What if Harry dies?

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 85290

Carol said:
I have a PhD in English, so I know a bit about tragedy, and of 
course I don't consider Shakespeare to be a substandard author. The 
Harry Potter series is not a tragedy in either its structure or its 
subject matter. If we're looking at genres, I would classify it as 
part fantasy novel, part epic, and part bildungsroman.
 
Erin said:
Do you count bildungsroman (a novel that shows the protagonist 
growing up, for those of you who don't know) as a genre?  Genre, to 
me, is pretty much a marketing term, and I don't recall seeing that 
section the last time I went to the bookstore.  I would say that 
fantasy and epics are the most likely places to find tragedy, which
I would classify as a style rather than a genre. I won't deny that 
many authors do write so that you can neatly slot their books into
a particular genre, but I don't think JKR is one of those. 

The dictionary's definition of a tragedy is that it is any
literary composition with a somber theme, carried to a tragic
conclusion. I would say that thus far, Harry is dealing with some
somber themes. If he dies, boom, there's your tragic conclusion.

Carol again:
Erin, I think the difference in our view of what constitutes tragedy
is largely the result of our different backgrounds. Believe me, if
you'd spent as many years as I did in graduate school, you would see
the bildungsroman as a genre (literary form) and view tragedy (which
is also a genre, not a style) from a somewhat Aristotelian
perspective. To me, tragedy is a dramatic, not a narrative,
representation of a conflict in which the hero dies as an inevitable
consequence of a hamartia (fatal error or tragic flaw). Tragedy is
quite distinct from epic, which is a narrative genre. (Compare
"Oedipus Rex," a tragedy, with the Iliad, an epic, to see the
difference.)

Modern writers have blurred the distinction but it's still perfectly
possible to identify epic or tragic elements in a literary work like
the Potter books, which are a hodgepodge of influences and techniques.
As I said in a completely unrelated post, Percy (of all people) has
some of the makings of a tragic hero about him: he may very well die
as the inevitable consequence of his pride or obstinacy. But I don't
see Harry as having a fatal flaw, so even if he dies, it won't be a
tragic ending in the Aristotelian sense.

OTOH, there's no question that the ending will be "tragic" in the
modern, somewhat diluted sense of your dictionary definition. JKR has
suggested strongly that more than one major character is going to die,
but I don't think Harry will be one of them. She has too much
imagination to simply kill him off--and despite her protestations
about an author's control over her characters, I think she's just
trying to maintain suspense by holding out the possibility that he
might die. I much prefer to think that she'll give him a future as an
auror, able to apply all the hard lessons he's learned but no longer
alone and "marked," literally and figuratively. (Well, okay, he'll
keep the scar.) If, as someone else has suggested, the dementors are
still around after LV is destroyed, there will be a real need for our
heroic and energetic young trio. (I think they'll all become aurors
and Neville will become a teacher.)

Carol, who is tired of sounding like she's still in graduate school
and will be quite happy to drop this thread. Can we talk about
Trelawney's prediction that Harry will have twelve children now? ;-)