 
save a very good point.  Cedric was kind of just a passerby to all 
the crap Harry has had to deal with since the age of one, his death 
was unavoidable and pointless.  Harry could not have saved him, 
Harry didn't know what was going on.  And I think that's where book 
four leaves us, Harry is kind of just going to let things happen.
He knows he can't control what Lord Voldemort does.  But he'll be 
there to meet it.  To fight it.  I hear so many theories that Harry
is "shell-shocked" after book four, and though valid, I find I can't 
agree with them.

So in adressing the most recent post, I honestly think it would 
disturb me to see Harry just break down.  His childhood has taught 
him to just kind of suck it up, and keep going, otherwise he never  
would have survived emotionally with the Dursleys.  Unhealthy though 
this is, Harry doesn't know how to deal with strong emotions such as 
love and grief very well, anger he's got down, but not the real
lasting emotions.  He's not affectionate, and not in the macho way 
that Ron is not affectionate.  I think Ron could show love to his
family, just not Hermione (i.e. all the times she hugs him, and he's 
embarrassed).  Harry is nervous about it, almost scared of it - he 
would be giving over quite a bit of himself, and his independence is 
something I think he values greatly.  So not only would Hagrid's
death be symbolic, it would force these feelings on him, he'd have 
to learn to deal with them, and subsequently grow up some.  It would 
be a turning point in Harry's development.  Personally, though it
may be healthy for Harry to just let it all out, as long as he
doesn't, I know he's still fighting.  And that's one of the most
important things about his character.  His ability to just keep
going.  Hagrid's death would test that ability.  I'm waiting for
something to make Harry snap, more than have him break down.  
Something that may make him go searching for Voldemort
himself.  But that's just speculation.  Anyway there are my ideas on 
the topic.
 
Brittany