post- mortem storytelling?

[Anne]

No: HPFGUIDX 89604

Ciao,

 

Unfortunately I haven't got the time to mole my way through all those 
theories posted about the possible ending of the Harry Potter series. 
Therefore I'm forced to crib my theory unknowing whether there's a 
secret soul mate who had already expressed the a similar idea in the 
past.

 

Will Harry survive?

 

As much as I'd love him to marry (Hermione, of course 
*scratchesbrowindifferently*), to have 12 kids and live happy ever 
after once Voldemort plays chess against that other ungodly guy down 
there with this unhealthily reddish skin, horns and trident
 I'm 
afraid, he really won't make it.

 

That's why:

 

(PS/SS)

>>"The Potters, that's right, that's what I heard yes, their son, 
Harry"

Mr. Dursley stopped dead. Fear flooded him. He looked back at the 
whisperers as if he wanted to say something to them, but thought 
better of it.

He dashed back across the road, hurried up to his office, snapped at 
his secretary not to disturb him, seized his telephone, and had 
almost finished dialing his home number when he changed his mind. He 
put the receiver back down and stroked his mustache, thinking
no, he 
was being stupid. Potter wasn't such an unusual name. He was sure 
there were lots of people called Potter who had a son called Harry. 
Come to think of it, he wasn't even sure his nephew was called Harry. 
He'd never even seen the boy. It might have been Harvey. Or Harold. 
There was no point in worrying Mrs. Dursley; she always got so upset 
at any mention of her sister.<<

 


well, obviously this can't be Harry's perspective, can it? In fact 
the whole book's opening isn't. Then, WHO is it leading the reader?

 

I know a time I argued against the case of Harry's death: "Well, WHO 
do you reckon will continue telling the story once Harry is dead, 
since apparently HE is the narrator in some way? You know Rowling 
promised us epilogues."

 


Probably the very same WHO, who inaugurated the series, to answer my 
own question, as weird as this is.

 

It would round off the story- telling just fine: introducing Harry, 
accompany dear Harry, burying Harry and
 Good- bye.

 

But, Janus- ly as I am, I am proud to contradict my own horrifying 
illustration: maybe, just maybe, Madame Rowling was a bit unsteady in 
her use of viewpoints in her first novel, since a bit later in the 
very same book- and after that never ever again- she switches from 
her literary a- look- over- Harry's- shoulder- angle to a very err
 
independent one:

 

(PS/SS)
>>"Dunno what Harry thinks he's doing," Hagrid mumbled. He stared 
through his binoculars. "If I didn' know better, I'd say he'd lost 
control of his broom
but he can't have
"

Suddenly, people were pointing up at Harry all over the stands. His 
broom had started to roll over and over, with him only just managing 
to hold on. Then the whole crowd gasped. Harry's broom had given a 
wild jerk and Harry swung off it. He was now dangling from it, 
holding on with only one hand.

"Did something happen to it when Flint blocked him?" Seamus 
whispered.<<

 


You see my point: this whole scene simply ISN'T Harry's point of 
view and I really can't see any need for a change of perspective 
during such a random scene like this, which leaves me alerted to 
better not pay too much thought in her otherwise remarkable series' 
opening. Perhaps her authorial consideration at this virgin stage of 
her career was just as wonky as Harry's broom in forenamed scene. 
Certainly the mysterious WHO had to take the job since Harry was too 
busy dangling one- handed down his broom


 

This forces cereal feed to my bulimic hope (yeah, pessimist) that 
I'll see the epilogue with Harry proudly present and friskily frolic.

 

.annie feeling slightly doctor- hyde- y today.