[HPforGrownups] Re: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room

[kim reynolds]

No: HPFGUIDX 114205

Kelsey wrote, in part:
 
>And when JKR uses these traditional themes and formulas, she puts a spin on them. Look at her version of the labyrinth (solving the puzzle didn't solve the problem), and even the prophesy is different (it doesn't say who will win the conflict). I cannot even imagine how she would do the descent into the underworld. Considering Voldemort's obsession with avoiding death, I think it might be significant.

>Because JKR treats death differently than most paralleled writer/storytellers (in that people don't come back in her world like they do in Tolkien's or Homer's), who knows how she'll do it.

>On the point of the room itself and the veil, because so little of it is explained in OOP, I wonder if it was a teaser or an introduction because of its future importance.


Then Griffin wrote:
 
>But the only thing I know about that death is death in H.P. is D.D.'s answer to Sirius after L.V.'s return, that Lily and James came back or something like that, I don't have the book with me, that there is no SPELL that brings back the dead to life. The veil is not a spell, as far as I know. If J.K.R. has anything in an interview, please correct me.<

>And about J.K.R. not following usual twists, why some fellow members have said that Harry will die because in other books, like "The Chronicles of Narnia" the hero dies, so will Harry?<


Kim now (also, forgive me if this is a rehash of previous posts):

Maybe JKR is following two possible lines of reasoning about killing Harry off:

Either she wants to kill him in order to "kill" the series once and for all so that she can stop writing about Harry and start writing something new.

Or, she won't kill him, will end the series anyway, but leaving him alive at the end will give her the option of writing (or not) new stories about him in the future. (I think I only read her saying that she doesn't like prequels, but nothing about sequels.)

IMO, killing Harry would be too final and too depressing, almost gratuitous.  It would seem most mean-spirited of JKR to kill dear Harry and I've never gotten the impression that she's mean-spirited.  I mean, he's suffered enough in life, why kill him too?  Can't heroes live a nice, long time and then die?  She's not exactly avoiding the topic either since Cedric died, Lily and James died, maybe Dumbledore will die, etc.  And she'd have to try really hard to come up with an inspirational message for her readers (mainly children) by killing Harry, the inspiration of his defeating Voldemort notwithstanding (it goes without saying that Voldemort will be defeated...?)  As Kelsey suggests, there's more to Rowling's imagination than following the examples of earlier authors she admires.  My guess is that Harry is the Heir of Gryffindor (someone else has surely come up with this idea already), born to counterbalance the Heir of Slytherin.  The Heir of S. (Voldemort) will be defeated
 (perhaps killed, perhaps not) and the Heir of G. (Harry) will live to continue Gryffindor's line...  

Also, I too hope the Veil is a teaser, because I'm convinced on some level that Sirius isn't really dead... Else how do you explain still hearing people's voices if they're dead and gone for good?  Should we take Dumbledore's word for it that Sirius is dead? Then again, it makes sense to think that DD and other old timers like him would know how the Veil works, know of others who have passed through it, and thus know they won't be back. Oh well, it's a puzzlement.

Kim (who wants Sirius to come back so Harry can go live with him after he defeats Voldemort... ;-))

P.S. Thanks to the person who came up with the idea of saying silly things after signing your name