Do we need any more death cases?

[Hitomi]

No: HPFGUIDX 89845

> Neri answers:
> 
> I read The Hobbit the last time several years ago, so my memory 
might 
> not be accurate, but I remember the death of only one major 
> character, at the very end and with a good moral. So I'd say that 
by 
> the Hobbit's standard JKR already filled her blood quota.
> 
> A more relevant example may be LOTR, with a full-scale war and a 
very 
> high body count. I can recall the death of only one major 
character 
> in LOTR (Boromir, of course. Theoden was hardly a major character 
in 
> the book, as opposed to the movies), and again with a very good 
> moral. 
> 
> But I certainly did not claim it is impossible JKR will kill more 
> major characters. I merely asked: what for?

Hitomi now:
Konnichiwa minna-san!  We got snow! and my internet server has been 
down, plus I had to write papers.  Anyway, onto posting:  Neri asked 
why would JKR kill more major characters (though of course we don't 
know if she will or not).  As far as LOTR goes, Frodo, Elrond, 
Gandalf, etc. sail away into the Grey Havens.  That's death, just a 
very peaceful death.  So some main characters get knocked off in 
that book as well.  But why I think JKR might kill off more 
characters:  she's writing a war.  Sirius's death was tragic, 
sudden, almost unreal and unmoving in its suddeness, not to mention 
inexplicaple.  It was realistic, because that's how a lot of deaths 
are, especially during war.  It was a good death, but sad in the 
fact that Sirius was a lonely, depressed, flawed adult, who's life 
was destroyed fifteen years ago.  He never got the chance to know 
real happiness again, and he never found peace.  But, he died in an 
effort to protect Harry, one of the few bright spots in his life.  
And after recently re-reading Book 3, any thought of Sirius saddens 
me deeply.  

And I think, if JKR is trying to write any message, it's that this 
sort of thing does happen, and why protect children from the reality 
of that, even though, yes, the books are technically children's 
books.  She continually compares LV to Hitler in interviews, and 
everyone knows how many people died needlessly in that war.  All I'm 
saying is that it would be entirely unrealistic if she didn't kill 
off more characters, what with over half the Order having been 
murdered last time.  It just wouldn't make sense.  Not that I want 
to see characters die, but I've already acclimated myself to the 
fact that they probably will.  DD or one of the Weasleys dying 
wouldn't surprise me in the least; and I expect some of the lesser-
known Order members to die.  Harry dying wouldn't surprise me, 
though it would be a long time before I picked up Book 7 again.  
There doesn't have to be a reason why she should kill anymore major 
characters.  Because when someone dies, we never understand the 
reasons anyway.

And when I thought of other children's books I read that contained 
death, Ender's Game immediately came to mind, along with Madeleine 
L'Engle's and Philip Pullman's works.  Ender kills two boys in that 
book (one at the age of six, which was technically manslaughter, and 
one at nine in self-defense), not to mention he massacres an entire 
species at the end of the novel (he didn't know what he was doing).  
L'Engle has characters die in her books, and Pullman killed 
Frederick in the Sally Lockhart series, and lots of people in the 
Dark Materials trilogy (I hated the way Amber Spyglass ended).  So, 
it's not uncommon.

Wow, that was a depressing subject.  On to happier things...

~ Hitomi